U 
 OloS 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 OF THE SAGE ENDO"WMENT 
 FUND GIVEN IN 189I BY 
 
 HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 
 
Date Due 
 
 } 
 
 li 
 
 MAY 2. 
 
 1949 J 
 
 R4Um. 
 
 -,ity Library 
 'heatres. 
 
 5'"7924 026 124 846 o»» 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026124846 
 
LONDON THEATRES. 
 
%ht (H-anibm ^ibrarp. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 G, LAURENCE GOMME, F.S.A., 
 AND 
 
 T. fa:rman oedish, f.s.a. 
 
THE CAMDEN LIBRARY. 
 EARLY 
 
 LONDON THEATRES 
 
 [Jn tbe jfielbs.] 
 
 BY 
 
 T. FAIRMAN QRDISH, F.S.A. 
 
 WITH ILL USTRA TIONS AND MAPS. 
 
 ' 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.' 
 
 John Stockwood's Sermon, 1578. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 MACMILLAN & CO. 
 
 LONDON: EtLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 1894. 
 
%a the Jttemors oi 
 JAMES ORCHARD HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS 
 
 AND 
 
 WILLIAM RENDLE. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE late J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, whose 
 life-long labours in Shakespearean and 
 Elizabethan literature made his opinion of the 
 greatest importance, was struck with my attempt, 
 in the pages of the Antiquary, to cast the story 
 of the Shakespeare stage into a narrative of the 
 playhouses ; and he urged me to bring my work 
 to completion in a book on the subject. The 
 present volume represents the first half of the 
 fulfilment of a promise which I made to him. 
 
 It may suffice here to briefly indicate what 
 appear to be points of novelty. The view put 
 forward as to the origin of the playhouse — and the 
 intimate relation between that origin and the fact 
 that the earliest playhouses were erected ' in the T 
 Fields' outside the town — is perhaps the most^ 
 important of these. The account of the official 
 war which was waged over the playhouses between 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 the Corporation and the Privy Council, although 
 drawn from printed records, is new as a narrative, 
 and fresh as a contribution to history. The chief 
 point of novelty, with regard to the theatres on 
 the south side of the river, is seen in the treatment 
 of Newington Butts, in the chapter on ' The Surrey 
 Side,' and in that on 'Newington Butts and the 
 Rose.' The upshot is practically to rescue from 
 oblivion another of the old playhouses. 
 
 At one time the theatres with which this book is 
 concerned had but a vague existence in history. 
 The only playhouses that had a definite and tangible 
 existence were the Globe and the Blackfriars, and 
 these had attained their conspicuous place owing to 
 the enthusiastic investigation inspired by the name 
 of Shakespeare. This was the condition of the sub- 
 ject when the Variorum Shakespeare was published 
 in 1 82 1, in the Prolegomena of which Malone's 
 ' History of the Stage ' was republished. A few 
 lines would suffice to cover all that there is told of 
 the playhouses whose history has been compressed 
 into this volume — The Theatre, the Curtain, 
 Newington Butts, the Rose, the Hope, the Swan. 
 The account of these theatres published by Collier 
 about ten years later certainly added to the pro- 
 portions of their history ; but all his work has 
 become deservedly discredited owing to his in- 
 vetei-ate habit of loose and inaccurate statement. It 
 is to the late Halliwell-Phillipps that we owe the 
 
Preface. ix 
 
 recovery of the history of The Theatre and of the 
 Curtain ; and prompted and assisted by him, and 
 generously encouraged and helped also by Dr. 
 FurnivaU, the late Mr. Rendle made some ex- 
 tremely valuable additions to our k.nov?ledge of 
 the Bankside and the playhouses there. With 
 regard to the work of the late J. Payne Collier — 
 his * History of Dramatic Poetry and Annals of 
 the Stage,' in 3 vols. — it is unfortunately necessary 
 to state in plain terms that it is quite unreliable 
 (although it was reissued so recently as 1879). I 
 have had occasion in the following pages to expose 
 some characteristic ways in which he has misled 
 students of this subject, but only when such ex- 
 posure has been necessary to the point concerned. 
 If the present volume and its successor on the 
 urban theatres are justified at all, they should take 
 the place, at least, of that portion of Collier's work 
 which he called ' Annals of the Stage.' 
 
 With regard to the vexed question of 'Paris 
 Garden Theatre,' it will be seen that the evidence 
 on which I chiefly rely is furnished in the maps 
 which are included in this volume. But the 
 way in which Collier is primarily responsible 
 for the myth is exposed in the chapter on 'The"' 
 Amphitheatres,' and the grounds for bestowing 
 upon the Bear-Garden and Hope various references 
 and facts which hitherto have been ascribed to the- 
 supposed amphitheatre in Paris Garden manor 
 
X Preface. 
 
 are fully disclosed in the, last two chapters of 
 my book. The conclusion arrived at offers a 
 contrast to the resuscitation of Newington Butts in 
 a previous chapter ; for an examination of the 
 evidence leaves nothing tangible in support of the 
 existence of either an amphitheatre or playhouse 
 within the manor of Paris Garden before the date 
 of the Swan. 
 
 A considerable stir was made in the year 1888 
 by the publication of a pamphlet by Dr. Gaedertz, 
 containing a drawing of the Swan Theatre, copied 
 from the papers of one De Witt, who apparently 
 visited this theatre in or about the year 1596. It 
 was natural that some excitement should have been 
 caused by so interesting a discovery ; but at this 
 date it may be permissible to observe that the 
 inevitable result of the discussion was to distort 
 the significance of the find, and to magnify its real 
 importance. There were those in England who, 
 like the learned Doctor in Germany, took occasion 
 to travel very widely over the subject generally, 
 making the Swan, for the time being, the centre 
 of interest, as aforetime the Globe had been the 
 shining orb, around which the other playhouses 
 glimmered in fitful obscurity. In the present 
 volume the discovery takes its place in the general 
 history of the Swan, and the effect is to restore it 
 to its proper pfoportions and perspective. It will 
 be seen that it forms a picturesque addition to the ' 
 
Preface. xi 
 
 subject, but that it really contributes very little 
 to the stock of information already possessed. 
 This volume deals only with the theatres which 
 were in existence at the time of De Witt's visit, 
 and this circumstance not only adds something of 
 homogeneity to the book, but also oiFers the best 
 means for estimating the true nature of the contri- 
 bution made to the subject by this interesting 
 notice of the Elizabethan stage. The Globe was 
 of later date, and although it was one of the 
 theatres 'in the fields,' I have reserved it for a 
 subsequent volume, where it will be treated in 
 connection with Blackfriars Theatre, with whose 
 history it is inextricably bound up. 
 
 My thanks are hereby tendered to Dr. F, J. 
 Furnivall for permission to reproduce the Norden 
 Map, given in his edition of Harrison's ' England ' 
 (New Shakspere Society), which answered the 
 purposes of this book better than the version 
 of the map in Norden's ' Middlesex,' which was 
 at hand. It will be seen that other publications, 
 brought out under the inspiring influence of 
 Dr. Furnivall, have been laid under contribution 
 (including Mr. Rendle's account of the Bankside 
 theatres), and that many a usefiil note has been 
 furnished from these sources. I have been very 
 scrupulous in making acknowledgments and giving 
 references throughout the ensuing pages ; there 
 remains one instance of indebtedness which is too 
 
xii Preface. 
 
 general to be acknowledged in this way, and I 
 gladly therefore introduce it here, I allude to an 
 interesting article in the Builder by Mr. H. W. 
 Brewer, which suggested the brief description of 
 some features of monastic London on pp. 2-4. 
 With regard to what is said on p. 200 concerning 
 the lease of the Rose Theatre, I perceived too late 
 that xny puzzlement as to the dual lesseeship of 
 Pope and Henslowe had induced an equal incerti- 
 tude of expression. This I have endeavoured to 
 correct in a note on p. 283. 
 
 In conclusion, I have to point out that the 
 subject of this volume is described in the title- 
 page, and that I have not been tempted to wander 
 in the fields of the literary drama ; that is to say, 
 my subject is the stage and theatrical history, not 
 the history of plays or dramatic literature, except 
 when I have found that my subject seems to 
 throw some fresh light on these. Within its 
 limits, I hope this history will be found not un- 
 worthy of the subject, or of the devotion of those 
 to whose memory it is dedicated. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BEFORE THE PLAYHOUSES 
 
 »'AGE 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE THEATRE 
 
 33 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CURTAIN 
 
 n 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE SURREY SIDE - 
 
 io8 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE AMPHITHEATRES 
 
 - "5 
 
xiv Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 NEWINGTON BUTTS AND THE ROSE - - I42 
 
 CHAPTER Vn. 
 
 THE BEAR-GARDEN AND HOPE THEATRE - 20I 
 
 CHAPTER Vni. 
 
 PARIS GARDEN AND THE SWAN 245 
 
 INDEX 289 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PLAN OF LONDON, 1572 To face p. I 
 
 AMPHITHEATRE AT ST. JUST 1 8 
 
 PIRAN ROUND ... 20 
 
 STAGE FOR ACTING A MIRACLE-PLAY 24 
 
 MAP OF HOLYWELL, SHOREDITCH, 1745 To face p. 40 
 
 TARLTON WITH PIPE AND TABOR 69 
 
 WILL KEMPE DANCING THE MORRIS 96 
 
 THE TABARD INN - - II9 
 
 AMPHITHEATRES ON THE BANKSIDE 1 26 
 
 norden'S map OF LONDON, 1 593 To face p. 142 
 
 THE BEAR-GARDEN AND HOPE THEATRE, 1616 2l6 
 
 THE HOPE IN 1647 - - 239 
 
 MAP OF THE SURREY SIDE, 1745-5° 243 
 
 SITE OF THE SWAN THEATRE - - 254 
 
XVI 
 
 List of Illustrations. 
 
 THE SWAN THEATRE, 1616 256 
 
 DITTO (interior) - 265 
 
 THE FALCON INN - 278 
 
 EXISTING SITE OF BEAR-GARDEN OR HOPE THEATRE 284 
 
Reproduced from the Plan of London in Braun and Hogenbe'RG's 
 Civitates orbis Terrarian, 1572. 
 
 Insert as folding sheet to jace p. i. 
 
LONDON THEATRES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BEFORE THE PLAYHOUSES. 
 
 ELIZABETH had been reigning eighteen 
 years when the first theatre was built in 
 London, and when she came to the throne it 
 wanted a year to complete the quarter of a century 
 from the Reformation. Taking the year 1536 as 
 the date of the dissolution of the London monas- 
 teries and religious houses, and 1576 as the date of 
 the building of the first theatre, we have a period 
 of forty years in which a great change was made 
 in the aspect of London, and in which a great 
 advance was made by the English drama. The 
 change is typified in the fact that the first London 
 theatre was erected on a part of the site of a sup- 
 pressed religious establishment. 
 
 It will serve to place the London theatres in 
 perspective if we glance beyond them into the 
 
 I 
 
London Theatres. 
 
 London which knew them not. The map* which 
 is prefixed to this book indicates the extent of the 
 city at that time. The map is probably taken 
 from an older one, because it shows St. Paul's 
 with the spire, which was destroyed in 1561, We 
 may regard it as a plan of London at about the 
 period of the Reformation, and it gives a fairly 
 good idea of monastic London, The religious 
 establishments were not all suppressed at once, and 
 in most cases the fabrics existed for some consider- 
 able time after the formal act of dissolution. 
 
 There were an extraordinary number of parish 
 churches in the city before the Reformation, 
 but they were in point of size insignificant build- 
 ings compared with the churches built by Wren 
 after the Great Fire ; but these small churches 
 in pre-Reformation London were mostly adorned 
 with steeples, and they were rich in art trea- 
 sures. A Roman prelate who visited London 
 early in Henry VIII.'s reign notes this fact, 
 and he also states that he saw more than 
 a hundred gold shrines in London churches. 
 London was almost encircled by great religious 
 establishments. Beginning at the eastern ex- 
 tremity by the Tower, we have the church and 
 hospital of St. Katherine. The church of this 
 establishment, a noble building with architectural 
 
 * Reproduced from the plan of London by Hoefnagel, in 
 Braun and Hogenburg's Civitates Or bis Terr arum (1572). 
 
Before the T lay houses. 
 
 features of extreme interest, existed down to the 
 year 1825. Before the Reformation it possessed 
 both cloisters and chapter-house. A little north- 
 ward stood East Minster, a Cistercian abbey- 
 founded by Edward III., and dedicated to ' Our 
 Lady of Grace.' Still further north we find the 
 Abbey of St. Clare. This abbey has given the 
 name to the district, which is called The Minories, 
 after the Minoresses of St. Mary of the Order of 
 St. Clare. Further on we come to the extra- 
 mural parish church of St. Botolph, and close to 
 this church the city gate called Aldgate. Here, 
 just within the wall, we have the Priory of Holy 
 Trinity, Aldgate (or Christchurch), which was 
 founded by the Empress Matilda for the Canons 
 Regular, who also possessed St. Bartholomew's the 
 Great, St. Saviour's, Southwark, and St, Mary's 
 Spital. This Priory of Holy Trinity is said by 
 the old chroniclers not only to have been the most 
 magnificent institution belonging to the order in 
 London, but, with the exception of Westminster, 
 the most superb monastic building in Middlesex. 
 
 Further westward we come upon St. Mary's 
 Spital, which gave the name to Spitalfields. It 
 was a monastic hospital, and belonged to the 
 Canons Regular. Close to Bishopsgate was the 
 parish church of St. Botolph, and adjoining it the 
 Priory and Hospital of Our Lady of Bethlehem. 
 To the north-west we have, then, the priories of 
 
 I — 2 
 
London Theatres. 
 
 St. James and of St. John, Clerkenwell ; then 
 south-westward St. Bartholomew's the Great, of 
 which the monastic remains may be seen to-day, 
 the Charter House, and further westward the 
 house and chapel of the Bishops of Ely. 
 
 From this point London stretched westward in 
 a narrow Hne to Westminster. Along this narrow 
 line we have, first, the monastery of the Black 
 Friars — immediately to the westward of Baynard's 
 Castle, the oldest royal residence in London. 
 This monastery was an immense establishment, 
 including secular buildings and two churches ; it 
 had four gates. When the king was in residence 
 at Baynard's Castle Parliament met in the halls of 
 the monastery. It was here that the Parliament 
 which discussed the validity of Henry's marriage 
 with Catherine of Aragon commenced its sittings. 
 The Fleet River ran into the Thames by the west 
 wall of the monastery ; on the other side of the 
 stream stood the ancient Bridewell, another royal 
 palace. Now, westward, almost adjoining Bride- 
 well Palace, was the monastery of the Whitefi-iars, 
 or Carmelites. Then, to the west again, there is 
 Westminster Abbey. 
 
 To the south, across the river, we have St. Saviour's 
 Church and Priory, and the great palace of the 
 Bishops of Winchester. A little to the eastward was 
 the ancient house belonging to the Priors of Lewes, 
 in Tooley Street. Down by the water's edge, a 
 
Before the Playhouses. 
 
 little to the east again, we ' have another great 
 house, belonging to the Abbots of Battle. And 
 across the river is the point from which we 
 started, St. Katherine's by the Tower. Within 
 the city were other great religious houses, as Austir 
 Friars, the Priory of St. Helen, in Bishopsgate 
 and, chief of all, St. Paul's. 
 
 London stretched east and west along the 
 river, which was the chief highway. The ferries 
 and the watermen with their boats for hire were a 
 notable feature of the ancient city. The aspect of 
 the single bridge which spanned the river is too 
 familiar for comment. Beyond the wall on the 
 north was Finsbury Field, and on the south we 
 have the Manor of Paris Garden and the Bank- 
 side. These open spaces, north and south, were 
 the playgi-ounds of ancient London, where archery 
 and bull and bear baiting, and various other rude 
 sports were held ; while the plays were presented 
 in the churches and chapels, or in the neighbour- 
 hood of the ancient and sacred wells. 
 
 A ready way to realize the conditions of London 
 at this period is to have in mind one of the old 
 Continental towns at the present time, in a country 
 which still retains its allegiance to Rome. Here 
 the Sunday, along with religious duties, has 
 customs that are joyous and pleasure-seeking. All 
 kinds of diversions are sought after, including that 
 of the theatre. So it was in London in the old 
 
London Theatres. 
 
 time. Religious service on Sunday or saint's day 
 was followed by a miracle-play or mystery, or the 
 people sought the sports and pastimes of Finsbury 
 Field or of theBankside and Paris Garden. These 
 customs survived the Reformation, and out-lasted 
 the erection of theatres in London. Much of the 
 opposition offered to the theatres on the part of 
 the Corporation of London — concerning which 
 more will be said hereafter — was provoked by the 
 acting of plays on Sunday. 
 
 Such was London before the Reformation. 
 Girdled by a succession of religious establishments, 
 the monotony of its streets broken up by priory, 
 monastery and convent ; the river gay with 
 wherry and barge and ferry-boat ; the ritual of 
 Rome, with its processions and splendour in the 
 churches and chapels, and with its miracle-plays to 
 empty the houses and streets and fill the sacred 
 precincts. Although small when measured from 
 the modern standard, it was a large city when 
 compared with the other cities of the world at 
 that time ; and notwithstanding the badness of the 
 roads and the limited means of communication, it 
 was the centre of the nation — the metropolis of 
 England. 
 
 In some respects ancient London reflected the 
 nation as a whole, more nearly than does the 
 Modern Babylon. The distinction between urban 
 and rural was less defined. The customs and 
 
Before the Playhouses. 
 
 habits of the people would appear bucolic and 
 rural to the latter-day Cockney. The horses of the 
 citizens grazed in the fields and meadows which 
 lay outside the walls — a distance to be accom- 
 plished in a few minutes from any point of the 
 city. There were dairies within the walls, the 
 cows finding pasturage within sight of the gates : 
 John Stow tells us how he fetched milk when a 
 boy from a farm just outside Aldgate. Small as 
 the city was, there were numerous open spaces, and 
 the birds that built their nests in the trees were 
 not limited to London sparrows. The gardens of 
 the citizens were large and cultivated. Most of 
 the trees, plants, shrubs and flowers introduced 
 into this country from foreign parts were grown 
 first in the gardens of London, either in the city 
 or just outside the walls. 
 
 London before the Reformation was the capital 
 of 'merry England,' and the life of the dwellers 
 was largely an outdoor one. Westcheap, the great 
 market-place, was covered with booths, wherein 
 merchandise was exposed for sale like a country 
 fair, while opposite the church of St. Mary-le- 
 Bow was a tilting-ground. On Cornhill the 
 exercise of running at the quintain was practised 
 by the youthful citizens, both in summer and winter. 
 Connected with the wells on the north were those 
 picturesque traditional observances which obtained 
 in nearly all parts of the country. Some of those 
 
London Theatres. 
 
 observances have their place in dramatic history. 
 It was customary in various parts of England, 
 when enacting the pageant of St. George, to select 
 a well as the scene of the performance, and the fact 
 is interesting as showing the pre-Christian religious 
 origin of the drama. Subsequently we find miracle 
 plays were enacted at the wells to the north of 
 London, as Clerkenwell and Skinner's Well. 
 
 William Fitzstephen wrote in the reign of 
 Henry II. : ' But London, for the shows upon 
 theatres and comical pastimes, hath holy, plays, 
 representations of miracles which holy confessors 
 have wrought, or representations of torments 
 wherein the constancy of martyrs appeared.' We 
 cannot tell what kind of stage is referred to. 
 ' Shows upon theatres ' indicates the use of a stage 
 of some kind. There is no indication of the use 
 of a stage at Clerkenwell, but there are various 
 scriptural subjects for which a well would be an 
 appropriate scene. Stow says that the Clerkes' 
 Well (or Clerkenwell) was 'curbed about with 
 hard stone, not far fi-om the west end of Clerken- 
 well Church, but close without the wall that 
 encloseth it. The said church took the name of 
 the well, and the well took the name of the parish 
 clerks in London, who of old time were accus- 
 tomed there yearly to assemble, and to play some 
 large history of Holy Scripture. And for example 
 of later time — to wit, in the year 1390, the 14th 
 
Before the ,P lay houses. 
 
 of Richard II. — I read the parish clerks of London, 
 on the 1 8 th of July, played interludes at Skinners' 
 Well, near unto Clerkes' Well, which play con- 
 tinued three days together, the king, queen, and 
 nobles being present. Also in the year 1409, the 
 loth of Henry IV., they played a play at the 
 Skinners' Well, which lasted eight days, and was 
 of matter from the creation of the world. There 
 were to see the same the most part of the nobles 
 and gentles in England. It is curious that Stow 
 twice speaks of these plays as j/«^^-plays in another 
 passage where he records their discontinuance in 
 favour of ' comedies, tragedies, interludes, and 
 histories, both true and feigned.' 
 
 We may fairly assume that any means used for 
 the presentation of plays in other parts of the 
 country would be known in London ; that among 
 the spectators at the Clerkenwell performances 
 would be those who had witnessed the miracle- 
 plays at York, at Coventry, and at Chester. ■ It 
 does not appear, however, that the London players 
 had pageant vehicles. On the other hand, in a 
 description of the performance of miracle-plays at 
 Chester, we obtain a hint which may throw con- 
 siderable light upon the presentation of plays at 
 Clerkenwell, and indicate the origin of the term 
 ' stage~phy.^ The description alluded to is that 
 of Archdeacon Rogers (died 1595), quoted in 
 Sharp's ' Coventry Pageants ' : ' The maner of 
 
lo London Theatres. 
 
 these playes [Whitsun plays at Chester] weare, 
 every company [craft guilds] had his pagiant, or 
 p'te, w=^ pagiants weare a high scafolde with 
 2 rowmes, a higher and a lower, upon 4 wheels. 
 In the lower they apparelled themselves, and in 
 the higher rowme they played, beinge all open on 
 the tope, that all behoulders might heare and see 
 them. The places where they played them was in 
 every streete. They begane first at the Abay gates, 
 and when the first pagiante was played it was 
 wheeled to the high crosse before the Mayor, and 
 so to every streete, and soe every streete had a 
 pagiant playinge before them at one time, till all 
 the pagiantes for the daye appoynted weare played, 
 and when one pagiant was neere ended worde was 
 broughte from streete to streete, that soe they 
 might come in place thereof, exceedinge orderlye, 
 and all the streetes have their pagiantes afore them 
 all at one time playeinge togeather ; to se w'ch 
 playes was great resorte, and also scafoldes and 
 stages made in the streetes in those places where 
 they determined to playe theire pagiantes.' The 
 passage to which it is desired to call special atten- 
 tion is here printed in italics. 
 
 It is clear from the testimony of Stow as to the 
 numbers of spectators at the plays at Clerkenwell 
 and Skinners' Well, that unless some disposition of 
 the fspace was made very few could have heard 
 and seen the plays. Either the performers must 
 
Before the Playhouses. 1 1 
 
 have been raised above the first row of spectators, 
 or, if the performance took place on the ground 
 level, the audience must have been raised at 
 graduated heights in front or around. In any 
 case scaffolds or stages must have been used, and 
 hence the term stage-play. Which arrangement is 
 the more likely.'' Were the plays acted upon a 
 stage or not.? If it could be proved that they 
 were not, we should be right in concluding that 
 the scaffolds or stages erected for the spectators 
 gave rise to the term ' stage-play.' It is possible, 
 on the other hand, that the plays were given on a 
 platform or stage, while scaffolds or stages were 
 also erected for the aristocratic portion of the 
 ' audience. In the absence of direct evidence, it is 
 impossible to affirm positively for either alterna- 
 tive ; but it is possible to construct an answer to 
 the question by analogy and deduction. From 
 this point a short survey will be taken of the 
 traditional dramatic representations in the open air, 
 which will throw considerable light upon the way 
 in which miracle-plays were presented at the 
 ancient wells about London. 
 
 The subject is of immediate interest in helping 
 us to understand the nature of the earliest London 
 theatres. Briefly stated, the position is : That the 
 first playhouse in London, inasmuch as it was 
 made in the capital, represented the accumulated 
 experience and skill of the country at large in 
 
12 London Theatres. 
 
 respect of play-acting. In addressing ourselves to 
 this thesis, we have to remember that in London 
 itself there is a continuity of tradition in the pre- 
 sentation of plays belonging to it as a locality, 
 and beyond this there are the tributaries of ex- 
 perience which come to it as the centre of the 
 nation. 
 
 The map prefixed to this chapter shows on the 
 south of the river two round structures marked 
 respectively the Bull Baiting and the Bear Baiting. 
 The origin and history of these amphitheatres 
 are fully discussed in a later chapter. They are 
 referred to here as showing that the traditional 
 round formation for spectacular purposes, instances 
 of which are found in various parts of the country, 
 was also in existence and use in London before the 
 playhouses. To enter into this question fully would 
 be to travel up the stream of time, past the Roman 
 occupation, to those stone circles in various parts 
 of Britain which have provoked so much learned 
 curiosity. But in this place attention may be 
 directed to the traditional use of existing structures, 
 such as Roman amphitheatres, for the sports and 
 pastimes of the people. 
 
 The Roman amphitheatre at Dorchester is an 
 instance. It has always been a public resort, the 
 scene of popular sports and diversions. The Roman 
 amphitheatre at Banbury" actually became known 
 as the Bear Garden. The probable analogy here 
 
Before the Playhouses. 13 
 
 is very striking. Beesley, in his history of Ban- 
 bury, has the following passage on the point : 
 
 ' But the most important remain of the Roman 
 period at Banbury is a castrensian amphitheatre. 
 The Roman people were early debased by the 
 gladiatorial and other shows in the amphitheatres ; 
 and on the site of almost every Roman colony 
 there are indications of the existence of such 
 places, either constructed or excavated. In many 
 parts the Roman garrisons contented themselves 
 with castrensian, or camp-like, amphitheatres ; in 
 the construction of which they usually chose 
 natural valleys surrounded with hills, in the 
 declivities of which they cut benches, or terraces, 
 from which a view was afforded over the arena. 
 In this island very few such records of the bar- 
 barous pleasures of Roman antiquity now remain. 
 
 The amphitheatre at Banbury is in a field called^- — 
 
 Berrymoor, adjoining the town, in the right of the 
 turn to Bloxham. It is a semicircular work, opetT^ 
 to the north ; and is cut in the concave face of a I 
 steep hill, the summit of which overlooks the 
 town. The arena measures 1 34 feet in breadth, 
 and rising above it in the face of the hill are three 
 broad terraces made for the spectators of the com- 
 bats, which terraces are respectively 25, 39 and 59 
 feet (measured on the slope) above the arena. 
 These are calculated to afford a view of the sports i 
 to more than two thousand persons. This earth- j 
 
14 London Theatres. 
 
 work is now popularly called the Bear Garden, 
 from the sport of bear-baiting having been subse- 
 quently used there. Thomas Busbridge, who was 
 born probably at Banbury about the year 1537, 
 and who certainly lived there in his childhood, 
 and became vicar of the place in 1581, alludes to 
 the common sport of bear-baiting practised in his 
 times ' (' Busbridge's Poore Man's Jewell '). 
 
 There are other amphitheatres which became 
 used in the same way. Upon the afternoon of 
 every Easter Monday the Lord of the Manor of 
 Kirkby in Furness, Lancashire, resorted to the 
 circle (called the Kirk, a circle of 75 feet in 
 diameter, formed by raising a bank of earth and 
 stones), where all his tenants met him, and games 
 of wrestling, dancing, hurling and leaping ensued. 
 The last lord who attended broke his thigh in 
 one of the games.* 
 
 Therefore, looking at the amphitheatres on the 
 Surrey side of London, in accordance with the 
 terms of our thesis, we may conclude that we have 
 here a visible evidence of tradition which may 
 have affected both the- form in which plays were 
 presented in London before the building of play- 
 houses, and also the form of the play-houses them- 
 
 * ' Archasologia,' vol. xxxi., p. 450. The author mentions 
 that, according to local tradition, ' it was a place where their 
 forefathers worshipped.' An illustration accompanies the 
 communication. 
 
Before the Playhouses. 15 
 
 selves. The collateral instances in other parts of 
 the country, together with the Roman remains 
 found in the neighbourhood, suggest the possibility 
 of the round formation having been traditional in 
 the locality itself from Roman or earlier times. , 
 
 We have now to consider the remarkable 
 amphitheatres in which religious plays were acted 
 in Cornwall. The subject is deeply interesting, 
 and of the two principal writers on it — ^Borlase, 
 and more recently Norris — there can be no doubt 
 that the earlier author adopted the more scientific 
 view of the matter. Norris, indeed, ridicules the 
 idea of these circular structures being of great 
 antiquity, and hints that they were probably made 
 by the pick and spade of the Cornish miner for 
 the purpose of acting the miracle-plays. He else- 
 where writes : ' That the rounds did not originate 
 until a comparatively late period appears probable 
 from the fact that they are met with only in the 
 western parts of Cornwall — just those parts to 
 which it might be expected that the use of the 
 Cornish tongue was then limited.' That is to say, 
 he argues from the fact of the miracle-plays being 
 in Cornish, that the rounds were made for the 
 purpose of acting them. 
 
 The negative view is here purposely placed first, 
 in order that it may have flill weight in controvert- 
 ing as far as truth will permit the view of Borlase, 
 given in his 'Antiquities of Cornwall' (1754): 
 
1 6 London Theatres. 
 
 'Where these stone enclosures are semicircular, 
 and distinguished by seats and benches of like 
 materials, there is no doubt but they were con- 
 structed in that form out of regard to and for the 
 convenience of the spectators at plays, games, 
 and festivals. There is a theatre of this kipd in 
 Anglesea, resembling a horseshoe, including an 
 area of twenty-two paces diameter, called Bryng- 
 wyn (or Supreme Court), with its opening to the 
 west. It lies in a place called Tre'r Drew (or 
 Druid's Town), from whence it may be reason- 
 ably conjectured that this kind of structure was 
 used by the Druids. 
 — ' There is also one in Mainland (Orkney), from 
 its theatrical or crescent-like form supposed to 
 have been dedicated to the worship of the moon ; 
 but perhaps nothing more than one of these 
 ancient theatres. 
 
 ' But though the theatrical form is best adapted 
 for the instruction and information of the audience, 
 yet (as men cannot be supposed in those illiterate 
 times to have consulted the delight and instruction 
 of the ear as much as the pleasure and entertain- 
 ment of the eye) it is not so commonly met with 
 among the ancients as the amphitheatrical, which, 
 being more capacious, had generally the preference 
 to the former. In these continued rounds or 
 amphitheatres of stone (not broken as the cirque 
 of stones erect) the Britons did usually assemble 
 
Before the Playhouses . 17 
 
 to hear plays acted, to see the sports and games, 
 
 which upon particular occasions were intended to 
 
 amuse the people, to quiet and delight them ; an 
 
 institution (among the engines of state) very 
 
 necessary in all civil societies. These are called 
 
 with us in Cornwall (where we have great numbers 
 
 of them) Flan an guare : viz., the level place, or 
 
 plain of sport and pastime. The benches round 
 
 were generally of turf, as Ovid [Artis Amatorias, 
 
 lib. I.], talking of those ancient places of sport, 
 
 observes : 
 
 ' " In gradibus sedit populus de cespite factis ; 
 Qualibet hirsutas fronde tegente comas." 
 
 ' We have one whose benches are of stone, and 
 the most remarkable monument of this kind which 
 I have yet seen ; it is near the Church of St. Just, 
 Penwith, now somewhat disfigured by the in- 
 judicious repairs of late years ; but by the remains 
 it seems to have been a work of more than usual 
 labour and correctness. It was an exact circle, of 
 126 feet diameter ; the perpendicular height of 
 the bank, fi-om the area within, now 7 feet high ; 
 but the height fi-om the' bottom of the ditch with- 
 out, 10 feet at present, formerly more. The seats 
 consist of six steps 14 inches wide and i foot high, 
 with one on the top of all, where the rampart is 
 about 7 feet wide. 
 
 ' The plays they acted in these amphitheatres 
 were in the Cornish language ; the subjects taken 
 
 2 
 
1 8 London Theatres. 
 
 from Scripture history, and called "Guirimir," 
 which Mr. Llhuyd " supposes a corruption of 
 Guari-mirkI, and in the Cornish dialect to signify 
 a miraculous play or interlude. They were com- 
 posed for begetting in the common people a right 
 
 notion of the Scriptures, and were acted in the 
 memory of some not long deceased." In these 
 same cirques also were performed all their 
 athletary exercises, for which the Cornish Britons 
 are still so remarkable ; and when any single 
 combat was to be fought on foot to decide any 
 
Before the 'Playhouses. 19 
 
 rivalry of strength or valour, any disputed pro- 
 perty or any accusation exhibited by martial 
 challenge, no place was thought so proper as 
 these inclosed cirques.'* 
 
 The Rev. George Hadow, Vicar of St. Just, fiir- 
 nished Mr. Norris with a notice of the amphi- 
 theatre as it appeared within what may be called 
 our own time : ' This old structure still remains 
 in St. Just Church town, close to the principal 
 inn ; the clear outline of the circus is quite ap- 
 parent, being formed externally by a stone wall 
 of about 4 feet perpendicular height, whilst a 
 green bank slopes inwards ; there is now no out- 
 side ditch, nor are there any steps. It is the usual 
 resort of all the idle boys of the town to play 
 their games, and a pathway leads right through 
 it from the town to the market-place ; no one 
 can pass through that part of the town or go to 
 Cape Cornwall without seeing it, though it has 
 been sadly neglected as regards any repairs.'t 
 
 In a subsequent workj Borlase refers to the 
 subject again, and describes another round, ' a 
 much larger one of higher mound, fossed on the 
 outside and very regular.' This was the amphi- 
 
 • '(Qusedam viz., Saxa) Circos claudebant in quibus 
 Gigantes et pugiles duello strenue decertabant.' — ^Wormius, 
 p. 62. 
 
 t Norris, 'Ancient Cornish Drama,' vol. ii., p. 455. 
 
 t Borlase, ' Natural History of Cornwall,' p. zg8. 
 
 2 — 2 
 
20 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 theatre in the parish of Piran-sand, of which he 
 made a plan, which is here reproduced. 
 
 Borlase observes : ' This is a curious and regular 
 work, and is formed with the exactness of a fortifi- 
 cation, but the visible benches within, the pit, the 
 trench, and cavity, and the foss having no espla- 
 nade beyond it, determine it in its present figure 
 to the uses of an amphitheatre.' The pit, trench, 
 and cavity, he explains as used for scenic effect in 
 
Before the Playhouses. 21 
 
 the plays — the pit representing hell or the grave, 
 and the trench and cavity the upper regions or 
 heaven. 
 
 There is an interesting notice of the performance 
 of miracle-plays in the Cornish rounds given by 
 Richard Carew in his ' Survey of Cornwall ' (1602), 
 and it is possible that Norris's view of the struc- 
 tures was largely influenced by a passage in which 
 Carew writes : ' For representing it [the play] 
 they raise an earthen amphitheatre in some open 
 field.' But Borlase, who was well acquainted with 
 Carew's work, evidently adopted an independent 
 view at first hand, closely inspecting the rounds 
 and carefiaUy planning them. Carew's description 
 of the acting of the play, however, is interest- 
 ing: 
 
 ' The Guary miracle — in English a miracle- 
 play — ^is a kinde of Enterlude, compiled in Cornish 
 out of some Scripture history with that grosseness 
 which accompanied the Romanes vetus Comedia. 
 For representing it they raise an earthen Amphi- 
 theatre in some open field, having the Diameter of 
 his enclosed playne some 40 or 50 foot. The 
 country people flock from all sides, many miles 
 off, to hear and see it ; for they haue therein devils 
 and devices, to delight as well the eye as the eare ; 
 the players conne not their parts without booke, 
 but are prompted by one called the ordinary, who 
 foUoweth at their back with the book in his hand. 
 
22 London Theatres. 
 
 and telleth them softly what they must pronounce 
 aloud. Which maner once gaue occasion to a 
 pleasant conceyted gentleman of practising a mery 
 pranke ; for he vndertaking (perhaps of set pur- 
 pose) an acter's roome, was accordingly lessoned 
 (beforehand) by the Ordinary that he must say 
 after him. His turn came. Quoth the Ordinary,. 
 " Goe forth, man, and show thyself." The Gentle- 
 man steps out upon thestage, and like a bad Clarke 
 in Scripture matters, cleauing more to the letter 
 than the sense, pronounced those words aloud. 
 " Oh " (sayes the fellowe softly in his eare), " you 
 marre all the play." And with this his passion, 
 the Actor makes the Audience in like sort ac- 
 quainted. ^ Herein the prompter falles to flat 
 rayling and cursing in the bitterest terms he could 
 deuise ; which the Gentleman with a set gesture 
 and countenance still soberly related, vntill the 
 Ordinary, driuen at last into a madde rage, was 
 faine to giue ouer all. Which trousse, though it 
 brake off the Enterlude, yet defrauded not the 
 beholders, but dismissed them with a great deale 
 more sport and laughter than 20 such Guaries 
 could haue affoorded.' 
 
 In considering these amphitheatres in Cornwall, 
 
 the main point is the traditional round formation, 
 
 [probably of Celtic or Iberic origin ; but something 
 
 must be said as to the possible derivation from 
 
 ancient Greece. This part of the country was the 
 
Before the Playhouses. 23 
 
 only part in contact with the ancient civilization 
 before the coming of the Romans. There is no 
 doubt whatever that a large trade was carried on 
 with the Cornish mines, tin being procurable 
 nowhere else in Europe at that time, and it is 
 probable that other mines besides tin were worked 
 for the supply of the Mediterranean cities. Bor- 
 lase is inclined to refer the Cornish custom of 
 wrestling to this source, connecting it with the 
 gymnasia and palaestra of the Greeks ; and what 
 is known as the Cornish stone-dance he connects 
 with the dance at Grecian hymeneal solemnities^ 
 But the stone circles he ascribes to the Celts,,; 
 connecting them with the Druids. He was not_ 
 prepared for those adaptations and accretions 
 which are familiar in folk-lore, else he would 
 probably have suggested that, whatever the mystic 
 origin of the circles, they were adapted for the 
 games of the Phoenician or Greek visitors or 
 immigrants, as they became afteSrwards modified f 
 and adapted to the uses of the miracle-play. 
 
 It will be seen that in the absence of direct 
 evidence as to how miracle-plays were presented 
 at Clerkes' Well and at Skinners' Well in London 
 before the playhouses, as related by Stow in his 
 Survey, we are able to form a likely conjecture. 
 There exists a plan of the stage for acting a 
 
24 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 morality-play, which shows a circular formation 
 with the use of ' scaffolds.' It is given in Sharp's 
 ' Coventry Mysteries,' and is here reproduced*' It 
 
 
 uTto 2^;93;j- ixiQyp ^J>-^ "P f' "^ffij __J J 
 
 is such an arrangement as Rogers speaks of in a 
 passage already quoted [ante, p. lo) as 'scaffolds 
 and stages made in the streets " of Chester for the 
 presentation of the Whitsun plays by the guilds, 
 and certainly helps us to understand the disposi- 
 
Before the Playhouses. 25 
 
 tion of space which enabled so many people to 
 witness the plays at Clerkenwell, including king, 
 queen, and nobles {ante, pp. 8, 9). 
 
 In considering London and the drama before 
 the playhouses, there is evident an inter-connec- 
 tion of characteristics between them. Before the 
 Reformation, with plays presented in the churches 
 and chapels, we have the sanctioned hilarity of a 
 Roman Catholic city. It was the time whence 
 traditions of the joyous celebration of Christmas 
 have come down to us ; when king, noble, and 
 even abbot and prior, in their household abdicated 
 in favour of a lord of misrule, or Christmas prince, 
 whose reign extended ' from AllhoUen Eve to 
 Candlemas Day.' It was the tim6 when on May 
 Day morning every man would walk beyond the 
 city, in the words of Stow, 'into the sweet 
 meadows and green woods, there to rejoice their 
 spirits with the beauty and savour of sweet flowers, 
 and with the harmony of birds, praising God in , 
 their kind ;' when the citizens ' brought the 
 summer home ' from distances within view of the 
 city, and joining together, the citizens of every 
 parish, or sometimes two or three parishes com- 
 bining, 'had their several mayings, and did fetch 
 in maypoles with divers warlike shows, with good 
 archers, morris dancers, and other devices for 
 pastime all the day long, and toward evening they 
 had stage-plays and bonfires in the streets.' It 
 
26 London Theatres. 
 
 was the time when 'grave citizens ' of wealth and 
 repute had great delight in hawking and hunting 
 in the woodland beyond the city ; when the youth 
 and manhood habitually practised 'games of 
 defence and wrestlings ' in the fields of St. Giles's, 
 in the neighbourhood of Clerkenwell, and in the 
 fields of Finsbury. It was the time when the 
 youths of the city were accustomed ' on holy days 
 afi:er evening prayer, at their masters' doors, to 
 exercise their wasters and bucklers ; and the 
 maidens, one of them playing on a timbrel, in sight 
 of their masters and dames, to dance for garlands 
 hung athwart the streets.' 
 
 It may truly be said that the drama which 
 afterwards flourished in the playhouses of Eliza- 
 bethan London derived more of force and national 
 character from these popular observances and 
 traditional rites and ceremonies than from the 
 miracle-plays and mysteries which were performed 
 in the churches. Yet these, too, were a very 
 notable feature, and played an important part in 
 the evolution of the theatre and the drama. They 
 led to the performance of religious plays by guilds 
 and companies, and when plays were presented at 
 Clerkenwell by the companies of Parish Clerks 
 and Skinners we may be sure that the division and 
 disposition of space in churches had their due 
 effect upon the arrangement of stage and audi- 
 torium, and so ultimately upon the Elizabethan 
 
Before the Playhouses. 27 
 
 playhouses. But, on the other hand, it is clear, 
 from the circular formation adopted, that the 
 amphitheatres on the southern side of London, 
 and in other parts of the country where the 
 national sports and pastimes were cultivated, had 
 more effect in determining the configuration of 
 the early London theatres. 
 
 There remains for brief consideration the period 
 between the Reformation and the opening of the 
 first playhouse in London. The miracle-play was 
 giving way to the morality-play, which itself gave 
 way to dramatic treatment of history and fable. 
 All over England there were companies of players 
 nominally attached to the households of the great 
 ones of the land ; and it became the custom for these 
 companies to travel under license of their masters, 
 and exercise their art in the neighbouring towns. 
 In the municipal records of this country we find 
 numerous notices of these visits. The company 
 usually waited on the mayor with their license, 
 and after giving him a specimen of their quality, 
 they gave a public pei-formance in the guildhall, 
 after which they were rewarded from the corpora- 
 tion treasury. These performances were often 
 followed by performances given in the inns or 
 inn-yards, when the players' reward was the 
 largess of the guests and visitors. 
 
 The inns in and about London became visited 
 in this way very frequently ; and it may be said 
 
28 London Theatres. 
 
 that in the history of the London stage the im- 
 mediate predecessor of the playhouse was the inn- 
 yard. The resemblance of the ancient inn-yards 
 to the interior of theatres, even down to our own 
 time, has been frequently pointed out ; but the 
 previous condition of things has been lost sight of. 
 Nor is it known under what stage arrangement 
 the players acted when at home ; i.e., at a royal 
 palace or the residence of the master whose 
 'servants' they were. It is probable that the 
 courtyard was the usual theatre ; but we do not 
 know, and these conditions probably told upon 
 the arrangements of the playhouse as much as did 
 the formation of the inn-yards. We have clearer 
 knowledge as to those places of public sport and 
 pastime which became converted to the uses of 
 the drama ; and the general view which has been 
 given in this introductory chapter will better lead 
 to a conception of the first London theatre, its 
 conditions and environment, than would those 
 references, more or less vague, to miracle-plays 
 and inn-yards, with which we are perhaps too 
 ■ familiar. 
 
 In the year of her accession Elizabeth issued a 
 proclamation for regulation of plays, which was 
 prompted probably by political considerations, for 
 the bias of the Queen was distinctly towards the 
 drama. The object of the proclamation is to 
 prevent plays without license and notice to 
 
Before the Flay houses. 29 
 
 authorities ; and the Queen's nobility and gentle- 
 men are enjoined to look to it that her Majesty's 
 pleasure in regard to their servants, being players, 
 be strictly observed. On the authorities — ^Justices 
 of the Peace, Mayors, Lieutenants of Shires — ^is 
 cast the responsibility of forbidding and prevent- 
 ing the handling of politics or religion by the 
 players. The proclamation is a clear indication of 
 dramatic activity in the country at the very 
 threshold of Elizabeth's reign. 
 
 Alike in London and the provinces, the com- 
 panies of players under the licenses of their patrons 
 enjoyed the privilege of public playing. But it was a 
 privilege in the exercise of which the local powers 
 were found to be at variance with the class under 
 whose patronage the drama flourished. Around the 
 stage we see the strife between the old order and 
 the new, and the stage was identified with the 
 old. It is not to be doubted that a good deal of 
 idleness and frivolity, and even vice, hung about 
 the stage, which in its constitution under licenses 
 and privileges of courtiers was a part of feudalism ; 
 and when players holding such licenses claimed 
 the right to set up their stages within the city of 
 London, it was discovered that those responsible 
 for the good order and well-being of the city not 
 only resented the intrusion, but asserted their 
 rights, and forbade the stage within the limits of 
 their jurisdiction. It is quite possible that this 
 
30 London Theatres. 
 
 strife over public stage-playing hastened the de- 
 velopment of the Puritan spirit in London. In 
 1572 plays were interdicted on the ground of the 
 plague and the risk of spreading the contagion ; 
 but it appears that the pretext was eagerly seized 
 upon by the authorities. In 1575 the mayor and 
 corporation formally expelled all players from the 
 city, and this act was probably the immediate 
 cause for the building of the first playhouse, the 
 site chosen being one of the liberties beyond the 
 city boundary. Here, and in similar positions 
 just outside the civic jurisdiction, the playhouses 
 grew up, under the protection of the court, cour- 
 tiers, and privileged class ; while, owing to the 
 near neighbourhood of these playhouses and the 
 powerful patronage which sheltered them, the 
 civic authorities found themselves defeated in a 
 policy which they believed to be for the public good. 
 What were the public stages put down by the 
 Corporation ? There can be no doubt that they 
 were much frequented and were a flourishing in- 
 stitution. , They were the theatres of London 
 before the playhouses, erected in connection with 
 some of the principal inns, such as the Cross Keys 
 in Gracious (Gracechurch) Street, the Bull in 
 Bishopsgate Street, and the Belle Savage on Lud- 
 gate Hill. What took place when the players 
 were expelled was that they made a public house 
 for plays outside the city. This seems to be the 
 
Before the Playhouses. 31 
 
 truth of the matter, although there is a passage in 
 Harrison's 'Chronologie' which has caused some 
 doubt on the point. The passage is as follows : 
 
 '1572. Plaies are banished for a time out of 
 London, lest the resort unto them should ingender 
 a plague, or rather disperse it, being already 
 begonne. "Syould to God these comon plaies were 
 exiled for altogether, as siminaries of impiety, and 
 their theatres pulled downe as no better than 
 houses of bawdrie. It is an evident token of a 
 wicked time, when plaiers waxe so riche that they 
 can build suche houses. As moche I wish also to our 
 comon beare baitings vsed in the sabaothe dales.'* 
 
 If the date ' 1572 ' were the date of entry of 
 this passage, we might conclude that playhouses 
 must have existed then. But the ' Chronologie ' 
 extends from very early times — the first extract 
 relating to this country printed by Mr. Furnivall • 
 is dated 1370 — down to 1592, the year of Harri- 
 son's death ; and therefore the above entry might 
 have been made at anytime between 1572 and 
 1592. Consequently the references to theatres 
 and playhouses were to those erected after the 
 players were banished from the city. Harrison, 
 in recording what took place in 1572, proceeds 
 to comment on what existed at the time of 
 
 * Harrison's ' Description of England ' (New Shakespeare 
 Society), Part I. (Appendix to Forewords), p. liv and foot- 
 note. 
 
32 London Theatres. 
 
 his making the entry. Hence the misapprehen- 
 sion. 
 
 In the period immediately preceding the first 
 playhouse there was clearly very great dramatic 
 activity. In 1574 the Queen granted a special 
 license in favour of James Burbage and four fellows 
 of the company of the Earl of Leicester to exhibit 
 all kinds of stage-plays during the Queen's 
 pleasure in any part of England, ' as well for the 
 recreation of her loving subjects as for her own 
 solace and enjoyment.' If in the following 
 year plays were interdicted within the city, 
 we may be certain it meant a large increase of 
 business in the fine and spacious old inns round 
 about the city — at Southwark, Clerkenwell, Hol- 
 born, Spitalfields, and Finsbury. In spite of 
 checks and hindrances, the stage constantly in- 
 creased in poj^ularity, and the provision of places 
 specially for plays and other popular diversions, 
 where players could charge for admission and 
 control the monetary rewards for their skill, would 
 assuredly have come about, even in the absence of 
 the stimulating effect of opposition. It was a 
 most momentous departure in its effect upon the 
 national drama, and succeeding chapters of this 
 book will show how trujy it may be said that the 
 building of the first playhouse included the possi- 
 bility of Shakespeare. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE THEATRE. 
 
 THE first playhouse built in London was^ 
 aptly named The Theatre. It is greatly 
 to be regretted that no yiew of the building is 
 known to exist. In considering the significance 
 of the name, we can hardly help being struck 
 with the fact that amphitheatres existed on the 
 Surrey side of the river, which had been generally 
 known as 'rings,' although the term 'amphi- 
 theatre ' was current in the literature of the time. 
 The question arises, Was the word ' theatre ' used 
 as an abbreviation for ' amphitheatre,* or was it 
 used in the sense in which Stow employed it when, 
 in translating Fitzstephen's account of London, 
 he wrote the passage ' London for the shews upon 
 theaters,' etc.* According to that sense, ' theatre ' 
 
 * See Stew's ' Survey,' ed. W. J. Thorns. Collier has a 
 note (Hist. Dram. Poetry i. ii) on the various renderings of 
 the original which have been given. But here the point is 
 not one of translation, but the use by Stow of the word 
 ' theatre ' in the sense of ' stage.' 
 
 3 
 
34 London Theatres. 
 
 would be equivalent to ' stage,' as in Stubbes' 
 'Anatomie of Abuses' (1583), ' playes and 
 enterluds on stages and scaffolds.' Or, as a third 
 alternative, did the name denote the fact of the 
 house being dedicated to public shows and exhi- 
 bitions, in a sense analogous to The Theatre of 
 God's Judgments, i.e., the display or demonstration 
 of God's judgments? The existence of amphi- 
 theatres, with the fact of the currency of the word 
 ' amphitheatre,' suggests the possibility of some de- 
 parture in the shape and configuration of the house 
 named The Theatre. On the other hand, all the facts 
 point to the building having been circular : i. 
 Amphitheatres existed on Bankside. 2. The neigh- 
 bour of The Theatre, another playhouse called the 
 Curtain, was round. 3, The Theatre was removed 
 to the Bankside, and when reconstructed there, it 
 was a circular building (it did not become oc- 
 tagonal till after it was rebuilt in 1 6 1 3). Accepting, 
 therefore, the amphitheatral form of The Theatre, 
 what was the significance of the name, if any ? 
 
 When, nowadays, we use the word ' theatre,' we 
 mean the building ; and it might be thought that 
 our discussion of the name The Theatre is a 
 discussion upon no question at all, and that the 
 name was given in the sense in which we apply it. 
 But hardly so, because the building named The. 
 Theatre was called a playhouse, as all the 'old 
 theatres continued for a. long time to be described." '< 
 
The Theatre. 35 
 
 Accordingly, it would appear that the name was 
 not descriptive of the building, which disposes of 
 one of our alternatives. Was it an abbreviation 
 for ' amphitheatre ' ? Considering that it was an 
 amphitheatre — that is, a double circle or ring, the 
 outer circular space for spectators, the inner for 
 performers — it is possible that the word was merely 
 an abbreviation. But, to come to the remaining 
 alternative, when we consider that the word 
 ' theatre ' was in use as equivalent to ' stage,' and 
 that the novelty of The Theatre was that it was 
 a house opened for the performance of stage-plays 
 (alternately with other shows and exhibitions), we 
 need feel little doubt that the name was derived 
 from the stage or platform on which plays were 
 exhibited. The stage was a movable one, and 
 when the house was devoted to the sports and 
 shows and activities of the ring, the stage was 
 removed. A view suggested by a consideration of 
 all the facts is that the stage on which plays were 
 enacted in the open air at Clerkenwell, or after- 
 wards in the inn yards, became known as the 
 theatre, and that the word, as signifying a notable 
 adjunct of the playhouse, was applied to it as a name. 
 
 The site chosen for the first playhouse is full of 
 suggestion as to the origin and development of 
 the English stage. It was on the eastern border 
 of the northern playground of London — Finsbury 
 Fields. At the butts in these fields the youth and 
 
 3—2 
 
36 London Theatres. 
 
 manhood of the city practised ' shooting with the 
 bow ' on every Sunday, feast-day, and holiday, as 
 enjoined by royal proclamation and civic ordi- 
 nance. Here, and in the open spaces east and 
 west of Finsbury Fields, the sports of the people 
 were indulged in ; some of the games mentioned 
 in a proclamation of Edward III. as discounte- 
 nanced in favour of archery being throwing of 
 stones, wood, or iron, handball, football, bandy- 
 ball, cambuck, or cockfighting, and ' such like vain 
 plays which have no profit in them.' The cor- 
 poration held the manor of Finsbury from 1 3 1 5 
 to our own time, upon lease from the prebendary 
 of Halliwell " and Finsbury, in the Cathedral 
 Church of St. Paul.* It was the drilling-ground 
 of the trained bands of the city, and consequently 
 bears a definite relation to the military history 
 of England. Here it was that the periodical 
 musters and inspections of the city troops were 
 held, and here and in the fields round about were 
 practised those field sports and athletic pastimes 
 which conduced to deeds of valour and hardi- 
 ment. 
 
 The Theatre and its near neighbour. The 
 Curtain, were built ' in that division of the parish 
 of Shoreditch which was known as the Liberty of 
 Halliwell. This liberty, at a later period termed 
 Holywell, derived its name from a sacred (A.S, 
 * ' Remembrancia,' 274, note. 
 
The Theatre. 37 
 
 halig) well or fountain which took its rise in the 
 marshy grounds situated to the west of the High 
 Street leading from Norton Folgate to Shoreditch 
 Church. . . . The lands in which the holy foun- 
 tain was situated belonged for many generations 
 to the Priory of Holywell.'* 
 
 The significance of wells in connection with 
 the drama _has already been touched upon in the 
 preceding chapter. The traditionary observances 
 and customs in connection with wells had their 
 origin in times anterior to Christianity, and it is 
 an interesting example of survival when we find 
 the ceremonial of well -worship give place to 
 pageants in honour of Christian ' saints and to 
 the acting of plays founded on the Biblical story, 
 as in the recorded case of Clerkenwell. We may 
 be certain that there were gatherings of the people 
 on feast-days (re-named and adopted from the 
 heathen cult) at Halliwell as at the other wells in 
 the open country beyond the northern boundary 
 of the city ; and if it were recorded that religious 
 plays were acted there; the record w6uld agree 
 with analogous cases. There is no such record ; 
 but the significance of a playhouse being erected 
 on the spot is obvious. Again, the neighbourhood 
 of the priory brings another condition which 
 implies the acting of miracle-plays. At Clerken- 
 
 * J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, ' Outlines of the Life of 
 Shakespeare,' 6th edit., vol. i,, p. 319. 
 
38 London Theatres. 
 
 well the companies acted their plays outside the 
 church ; at Holywell was erected the first play- 
 house within the precincts of the dissolved priory. 
 In the case of The Theatre, therefore, we have in 
 ' the. site chosen for its erection a summary of the 
 elements which contributed to the making of the 
 \| Elizabethan stage \ in the fields which were the 
 \ scene of the popular sports and diversions we have 
 
 that element of shows, of exhibitions of ' activities,' 
 feats of skill, legerdemain, and endurance, which 
 alternated with stage-plays in the programme of 
 the earliest playhouses ; in the well we have an 
 element around which much of the material which 
 went to the making of the national drama was 
 fostered and perpetuated by tradition ; while the 
 priory may represent the element of the miracle- 
 play, or mystery. 
 
 After the dissolution of the Priory of Holywell 
 the church was demolished, and the priory itself 
 became converted into private residences. A large 
 portion of the estate was purchased by a certain 
 Henry Webb in 1544, and the moiety of this 
 estate wherein The Theatre was erected in 1576 
 belonged at this time to Giles Allen. It was from 
 him that James Burbage, of London, joiner, and 
 leading member of the Earl of Leicester's company 
 of players, obtained a lease for twenty-one years, 
 dated April 13, 1576, of houses and land situ- 
 ated between Finsbury Field and the public road 
 
The Theatre. 39 
 
 from Bishopsgate to Shoreditch Church. The 
 lease was obtained with the express object of 
 erecting a playhouse, and it contained the condi- 
 tion that if Burbage expended ^^200 in building 
 he should be entitled to take down the buildings 
 he might erect on the garden or vacant space, and 
 also to an extension of the lease. The subject of 
 the lease included two gardens, four houses, and 
 a large barn. 
 
 The boundary of the property on the west is 
 described as ' a bricke wall next unto the fields 
 commonly called Finsbury Fieldea ;' while the 
 southern boundary extended fi-om the western side 
 of the lower gate of the priory to Finsbury Fields. 
 Braun and Hogenberg's map prefixed to this book 
 is dated before 1576, but it shows the position of 
 the property leased by Burbage. The exact site 
 is carefiilly worked out and identified by Halli- 
 well-Phillipps in his ' Outlines of the Life of 
 Shakespeare,' to which the reader is referred for 
 more minute topographical particulars. 
 
 All the illustrations derived from the records 
 of various lawsuits confirm Stow's account. Speak- 
 ing of Holywell Priory, he says : ' The church 
 being pulled downe, many houses have been there 
 builded for the lodgings of noblemen, of straungers 
 borne, and other ; and neare thereunto are builded 
 two publique houses for the acting and shewe of 
 comedies, tragedies, and histories for recreation, 
 
40 London Theatres. 
 
 whereof the one is called The Courtein and the 
 other The Theatre, both standing on the south-west 
 side towards the Field.'* Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps 
 concludes that The Theatre must have been situ- 
 ated a little to the north of Holywell Lane, and 
 as nearly as possible on the site of what is now 
 Deane's Mews. The ruins of the priory, which 
 were visible in the last century, have now disap- 
 peared, but excavations made a few years ago for 
 a railway uncovered the remains of the stonework 
 of one of the ancient entrance doors. 
 
 The lower gate of the priory referred to above 
 stood on the north side of Holywell Lane, which 
 led from Shoreditch High Street 'towardes the 
 fieldes along before the gate of the said Pryory.' 
 This gate was on the south of the west end of the 
 priory buildings, and the theatre was erected upon 
 land situated to the north-west of the gate. The 
 land was enclosed, but according to various depo- 
 sitions made in 1602 (see Halliwell-Phillipps' 
 ' Outlines ') there was a pathway, or road, into 
 the Fields, the point of difference being as to 
 whether the pathway existed before Burbage's 
 tenancy or no. The existence of this road or path, 
 together with various allusions in the literature of 
 the time, establishes the fact that the chief access 
 to The Theatre was through Finsbury Fields, and 
 
 * This important passage in Stow's ' Survey ' is further 
 discussed postea, p. 44. et seq. 
 
74* Three Cup Alley, 
 
 75. Nicholas Court, alias 
 
 Finder's Alley. 
 
 76. George Yard. 
 
 77. Squire's Rents, alias 
 
 Black Swan Alley. 
 
 In Holywell Lane. 
 
 78. Red Lyon Court. 
 
 79. Blake's Alley 
 
 80. King John's Court. Here 
 
 are the remains of 
 Priory founded for 
 black nuns of the order 
 of St. Benedict. 
 
 81. Brewer's Yard. 
 
 82. Sugar Loaf Alley. 
 
 83. Ginger-bread Alley. 
 
 84. Mortar Alley. 
 
 85. [Blank.] 
 
 86. White Bear Alley. 
 
 87. New Inn Yard. 
 
 88. Tinker's Alley. 
 
 89. Rose Alley. 
 
 90. Remains df an Antient 
 
 Priory. 
 
 91. Hand and Pen Alley. 
 
 92. Artichoke Allev. 
 
 93. Curtain Court (afterwards 
 
 Gloucester Row, now 
 Gloucester Street). 
 
 94. Holywell Court. 
 
 93. The well from whence the 
 Liberty derives its 
 name. 
 In this Liberty are 767 
 
 houses. 
 
 : the year ^T^^ by Peter 
 ames of localities in the 
 
 \o, 41, as a folding sheet ("i.e., not stitched in centre). 
 
40 
 
 whe; 
 othe 
 side 
 cone 
 ated 
 as n 
 Deal 
 were 
 peari 
 a rai 
 of o: 
 T 
 
 StOO' 
 
 led 
 field 
 This 
 prio 
 land 
 land^ 
 sitio 
 'Oi; 
 the 
 whe 
 tena 
 toge 
 the 
 to! 
 # I 
 
 discu 
 
The Theatre. 41 
 
 it is a fact of much interest in the history of The 
 Theatre. 
 
 A recital of the facts brings out the significance 
 of the departure made when The Theatre was 
 built : (i) The Corporation held the Manor of 
 Finsbury. (2) The Fields of Finsbury were the 
 northern playground of London. (3) Plays were 
 forbidden in the city. (4) The first playhouse 
 was erected in the immediate neighbourhood of the 
 Fields. A reference to the Braun and Hogenberg 
 map will show that The Theatre occupied a position 
 of easy accessibility fi-om all points of egress on the 
 north. The citizens could walk or ride through 
 Cripplegate or Moorgate into the Fields, and 
 thence to The Theatre ; or they could go to the 
 playhouse direct through Bishopsgate without 
 going through the Fields. It was an easy matter 
 for the corporation to banish the players from 
 the city ; it needed only unanimity of counsels 
 and the issue of an order to accomplish that. But 
 they could not overcome the love for the drama 
 - which had grown up with the development of the 
 national character. The players had arrived at a 
 stage of perfection in their art ; the people had 
 become accustomed to the stimulus and pleasure 
 of dramatic representations, and not a mile or so 
 of distance, nor the sense that they were evading 
 the express will of responsible authority ; not the 
 roughness displayed by the groundlings, nor the 
 
42 London Theatres. 
 
 fact that idle and dissolute characters inevitably 
 haunted the playhouse ; not even the real and 
 terrible danger of the plague, could turn the Eliza- 
 bethan playgoer from the pastime he loved. The 
 erection of The Theatre within view of the city 
 was less defiant than inevitable. It was an out- 
 come, although the city fathers knew it not, of 
 those sports and pastimes which had been culti- 
 vated under the sanction and encouragement of 
 the corporation for many generations. The 
 quarrel was with an inevitable development of the 
 national character, and both sides were right. For 
 the negative view of the Puritan much may be 
 said. The dissolution of the monasteries had 
 thrown upon the community a crowd of thriftless 
 persons who had formerly subsisted by an organized 
 system of almsgiving. This was the social ques- 
 tion of the Elizabethan age. It led to the 
 introduction of new manufactures, the encourage- 
 ment of inventors in the hope of increasing 
 employment ; it led to the inauguration of our 
 colonial policy ; it led to that doubtful benefit, 
 the poor law. But it was the stern and practical 
 view of the social question that solved it ; and in 
 that view idleness and waste became identified 
 with ' vain shows and stage-plays.' We in this 
 age are the happy heirs of the combined results 
 of the efforts of both sides in the contest, and it 
 behoves us not to adopt a neutral or indifferent 
 
The Theatre. 43 
 
 view, but to see the good of each, which could 
 only have been struck out ia conflict. 
 
 Some stress has been laid, in the foregoing 
 pages, on the national sports and pastimes in their 
 bearing upon the development of the drama. 
 That is a view which concerns the history of the 
 stage and theatre more nearly than it concerns the 
 literary drama. And it is probably because the 
 history of the drama has invariably been approached 
 from its literary side that it has heretofore been re- 
 garded as an importation, rather than as a natural 
 growth in this , country. From the literary point 
 of view, indeed, it is an exotic ; all the relics of 
 the earliest dramatic literature are of Roman-, 
 ecclesiastical origin ; the very word ' theatre ' is 
 Roman. But this view has held the ground so 
 completely that the racial origin of our stage 
 has been unknown, ignored, and overlooked. 
 Yet it is assuredly true that the traditions of 
 the English folk very largely influenced the 
 development of the stage as- distinguished from 
 dramatic literature. The word ' play ' is Anglo- 
 Saxon : ■plega=2L game, sport, frequently used to 
 denote a fight or battle.* The military dance per- 
 formed by Saxon youth, and described by Tacitus, 
 was a ' play.' Among the compounds of plega or 
 play we have plega-gares, play of the javelins ; 
 aesc-plega, play of spears ; linden^lega, play of 
 
 * See Skeat's ' Etymological Dictionary,' sub voce ' Play.' 
 
44 London Theatres. 
 
 shields ; sweard-plega, sword-play ; plege-man, a 
 play man or player ; ■plega-stow , a. play place ; 
 plega-hus, a playhouse.* The Latin theatrum 
 gave the name to Burbage's playhouse, and many 
 were the dramas from ancient classical sources 
 enacted therein, but it was a genuine national 
 product. 
 
 Perhaps it is significant of the disapproval with 
 which the playhouses were regarded that Stow, in 
 his ' Survey of London,' published in the year 1603, 
 omitted the mention of them which occurs in the 
 first edition of the ' Survey,' 1598.+ Alluding to 
 the Priory of Holywell, he wrote : ' The church 
 thereat being pulled down, many houses have been 
 built for the lodgings of noblemen, of strangers 
 born and other.' And there, in the 1603 edition, 
 
 * Skeat's ' Etymological Dictionary,' Supplement, sub voce 
 'Playhouse': — 'The existence of this word even in A.S. is 
 remarkable. " Ceelestis theatri, ]7Jes heofonlfcan pleghuses," 
 Mone, Quellen, p. 366.' 
 
 Contrast with this the following from ' Anglo-Saxon, and 
 Old English Vocabularies from the Tenth to the Fifteenth 
 Century,' by Th. Wright, ed. and coll. by R. P. Wulcker, 
 1884, vol. i., col. 145 : T'/S'^a/raiW = wafungstede (literally, a 
 place for sights) ; Amphitheatrum = syneweald wafungstede (a 
 circular place for sights). These translations, says the com- 
 mentator, show that our ' Anglo-Saxon forefathers were not 
 acquainted with the uses of theatres and amphitheatres, and 
 had no words in their language to. express them.' And 
 yet, in Vocabulary xi. (eleventh century), the equivalent 
 for Amphitheatri is given as plegstowe (col. 342). 
 
 + See Thorns', edition, p. 158. 
 
The Theatre. 45 
 
 the passage ends. In the first edition followed — 
 •^And neare thereunto are builded two publique 
 houses for the acting and shewe of comedies, 
 tragedies and histories, for recreation. Whereof 
 one is called the Courtein and the other the 
 Theatre, both standing on the south-west side 
 towards the field.' The passage may have been 
 omitted in 1 603 because The Theatre did not exist 
 there at that date, but The Curtain was still 
 there. The original passage in Stow's ' Survey ' 
 underwent a fiirther modification, not without 
 significance. The late J. Payne Collier printed the 
 passage as it stands in Stow's MS. (Harl. MSS., No. 
 538),* as follows: ' And namely, neare adjoyning 
 are builded two houses for the shewe of Activities, 
 comedies, tragedies, and histories for recreat?bn,' 
 the passage concluding in nearly the same words. 
 The variation is that the word ' activities ' pre- 
 ceded 'comedies, tragedies and histories' in the 
 passage as it originally stood in MS., while the 
 word was omitted altogether from the first edition ; 
 although there is a marginal note : ' Theater and 
 Curtine for Comedies and other shewes,'t of which 
 the word * shewes ' may or may not apply to the 
 ' tragedies and histories ' mentioned after the 
 ' comedies.' 
 
 * ' History of Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage,' 
 vol, iii., p. 81. 
 
 t Stow's ' Survey,' ed. 1598, p. 69. 
 
46 London Theatres. 
 
 The ' activities ' alluded to were tumbling, 
 vaulting, rope-dancing, etc., and this is by no 
 means the only indication we have that the first 
 playhouse, during the early period of its existence, 
 represented the general amusements of the people. 
 Among the ' shewes ' at The Theatre were fencing 
 matches and exhibitions of skill in the art of 
 defence, to which there are several allusions in 
 Elizabethan literature. Londoners had been ac- 
 customed from of old-time to displays of fence 
 and sword-play in Finsbury Fields. It was a 
 pastime which — like archery (practised at the butts 
 hard by The Theatre)- — had received the special 
 encouragement of the authorities, and the martial 
 citizens would naturally be interested in exhibitions 
 of those refinements of fencing which came hither 
 fi-om the Continent, to be pleasantly mocked by 
 Ben Jonson in his ' Bobadil.' 
 
 Among the city records are some interesting 
 notices of fencing at The Theatre. On July 1, 
 1582, the Earl of Warwick wrote to the lord 
 mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, requesting them to 
 grant a license to his ' servant, John David '(doubt- 
 less a member of the earl's company of players) 
 to ' play his provest prize in his science and pro- 
 fession of defence,' at the Bull in Bishopsgate, or in 
 some other convenient place to be assigned within 
 the liberties of the city of London.* On the 
 * ' Remembrancia,' Analytical Index, p. 351. 
 
The Theatre. 47 
 
 following 23rd of the month, the earl wrote 
 again, ' complaining of the treatment and disgrace 
 put upon his servant in not being allowed to play 
 prizes after the publication of his bills.'* And on 
 the following day the lord mayor wrote to the 
 earl, saying ' he had not refused, permission for his 
 servant to play his prizes, but had granted hirri a 
 license, only restraining him from playing in an 
 inn for fear of infection, and had appointed him 
 to play in an open space at the Leadenhall. Not 
 having availed himself of the permission for four- 
 teen days, and the infection increasing, it became 
 necessary to prohibit the assembling of the people 
 to his play within the city, but permission had 
 been given him to perform in the open fields.f 
 The remainder of the letter is printed in full by 
 Halliwell-Phillipps as follows : J 
 
 ' I have herein yet further done for your servante 
 what I may, that is, that if he may obteine lawe- 
 flilly to playe at the Theater or other open place 
 out of the Citie, he hath and shall have my per- 
 mission with his companie drumes and shewe to 
 passe openly throughe the Citie, being not upon 
 the Sondaye, which is as muche as I maye justifie 
 in this season, and for that cause I have with his 
 owne consent apointed him Monday next.' In the 
 following year (April 27, 1583) the lord mayor 
 wrote to one of the justices of the peace, advising 
 
 * ' Remembrancia,' Analytical Index, p. 351. f Ibid. 
 
 X ' Outlines,' 6th ed., vol. i., p. 348. 
 
48 London Theatres. 
 
 him that certain fencers had set up bills, and in- 
 tended to play a prize at The Theatre on May- 
 Day, which would cause great inconvenience and 
 danger, especially as they desired to pass with 
 pomp through the city. Fearing disorder, and in 
 view of a recent disaster at Paris Garden, when the 
 scaffolds gave away and precipitated the spectators 
 to the ground, resulting in injuries and loss of life, 
 the desired license and permission had been refused, 
 and the mayor appealed to the justices of the 
 county to assist the corporation in preventing the 
 assembly.* 
 
 These notices sufficiently establish the use of 
 the theatre as a playhouse in the sense of the 
 Anglo-Saxon plega-hus, and show that the exhibi- 
 tions of martial prowess and skill which had 
 brought the citizens together on the ■plega-stow ot 
 Finsbury had not decayed with the development of 
 a drama which attempted to reflect human char- 
 acter and destiny amid the conditions of a more 
 advanced society. The existence of the playhouse 
 implied a more highly organized celebration of the 
 national plays or, games ; and the Elizabethan 
 drama grew up amid the ancient and traditional 
 sports and pastimes of the people in an age quick 
 with new ideas and new life. To understand these 
 conditions is to understand why acting -plays 
 written for the old playhouses were so full of 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 352. 
 
The Theatre. 49 
 
 action, energy, and varied movement ; why mili- 
 tary pomp and circumstance so frequently entered 
 into the traffic of the stage ; why broadsword, 
 buckler, lance and shield, javelin, rapier, and 
 harquebuse were brought into the dramatist's 
 story. We may be sure the wrestling match in 
 'As You Like It' was no child's play or stage 
 business, but was watched with critical attention ; 
 for it was an element brought into the play from 
 the life of the people, one of the most populkr 
 sports. The fight between Macbeth and Macduff 
 must have been a magnificent spectacle. It requires 
 some study on our part to realize what such a 
 climax to a sublime play meant to Englishmen in 
 an Elizabethan playhouse. 
 
 In shape The Theatre was round ;* it had scaf- 
 folds or stages around the arena, as had the 
 amphitheatres on the Bankside ;t and, like those 
 structures, it was open at the top to the weather. 
 It was made of wood, and was little more than 
 a circular enclosure. Such an arrangement answered--^ 
 admirably for displays of ' activities,' shows, and 
 fencing. When plays were presented, a movable [ 
 stage was set up in the arena. The enterprise of_! 
 Burbage, who built The Theatre, consisted in 
 the simple device of the enclosure, whereby he 
 
 * It was one of the ' four amphitheatres ' mentioned by 
 De Witt, circa I59'6. See chapter on the Swan Theatre, 
 t See illustration, infra, chapter on the Amphitheatres. 
 
 4 
 
50 London Theatres. 
 
 could charge for admission, in place of the old 
 method of playing in a public place and depend- 
 ing for payment upon the largess of the spec- 
 tators. 
 
 The round formation for purposes of exhibition 
 was, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, 
 traditional in England, and there existed the 
 determining effect of example on the other side 
 of the river. Instead of an earthen amphitheatre 
 in the open, Burbage made a wooden round in the 
 neighbourhood of a city, with tyring-house and 
 other erections for convenience attached. But 
 the stage was still practically out-of-doors, and 
 although the old playhouses underwent some 
 modification in this respect, and became much 
 improved before their suppression, the round 
 formation practically remained. 
 
 Simple as was the device which constituted the 
 new departure, its effect was enormous ; nor was 
 the undertaking a small one, and some interest 
 may reasonably be felt in the personal fortunes of 
 the originator of London theatres. James Burbage, 
 who built the theatre, was a player, and some time 
 by trade a joiner of London ; and it is probable 
 that the building -v^as largely due to this combina- 
 tion of callings. He was a leading member of 
 ihe Earl of Leicester's company, and after it was 
 built this company proceeded to give performances 
 in the theatre under the same style as the Earl of 
 
The Theatre. 51 
 
 Leicester's men. But the ownership of the theatre 
 resided in Burbage and his family. The father- 
 in-law of James Burbage advanced the money for 
 the speculation, viz., one thousand marks 
 (^666 1 3s. 4d.). James Burbage was the builder, 
 and no doubt the architect ; his family were the 
 inheritors of the property. 
 
 In spite of the extensive obligations he had 
 entered into, James Burbage retained the legal 
 estate until his death in 1597. The ground land- 
 lord, Giles Allen, appears to have been persuaded 
 that Burbage was making a fortune, and thirsted 
 for more rent, while all the time Burbage" and his 
 family were borne down by the interest which 
 had to be paid to Burbage's father-in-law, John 
 Braynes. The original lease of 1576 contained 
 the condition that if Burbage within ten years 
 from that date expended the sum of ;^200 in 
 building on the gardens or vacant space he should 
 be entitled to take down such buildings, and also 
 to an extension of the term to 1607. Accordingly, 
 in 1585 a new lease was prepared, but Giles Allen 
 refused to execute.* Previous to this, in 1579 
 James Burbage had assigned his Shoreditch estate 
 to one John Hyde, who held it till 1589 ; and 
 perhaps this may have had something to do with 
 
 * A minute description of the property was given in this 
 proposed deed. See ' Outlines of the ^^e of Shakespeare,' 
 6th edition, i. 322. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 London Theatres. 
 
 Allen's refusal to execute the fresh lease. In that 
 year Hyde surrendered his interest to Cuthbert 
 Burbage (son of James). Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps 
 supposed the assignment to Hyde may have 
 been a security for a loan, and if this conjecture 
 was correct we may conclude that Cuthbert dis- 
 charged the obligation. The original lease of 1 576 
 was for twenty-one years, and accordingly it ex- 
 pired in 1597. Now ensued a period of trouble 
 and strife for the Burbages in respect of the 
 theatre and other property which constituted their 
 Shoreditch estate, and it was from the depositions in 
 the lawsuit between them and Giles Allen which 
 followed that Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps printed 
 various excerpts, to which the reader is referred 
 for more detailed information.* Negotiations 
 were opened with Allen early in 1597 for an ex- 
 tension of the lease, but James Burbage died before 
 they were completed. According to Allen's state- 
 ment, he agreed to extend the lease on two con- 
 ditions, in both of which James Burbage concurred, 
 One was an increase of ^^ 10 in the rent, ' in respect 
 of the great proffitt and commoditie which he had 
 made and in time then to come was further likely 
 to make of the Theatre and the other buildings 
 and growndes to hini demised ;' the other con- 
 dition was 'that the said Theatre should continue 
 for a playinge place for the space of five yeares 
 • ' Outlines of the Life of Sliakespeare,' 6th edition, i. 332. 
 
The Theatre. 53 
 
 onelie after the expiracion of the first terme and 
 not longer, by reason that the defendant sawe that 
 many inconveniences and abuses did growe thereby, 
 and that after the said five yeares ended it should 
 be converted by the said Jeames Burbage and the 
 complainant [Cuthbert], or one of them, to some 
 other use.' But James Burbage died, and his 
 sons succeeded. The proposed lease was not exe- 
 cuted between them and Allen, nor could they 
 ' succeed in obtaining a legal ratification of the 
 additional ten years covenanted to be granted to 
 the lessee, although they were still permitted to 
 remain as tenants.'* These were the conditions, 
 eminently unsatisfactory as they were, under which 
 James Burbage's sons, Cuthbert and Richard, 
 carried on The Theatre for a short period of some- 
 what less than two years following their father's 
 death. Their ultimate solution of the difficulty 
 involved the close of the history of The Theatre, 
 and may fitly be reserved for the close of this 
 chapter. 
 
 It is clear fi-om the proceedings, and even from 
 Allen's expressed intentions, that he was deter- 
 mined to use his power as ground landlord to the 
 utmost, to end the existence of The Theatre. This 
 was precisely what the Corporation of London 
 desired, and it is likely that he was acting under 
 influence brought to bear upon him. When we 
 
 'Outlines,' etc., vol. i., p. 333. 
 
54 London Theatres. 
 
 consider all the difficulties by which the Burbages 
 were beset, the persistent opposition of the civic 
 authorities, the plague, their heavy mortgage, the 
 interest of which could only be borne by the 
 profits of The Theatre, whose end Allen was deter- 
 mined to accomplish, we see how vigorous the 
 popular support must have been to have sustained 
 this theatrical family through so many dangers. 
 But in truth it was not only the support of popular 
 opinion that sustained them ; there seems to be no 
 reason to doubt that the numerous appeals made by 
 the lord mayor and corporation to the lords of 
 the council were met by influential intercessions in 
 favour of the players. 
 
 The opposition of the lord mayor was ' because 
 those playes doe make assemblies of citizens and 
 their families of whom I have charge ;' and his 
 solicitude, besides causing him to appeal to the 
 council, led him to engage the Middlesex magis- 
 trates in the war upon The Theatre. Among the 
 records in Clerkenwell Sessions House was dis- 
 covered an indictment of John Braynes and James 
 Burbage, the Latin of which has been thus 
 Englished :* 
 
 ' Middlesex, to wit : The jurors for the Lady 
 
 * See Jlthenaum, No. 3094, Feb. 12, 1887, in a com- 
 munication which may be safely attributed to Mr. Cordy 
 Jeaffreson, the editor of the valuable ' Calendar of Middlesex 
 County Records,' 
 
The Theatre. 55 
 
 the Queen present that John Braynes of Shorditche 
 in the county of Middlesex, yeoman, and James 
 Burbage of the same [parish], yeoman, on the 21" 
 day of February in the 22°^ year of the reign of 
 Elizabeth, by God's grace Queen of England, 
 France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, ^c, 
 and on divers other days and occasions before and 
 afterwards, brought together and maintained unlaw- 
 ful assemblies of the people to hear and see certain 
 colloquies or interludes called plays or interludes 
 exercised and practised by the same John Braynes 
 and James Burbage and divers other not known 
 persons at a certain place called the Theatre in 
 Hallywell in the aforesaid county. By reason of 
 which unlawful assembly of the people great 
 affrays, assaults, 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 of the Lady the Queen and the over- 
 throwing of good order and rule, and to the danger 
 of the lives of divers good subjects of the said 
 Lady the Queen being there, and against the form 
 of the statute in that respect published and pro- 
 vided,' etc. 
 
 From this it would appear, as Mr. Jeaffi-eson 
 pointed out, that in the eye of the law at least 
 Braynes had as much to do with The Theatre as 
 Burbage. 
 
56 London Theatres. 
 
 On April 12, 1580, the lord mayor wrote to 
 the lord chancellor, reporting a ' great disorder ' 
 at The Theatre on the previous Sunday, which 
 he had taken measures to investigate. He says 
 he thinks it his duty to inform the lord chancellor 
 that the players of plays used at The Theatre 
 and other such places, and tumblers and such-like, 
 are a very superfluous sort of men, and of such 
 faculty as the laws had disallowed, and that the 
 exercise of the plays was a great hindrance to the 
 service of God.* Although provoked by a special 
 occasion, this official document speaks the sense of 
 the whole Puritan opposition, and it is obvious 
 that the opposition was much influenced by the 
 holding of plays on Sunday. This survival from 
 pre-Reformation times, when religious plays were 
 appropriately acted on Sunday, led to hilarious 
 pleasure-making, which in the view of many Pro- 
 testant and Puritan citizens merited present chas- 
 tisement from the Almighty. It is small wonder 
 that in that age the mysterious and deadly visita- 
 tions of the plague should have engendered the 
 habit of regarding earthly ills as sent specially by 
 an all-seeing and all-caring Providence as punish- 
 ments for individual sins or the godlessness of the 
 community. The citizen was accustomed to those 
 periodical seasons of gloom and sadness, when a 
 sign over the doorway, with the piteous formula 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 350. ' 
 
The Theatre. 57 
 
 * Lord, have mercy upon us !' would warn him from 
 the house of his friend, and his helplessness in the 
 presence of the terrible disease clouded his reason. 
 When, on a Sunday in January, 1583, during a 
 performance at the Bear Garden, the scaffolds gave 
 way, so that many people met their death, the 
 accident was regarded as a punishment direct from 
 the hand of God for the desecration of the Sabbath ; 
 and when the plague recurred it was attributed to 
 the gatherings at plays. A great deal of the 
 righteous indignation levelled against the players 
 proceeded from the fact that the cause of the 
 plague was unknown, and could not be discovered. 
 The lord mayor was frequently in communica- 
 tion with the government in regard to measures to 
 be taken for the stay and prevention of the pesti- 
 lence. In reply to a special command received 
 from the queen in June, 1580, 'for the preserving 
 of the city from infection,' the lord mayor reports 
 the steps taken to this end, and takes occasion to 
 request the aid of the council ' for the redress of 
 such things as were found dangerous in spreading 
 the infection and otherwise drawing God's wrath 
 and plague upon the city, such as the erecting and 
 frequenting of infamous houses out of the liberties 
 and jurisdiction of the city, the drawing of the 
 people from the service of God and honest exer- 
 cises, to unchaste plays.'* If the mayor had given 
 
 * ' Remembrancia/ p. 330. 
 
£8 London Theatres. 
 
 more direct expression to his meaning he would 
 probably have said that if her majesty could be 
 induced to command certain courtiers of her 
 council to cancel the licences under which their 
 companies of players acted in the city and neigh- 
 bourhood, all would be well. In July of the fol- 
 lowing year the council themselves requested the 
 lord mayor and magistrates of Middlesex to give 
 orders that no plays or interludes be played within 
 the city or liberties ; and in September a further 
 communication was addressed to the lord mayor 
 and aldermen on the general measures for the pre- 
 vention of the plague.* And yet in November 
 the council write again to say : ' As the sickness 
 was almost ceased, and was not likely to increase 
 at this time of the year, in order to relieve the 
 poor players, and to encourage their being in readi- 
 ness with convenient matters for her highness's 
 solace this next Christmas, they required them 
 forthwith to suffer the players to practise such 
 plays, in such sort, and in the usual places, as they 
 had been accustomed, having careful regard for the 
 continuance of such quiet order as had been before 
 observed.'"!" In the spring of the following year, 
 1582, the lords of the council wrote again to the 
 lord mayor, in favour of the players. The object 
 of the communication is to cause the lord mayor 
 to allow plays in the city, so that the companies 
 * ' Remembrancia/ p. 331. t Hid., -p, 350. 
 
The Theatre. 59 
 
 acting at The Theatre are not in question. But it 
 will serve to illustrate the respective attitudes of 
 the council and the city towards each other in this 
 matter if we notice one or two points in this letter, 
 and in the reply of the lord mayor which was sent 
 the following day. My lords think it would not 
 be unfit at that time to allow the players in the 
 city, in respect that her majesty sometimes took 
 delight in those pastimes, and that they might 
 thereby attain more dexterity and perfection in 
 that profession, the better to content her majesty. 
 It is suggested that they be restrained from playing 
 on the Sabbath, and only permitted on the ordinary 
 holidays after evening prayer. If the exercise of 
 the plays should increase the sickness and infection, 
 the lord mayor should communicate to the coun- 
 cil. My lords also suggest that the city should 
 * appoint some proper person to consider and allow 
 such plays only as were fitted to yield honest 
 recreation and no example of evil.' The reply of 
 the mayor is a rehearsal of the inconveniences and 
 perils of the plays, and a request that the council 
 will continue their restraint of plays. Incidentally 
 he shows us that plays in the city were presented 
 in inns, probably the inn-yards : ' Although the 
 players began not their plays till after evening 
 service, yet all the afternoon they took in hearers, 
 and filled the place with such as were thereby 
 absent from Church, and attended to serve God's 
 
6o London Theatres. 
 
 The suggestion as to over- 
 looking the plays would be carried out. 
 
 In the spring of the following year (May 3, 
 1583) the lord mayor addresses the council 
 through Sir Francis Walsingham. He says that 
 for the stay of the plague the court of ialdermen 
 had published certain orders which they intended 
 to execute with diligence. ' Among other great 
 inconveniences were the assemblies of people to 
 plays, bear-baiting, fencers, and profane spectacles 
 at The Theatre and Curtain and other like places, 
 to which great multitudes of the worst sort of 
 people resorted.' He points out that the restraints 
 in the city were useless, unless like orders were 
 carried out in the places adjoining beyond the 
 jurisdiction of the city, and requests the council to 
 take steps to redress the danger, t There is no 
 evidence, however, that the council moved in the 
 matter ; but Sir Francis Walsingham, who seems 
 to have been a true fri,end to the players at this 
 critical period, adopted a very diplomatic step in 
 their behalf This was to bring the name and 
 authority of the queen to bear upon the issue. 
 He caused a selection to be made from the best 
 companies of the best actors ot each, and had them 
 enrolled under the Master of the Revels as the 
 queen's company of players ; and in the autumn, 
 when the council again addressed the mayor on 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 351. t Ibid., p. 337. 
 
The Theatre. 6i 
 
 behalf of the players, the communication came 
 in the • flattering guise of a direct request from 
 court in favour of her majesty's servants.* On 
 November 26, 1583, the council write to the 
 effect that as the infection within the city had 
 ceased, they desired that 'her majesty's players^ 
 might be suffered to play as heretofore, more espe- 
 cially as they were shortly to present some of their 
 doings before her. It would appear that the Earl 
 of Leicester's company, which had been acting at 
 The Theatre, furnished the chief contingent to- 
 wards the formation of the new royal company ; 
 hence the above request to the mayor was made on 
 behalf of the very men who had so long been a thorn 
 in the side of the city authorities, A few days later, 
 on December i, 1583, Sir Francis Walsingham 
 wrote to the lord mayor in the name of the council, 
 
 * ' Comedians and stage-players of former time were very 
 poore and ignorant in respect of these of this time, but being 
 now growne very skilfull and exquisite Actors for all matters, 
 they were entertained into the service of divers great lords, 
 out of which Companies there were xii. of the best chosen, 
 and at the request of Sir Francis Walsingham they were 
 sworn the Queenes servants, and were allowed wages and 
 liveries as groomes of the chamber : and untill this yeere, 
 1583, the Queene hadde no players, amongst these xii. 
 players were two rare men, viz., Thomas Wilson for a quicke 
 delicate refined extemporall witte, and Richard Tarleton for 
 a wondrous plentifull pleasant extemporall. witt, he was the 
 wonder of his time. He lyeth buryed in Shofe-ditch Church,' 
 Stow's ' Annales,' ed. 161 5, p, 697, 
 
62 London Theatres. 
 
 enforcing the request for permission to the players : 
 ' With regard to the letter of the council on behalf 
 of her majesty's players, which the lord mayor 
 had interpreted to extend only to holidays, and 
 not to other week-days, the council, considering 
 that without frequent exercise of such plays as 
 were to be presented before her majesty her 
 servants could not conveniently satisfy her recrea- 
 tion and their own duty, desired that they should 
 be licensed to perform upon week-days and work- 
 days, at convenient times, between this and 
 Shrovetide (Sundays only excepted).'* 
 
 It must have been harassing to the city fathers 
 to receive commands from the queen in council 
 touching the stay of the plague, frequently in 
 terms implying blame or reproach — as when her 
 majesty intimated that she had been compelled to 
 remove her court from the neighbourhood of 
 London in consequence of the spread of the in- 
 fection — while the measures they persistently re- 
 commended were evaded by the council. The 
 fact is, that the question of the plague and the 
 plays revealed a difference between the court and 
 the city which was spreading throughout the 
 country, dividing it into two sides. The favour 
 extended to the players by the court and nobility 
 deepened and accelerated the Puritan development. 
 The Theatre was opened in 1576, and in the 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 352. 
 
The Theatre. 63 
 
 following year was published John Northbrooke's 
 'Treatise against Dicing, Dancing, Plays, and 
 Interludes, with other Idle Pastimes.' There had 
 been previous tracts in the same strain, but this 
 was ' the earliest, separate, and systematic attack,' 
 and it was levelled principally at the players and 
 their patrons. Taken altogether, it is an able 
 performance, abounding with good, sober wisdom ; 
 but it is clear the worthy author had got himself 
 thoroughly convinced that the door of a playhouse 
 was equivalent to ' hell-mouth.' The public pre- 
 ference for plays over sermons provoked the good 
 preacher's worst reproaches, and perhaps profes- 
 sional jealousy barbed his invective. The argu- 
 ment of his book is in the form of a dialogue, 
 perhaps to show that the players had no monopoly 
 in this device. The two interlocutors are ' Youth' 
 and ' Age.' At a certain point the former is made 
 to ask : ' Doe you speake against those places also, 
 whiche are made vppe and builded for such playes 
 and enterludes as the Theatre and Curtaine is, 
 and other such lyke places besides V And ' Age ' 
 replies : ' Yea, truly ; for I am persuaded that 
 Satan hath not a more speedie way and fitter 
 schoole to work and teach his desire, to bring 
 men and women into his snare of concupiscence 
 and filthie lustes of wicked whoredome, than those 
 places and plays and theatres are ; and therefore 
 necessarie that those places and players shoulde 
 
64 London Theatres. 
 
 be forbidden, and dissolved, and put downe by 
 authoritie, as the brothell houses and stewes are.'* 
 In the following year (August 24, 1578) John 
 Stockwood attacked The Theatre in a sermon 
 preached at Paul's Cross. Speaking of players, he 
 says : ' 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 place 
 erected in the fields, than term it, as they please 
 to have it called, a Theatre.'f In the same ser- 
 mon he asks : ' Wyll not a fylthye playe wyth 
 the blast of a trumpette sooner call thyther a 
 thousande than an houres tolling of a bell bring 
 to the sermon a hundred .'' — nay, even heere in the 
 . Citie, without it be at this place and some other 
 certaine ordinarie audience, where shall you finde 
 a reasonable company ? — whereas if you resorte to 
 the TJieatre, the Curtayne, and other places of 
 players in the Citie, you shall on the Lord's Day 
 have these places, with many other that I cannot 
 reckon, so full as possible they can throng. 't 
 That the preacher allowed himself some license in 
 
 * Northbrooke's ' Treatise,' etc., edited by J. P. Collier for 
 Shakespeare Society, pp. 85, 86. 
 
 t Collier, ' History of Dramatic Poetry,' etc., iii. 84. 
 
 X Halliwell-Phillipps, ' Outlines,' etc., 6th edition, i, 328. 
 
The Theatre. 65 
 
 speaking of plays as ' filthy ' is shown by his 
 attacking also the books from which the drama- 
 tists took their plots — ' such filthie books, where- 
 with this (Saint Paul's) churchyard swarmeth.' 
 
 The st^e continued to be subject to the attacks 
 of the pulpit, and the state of dread produced by 
 the plague enabled the preachers to work on the 
 fears of the citizens. It must be conceded that 
 those responsible for the performances at The 
 Theatre showed little disposition to disarm attack. 
 Allusion has already been made to the 'great 
 disorder ' which occurred there on a Sunday, in 
 April, 1580. There was a disturbance outside 
 The Theatre in June, 1 5 84, described in a letter to 
 Lord Burghley. These disturbances of the peace 
 were probably partly due to the fact that The 
 Theatre, as well as its neighbour the Curtain Play- 
 house, was often let on hire to other companies, 
 and for other purposes than plays. 
 
 We are without information as to the dimen- 
 sions of The Theatre, but the known facts point 
 to its having been of considerable size, and 
 probably decorative in character. It was built 
 of timber, and therefore the cost of the erection 
 between ;^6oo and ;^700, a large sum at that 
 time, suggests size and extent of building. A 
 good deaK)f the money may have been expended 
 in decoration and accessories: Stockwood termed 
 it a ' gorgeous playing-place.* < AH the attacks 
 
66 London Theatres. 
 
 upon The Theatre, by Puritan divines and the city 
 authorities, show that the public patronage was 
 large and constant. Apparently such a thing as a 
 * poor house ' was unknown at the first London 
 theatre ; and assuredly the prices were ' popular.' 
 In Lambarde's ' Perambulation of Kent ' we read 
 that none who go to Paris Garden, the Bell 
 Savage or Theatre, ' to beholde beare baiting, 
 interludes or fence play, can account of any 
 pleasant spectacle unlesse they first pay one pennie 
 at the gate, another at the entrie of the scafFolde. 
 and the third for a quiet standing.' This passage 
 has been long familiar in Collier's * History of 
 Dramatic Poetry,' but in a somewhat charac- 
 teristic way he slurred over a point of importance. 
 He says, 'We are able to show that it [The 
 Theatre] was in existence in 1576, because it is 
 mentioned by name in Lambarde's "Perambula- 
 tion of Kent," first published in that year ;' and 
 then he gives the passage (not quite correctly). 
 This passage is not in the 1576 edition at all, but 
 occurs in the edition of 1596.* Nash, in his 
 'Martin's Month's Mind,' 1589, says that better 
 mirth may be had for a penny at The Theatre and 
 Curtain, and any blind playing-house, every day. 
 But the penny only admitted to standing room in 
 the yard or pit, over which there was no roof. 
 
 * First pointed out by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, ' Outlines/ 
 etc., 6th edition, i. 34.7. 
 
The Theatre. 67 
 
 The interior of the house was probably nearly 
 identical with that of the Swan Playhouse (see 
 posted). The author of ' Pappe with an Hatchet,' 
 1589, speaks of twopence as the usual price of 
 admission at The Theatre ; but we know from 
 Lambarde's testimony that this sum admitted to--/ 
 the galleries around. There were also boxes or I 
 rooms and seats in the galleries, for which further s 
 sums were charged. In the proposed lease tsJ 
 Burbage of 1585, the following provision was 
 made : ' And further that yt shall or maye be 
 lawfuil for the sayde Gyles [Allen] and for hys 
 wyfe and familie, upon lawfuU request therefore 
 made to the sayde Jeames Efurbage, his executors 
 or assignes, to enter or come into the premisses, 
 and their in some one of the upper romes to 
 have such convenient place to sett or stande to 
 se such playes as shal be ther played, freely with- 
 out anything therefore payeinge, soe that the sayde 
 Gyles, hys wyfe and familie, doe come and take 
 ther places before they shal be taken upp by any 
 others,'* 
 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps collected some allusions 
 to plays given at The Theatre in contemporary 
 literature ; e.g., Gosson's ' School of Abuse ' — ' The 
 Blacksmith's Daughter and Catilins Conspiracies, 
 usually brought in to the Theater ' ; the same 
 author's ' Plays Confuted in Five Actions ' — ' The 
 
 * Halliwell-Phillipps, ' Outlines,' etc., 6th edition, i. 347 
 
 5—2 
 
68 London Theatres. 
 
 Playe of Playes showeti at the Theater the three 
 and twentieth of Februarie last' (1581-82). In 
 the same work Gosson refers to ' the history of 
 Cassar and Pompey and the playe of the Fabii' 
 as having been acted at The Theatre about the 
 same time ; he also mentions ' that glosing plaie 
 at the Theater which profers you so faire/ but 
 in which there was a ' baudie song of a maide of 
 Kent, and a litle beastly speach of the new strawled 
 roge.' The old play of 'Hamlet,' which preceded 
 Shakespeare's, was acted at The Theatre. Lodge, 
 in his 'Wits Miserie,' 1596, speaks of one who 
 ' looks as pale as the visard of the ghost which 
 cries so miserably at the Theater, like an oister- 
 wife, Hamlet, revenge! Kit Marlowe's noble play, 
 ' Faustus,' was given at The Theatre, as is shown 
 by an allusion in the 'Blacke Booke' (1604): 
 ' He had a head of hayre like one of my divells 
 in Dr. Faustus, when the olde Theatre crackt and 
 frighted the audience.' This was after Shake- 
 speare had left the management of Henslowe, and 
 hence we know that at The Theatre he continued 
 to hear the music of ' Marlowe's mighty line,' 
 which constantly reverberates in his own. 
 
 A conspicuous feature of the performances at 
 The Theatre were jigs and drolls and more or 
 less impromptu pleasantries to the accompaniment 
 of tabor and pipe, in which Tarlton, and after- 
 wards Kempe, greatly distinguished themselves. 
 
t1 
 
 Tarkons Jefts. 
 
 Drawne into thefe three parts. 
 
 1 His Coun-witty Jefis . 
 
 2 His found City hjts. 
 
 3 His Countrej pretty lefts. 
 
 Full of delight,Wit, ahd honeft Mirth. 
 
 „ . ^ ON Tt o isr. 
 
 rrmtedby/./f. for j^ndreivCreefi^ani Are tobefold 
 in Pauls Chtirchjarcl,at the/igne of 
 
 Facsimile of Title-page of Tarlton's 'Jbsts.' 
 
70 London Theatres. 
 
 The opposition of the city authorities and the in- 
 vectives of the Puritan preachers were frequently 
 the subject of their satire, and there can be little 
 doubt that these stings and flying arrows of wit 
 helped to embitter the feeling with which The 
 Theatre players were regarded by a slowly in- 
 creasing number of the citizens. This subject is 
 dealt with more fully in connection with the Cur- 
 tain playhouse in the succeeding chapter. In June, 
 1584, in consequence of some disturbances at The 
 Theatre, the lord mayor sent two aldermen to the 
 court to make representations ' for the suppressing 
 and pulling downe of the Theatre and Curten.' 
 The circumstance is described in a letter from 
 Fleetwood to Lord Burghley in the Lansdowne 
 MS.* The aldermen succeeded in persuading all 
 the lords of the council to their views, with the 
 exception of the lord chamberlain and the vice- 
 chancellor ; ' but we obteyned a lettre to suppresse 
 theym all.' Upon the same night, writes Fleet- 
 wood, ' I sent for the Queues players and my lord 
 of Arundel his players, and they all well nighe 
 obeyed the Lordes lettres ; — the chiefest of her 
 Highnes players advised me to send for the owner 
 of the Theater, who was a stubborne fellow, and 
 to bynd him ; — I did so ; — he sent me word that 
 he was my Lord of Hunsden's man, and that he 
 
 * Printed by Halliwell-Phillipps, ' Outlines,' 6th edition, 
 i. 349- 
 
The Theatre. 7.1 
 
 wold not comme at me, but he wold in the 
 mornyng ride to my Lord, — then I sent the 
 under-sherefF for hym, and he brought him to 
 me, and, at his commyng, he showted me owt 
 very justice ; and in the end I shewed hym my 
 Lotd his master's hand, and then he was more 
 quiet ; but, to die for it, he wold not be bound. 
 And then I mynding to send him to prison, he 
 made sute that he might be bounde to appere at 
 the oier and determiner, the which is to-morowe, 
 where he said that he was suer the court wold not 
 bynd hym, being a counselers man ; and so I have 
 graunted his request, where he shal be sure to be 
 bounde, or els ys lyke to do worse.' 
 
 The owner of The Theatre here alluded to may 
 have been Burbage, or Braynes, or he may have been 
 Hyde, the assignee of the property. Or for owner, 
 perhaps, we should read lessee or occupier, seeing 
 that the house was frequently let to other com- 
 panies of players. In the foregoing notices the com- 
 panies referred to as acting at The Theatre include 
 Lord Leicester's, the Chamberlain's, Lord War- 
 wick's, the Queen's, and perhaps Lord Arundel's. 
 
 It was in the following year that Shakespeare 
 came to London, and although we have no inform- 
 ation respecting his dramatic career till 1592, it 
 may safely be assumed that the tradition as to his 
 connection with The Theatre soon after his arrival 
 in the metropolis had some foundation in fact. 
 
72 London Theatres. 
 
 And although he was writing and acting for the 
 Bankside and Surrey playhouses between 1592 and 
 1594, we know that at the latter date he had 
 joined the Chamberlain's Company, which per- 
 formed at The Theatre and Curtain. It was in 
 December of 1594 that the company gave a per- 
 formance before the queen at Greenwich Palace, 
 as appears by the entry recorded in the MS. 
 accounts of the treasurer of the chamber, and 
 printed by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps :* ' To William 
 Kempe, William Shakespeare, and Richard Bur- 
 bage, servants to the Lord Chamberleyne, upon the 
 Councelles warrant dated at Whitehall xv. to 
 Marcij, 1594, for twoe severall comedies or enter- 
 ludes shewed by them before her Majestie in 
 Christmas tyme laste paste, viz., upon St. Stephen's 
 daye and Innocentes daye, xiij//. v]s. viij<^., and 
 by waye of her Majesties rewarde, vj/«. xiijj. iiiji^., 
 in all xx//.' 
 
 In 1592 it was feared the London apprentices 
 would create riots on Midsummer night, and the 
 lords of the council ordered that there should be 
 no plays at ' The Theater, Curtayne or other 
 usuall places where the same are commonly used.' 
 And in 1595, the year after the company had per- 
 formed before the queen at Greenwich, the lord 
 mayor made a strong representation to the 
 council to close all the playhouses resorted to 
 ' 'Outlines,' 6th edition, i. 109. 
 
The Theatre. 73 
 
 by Londoners outside his jurisdiction, which had 
 become the rendezvous for ' all masterless men 
 and vagabond persons that haunt the highways.'* 
 Again, in 1597, a further request was made to the 
 council, -f and this time with effect, for on the same 
 day, July 28, the privy council issued an order 
 to the Justices of Middlesex for the suppression 
 of The Theatre and other playhouses : ' Her 
 Majestie being informed that there are verie greate 
 disorders committed in the common playhouses, 
 both by lewd matters that are handled on the 
 stages, and by resorte and confluence of bad 
 people, hathe given direction that not onlie no 
 plaies shal be used within London or about the 
 citty, or in any publique place, during this tyme of 
 sommer, but that also those playhouses that are 
 erected and built only for suche purposes shal be 
 plucked downe, namelie the Curtayne and the 
 Theatre nere to Shoreditch, or any other within 
 that county. Theis are therfore in her Majesties 
 name to chardge and commaund you that you take 
 present order there be no more plaies used in any 
 publique place within three myles of the citty 
 untill Alhallontide next, and likewyse that you do 
 send for the owner of the Curtayne, Theatre or 
 anie other common playhouse, and enjoyne them 
 by vertue hereof forthwith to plucke downe quite 
 the stages, galleries and roomes that are made for 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 3 54. f Hid. 
 
74 London Theatres. 
 
 people to stand in, and so to deface the same as 
 they maie not be ymploied agayne to such use, 
 which yf they shall not speedely performe you 
 shall advertyse us, that order maie be taken to see 
 the same don according to her Majesties pleasure 
 and commaundment.'* 
 
 We have seen that in 1597 James Burbage died 
 in the midst of negotiations with Giles Allen for a 
 continuation of the lease, and that his heirs and 
 successors, Cuthbert and Richard Burbage, would 
 not agree to the condition imposed by Allen that 
 The Theatre should continue as a playhouse for only 
 five years after the expiration of the existing lease, 
 1 576-1 597. After this came the order of the 
 privy council to suppress and pluck down the 
 playhouses. It was, indeed, a troubled year for 
 the Burbages, and although the order of the 
 council was stayed or compromised in some way, 
 for The Theatre was not plucked down and 
 demolished, the family must have felt they were 
 on the verge of ruin. The remedy they finally 
 sought was a desperate one, although not ille- 
 gitimate. They resolved in the following year to 
 take advantage of the condition in the original 
 lease by which they were empowered (having 
 expended a minimum sum of ;^2oo upon buildings 
 on the estate) to take down and carry away ' all 
 such buildings and other things as should be 
 * Halliwell-Phillipps, 'Outlines,' etc., 6th edition,!. 330, 
 
The Theatre. 75 
 
 builded.' This stipulation was inserted in the 
 proposed lease of 1585. The Burbages engaged 
 one Peter Street, a builder and carpenter, to 
 remove the building, and the work was carried 
 out either in December, 1598, or January, 1599. 
 Allen had himself contemplated demolishing The 
 Theatre and converting the materials to some 
 other use, although his right to do so does not 
 appear. The Burbages anticipated this design, 
 and the doubtful point of their proceedings con- 
 sisted in the fact that they were acting upon a 
 condition in a lease which was actually expired, 
 although the tenancy continued. This led to the 
 suit Allen v. Burbage, 44 Eliz., from the records 
 of which Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps printed several 
 interesting extracts, among them the following 
 narrative of the * removal ' of The Theatre, given 
 by Allen in his bill of complaint against Cuthbert 
 Burbage, who ' unlawfuUye combyninge and con- 
 federating himselfe with the sayd Richard Burbage 
 and one Peter Streat, William Smyth, and divers 
 other persons, to the number of twelve, ^o your 
 subject unknowne, did aboute the eight and twen- 
 tyth daye of December, in the one and fortyth 
 yeere of your Highnes raygne, and sythence 
 your highnes last and generall pardon by the 
 confederacye aforesayd, ryoutouslye assemble 
 themselves together, and then and there armed 
 themselves with dyvers and manye unlawfiall and 
 
76 London Theatres. 
 
 offensive weapons, as namelye, swordes, daggers, 
 bilks, axes, and such like, and soe armed, did 
 then repayre unto the sayd Theater, and then 
 and there, armed as aforesayd, in verye ryotous, 
 outragious, and forcyble manner, and contrarye to 
 the lawes of your highnes realme, attempted to 
 pull downe the sayd Theater ; whereuppon divers 
 of your subjectes, servauntes and farmers, then 
 goinge aboute in peaceable manner to procure 
 them to desist from that their unlawful! enterpryse, 
 they the sayd ryotous persons aforesayd, notwith- 
 standing procured then therein, with greate vyo- 
 lence, not onlye then and there forcyblye and 
 ryotouslye resisting your subjectes, servauntes, and 
 farmers, but also then and there pulling, breaking, 
 and throwing downe the sayd Theater in verye 
 outragious, violent, and riotous sort, to the great 
 disturbance and terrefyeing not onlye of your 
 subjectes sayd servauntes and farmers, but of divers 
 others of your Majesties loving subjectes there 
 neere inhabitinge ; and having so done, did then 
 alsoe in most forcible and ryotous manner take 
 and carrye awaye from thence all the wood and 
 timber thereof unto the Bancksyde in the parishe 
 -of St. Marye Overyes, and there erected a newe 
 playhowse with the sayd timber and wood.'* That 
 ' newe playhowse ' was the famous Globe Theatre, 
 rendered immortal by its association with the 
 greatest of Shakespeare's plays. 
 
 * 'Outlines,' etc., 6th edition, i. 334-5. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CURTAIN. 
 
 THE litigious troubles of the Burbages, by 
 employment given to the scriveners, 
 wrought a benefit to history. Facts relating to 
 The Theatre became embedded in the chronicle 
 of conflicting interests, and lay waiting three 
 hundred years for the zealous research of tlte 
 late J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps. The career of the 
 Curtain was presumably more peaceful ; with the 
 resvdt that we know less about it. As to who 
 built it, the date of its opening, how much it cost 
 — all points on which information has been dis- 
 covered in respect of The Theatre — we know 
 nothing at all. 
 
 That the Curtain was the second playhouse 
 erected in London we infer from the facts : (i) 
 the Burbagesi distinctly claim that The Theatre 
 was the first playhouse built in England ; (2) the 
 names of The Theatre and the Curtain are coupled 
 in allusions shortly after The Theatre was opened, 
 
78 London Theatres. 
 
 when no other playhouses but these two were in 
 existence. 
 
 It is remarkable that a name of such apparent 
 theatrical significance as the Curtain was not sug- 
 gested by anything connected with the stage. As 
 will have been gathered in the preceding chapter, 
 the Curtain was erected in the near neighbourhood 
 of The Theatre, within the precinct of the dis- 
 solved Priory of Holywell ; the name of the play- 
 house being derived from the land on which it was 
 erected. This land is mentioned in a lease in the 
 year 1538, shortly after the dissolution of the 
 establishment to which it belonged : ' . . . ac 
 duo stabula et unum fenilem supra edificatum, 
 scituata et existentia extra portas ejusdem nuper 
 monasterii prope pasturam dicte nuper Priorisse 
 vocatam the Curtene!* The gates of the Priory 
 opened into Holywell Lane on the northern side 
 of the road, and consequently, as the ground 
 called the Curtain was outside the gates, it must 
 have been on the southern side of the road. From 
 Stow's description of The Theatre and Curtain, as 
 being near the site of the dissolved priory, and 
 both standing on the south-west side towards the 
 Field, we may conclude that the Curtain play- 
 house was erected on a part of the ground called the 
 Curtain, which lay near the road — Holywell Lane. 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps discovered, from a deed 
 dated in March, 1 581, that the land gave its name 
 * J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, 'Outlines,' etc., i. 338. 
 
The Curtain. 79 
 
 to a house erected upon it — the Curtain House— 
 ' all that the house, tenemente or lodge commonlie 
 called the Curtayne, and also that parcell of 
 grounde and close walled and inclosed with a 
 bricke wall on the west and northe partes, and in 
 parte with a mudde wall at the west side or ende 
 towardes the southe, called also the Curtayne 
 Close, sometimes apperteyning to the late Priorie 
 of Halliwell, nowe dissolved.' Curtain House, 
 apparently, was not the playhouse, but both these 
 buildings were erected on the Curtain Close, or 
 estate. ' The church being pulled downe,' says 
 Stow, ' many houses have been there builded for 
 the lodgings of noblemen, of straungers borne, and 
 other ' — a statement that is corroborated by some 
 Chancery papers of the year 1 59 1 : — ' the grounde 
 there was for the most parte converted firste into 
 garden plottes, and then leasinge the same to divers 
 tenauntes caused them to covenaunt or promise to 
 build uppon the same, by occasion wherof the build- -£~ 
 ings which are there were for the most parte erected 
 and the rentes encreased.'* The site of the play- 
 house is marked as Curtain Court in Chassereau's 
 plan of Shoreditch, 1745, a section from which is 
 here given. ' This Court was afterwards called 
 Gloucester Row, and is now known as Gloucester 
 Street. 't The name survives in Curtain Road, 
 Shoreditch. 
 
 * Halliwell-Phillipps, ' Outlines,' 6th edition, i. 339. 
 1 1 hid. 
 
8o London Theatres. 
 
 The two playhouses stood so close together that 
 their names were very frequently coupled in con- 
 temporary allusions and descriptions, as in the case 
 of Stow referred to above. Their contiguity is 
 remarkable, and would appear to strengthen the 
 arguments already advanced as to the significance 
 of the site. If it had been a matter of rival 
 theatrical speculations, it might be supposed that 
 the opposing party would have chosen a spot more 
 removed from the house already in possession. 
 But there was no available spot outside the civic 
 jurisdiction equally near the city, and the dramatic 
 predilections of the site have already been indi- 
 cated. It was probably less a matter of rivalry 
 than a kind of double-barrelled gun aimed at the 
 corporation, in the spirit attributed to the players 
 by Stockwood in his sermon, ' There, let them say 
 what they will, we will play.' 
 
 In the last chapter emphasis was given to the 
 fact that these playhouses. The Theatre and Cur- 
 tain, were erected in the immediate vicinity of 
 Finsbury Fields — the northern recreation ground 
 of the citizens — and stress was laid upon the 
 colouring from ancient sports and pastimes which 
 accrued therefrom in the Elizabethan drama. 
 Before recurring to this subject we may well 
 advert for a moment to the view which has 
 excluded it from its place in the history of the 
 stage, the view, viz., according to which the stage 
 
The Curtain. 8i 
 
 is regarded as a product of the patronage of the 
 court and aristocracy. That view depends on the 
 fact that the companies pursued their caUing 
 under licence of the queen and of various noble- 
 men, chiefly members of the privy council. The 
 fact is indisputable, but it should be balanced by 
 other considerations. In the body politic at that 
 time every individual was bound to be of some 
 definite faculty or status, or else he was classed as 
 a rogue and vagabond. Special cases were met byil 
 license or grant of privilege. A man who set up 
 a new industry which he had learnt abroad, would 
 belong to no guild or mystery in respect of a new 
 experiment, and accordingly, to save himself from 
 being an alien from the body politic, he sought a 
 special licence to carry on his work, and take up 
 v/orkmen for the purpose. An inventor sought 
 the same privilege, and as inventions were con- 
 strued as national benefits, his grant of privilege 
 received the addition of an inhibitory clause 
 against any other persons working the subject of 
 the invention for a given period. There was a 
 devolution of recognition firom the crown, or from 
 corporations within their jurisdictions, throughout 
 the body politic, and those who could not bring 
 themselves within that recognition were practically 
 outlaws. These considerations account for the 
 freedom enjoyed by the acting companies, who, 
 although organized nominally as private servants, 
 
 6 
 
82 London Theatres. 
 
 pursued their calling in public. And when they 
 sought the suffrages of the public in public places 
 they distinctly came within the traditional usages 
 of dramatic representation. Those traditional 
 usages have been pointed out in the two preceding 
 chapters. If the round formation for theatrical 
 purposes was originally derived from ancient classic 
 civilization, it was the English folk who, by using 
 the amphitheatres for their traditional observances 
 and pastimes, begot the use of them for miracle 
 plays, from which was derived the circular stage 
 arrangement when plays were presented in the 
 open, and hence the round formation of the play- 
 houses. The playhouses were the outcome of the 
 people, the national life and character, and when 
 they came into the dramatic evolution they pro- 
 vided a point of contact between the highest and 
 lowest. Only in the churches and in the play- 
 houses did all sections of Elizabethan society meet, 
 attracted in both cases by appeals which are felt 
 without respect to social distinctions. 
 
 These observations are introduced in reference 
 to the passage from Stow already given, wherein 
 the chronicler says that 'many houses have been 
 builded ' for noblemen, foreigners and others 
 within the precinct of the old Holywell Priory, 
 and ' near thereunto are builded two publique 
 houses,' etc.. The Theatre and Curtain. To those 
 who hold that our national drama was an exotic 
 
The Curtain. 83 
 
 planted in English soil by royal and aristocratic 
 hands, we would point out that the presence of 
 noblemen in the neighbourhood of the playhouses 
 may be used to support their view, and bid them 
 make the best of the argument. The same com- 
 bination existed in the case of Blackfriars Theatre, 
 as we shall see later on. The liberties appear to 
 have been favourite residential quarters. One may 
 fancy that among the ' strangers born ' in the 
 liberty of Holywell may have been some of the 
 continental masters of fence who favoured our 
 shores at this period. The Curtain, as well as 
 The Theatre, was used for fencing matches and 
 exhibitions of sword-play. Herein, again, the 
 process was the same. It was in the playhouses 
 that the broadsword and quarterstaff of the people 
 encountered the rapier and the foil. The worthy 
 citizen in the presence of the scientific play of the 
 lighter weapons might feel abashed, but it was his 
 well-known love for sword-play which begot the 
 exhibitions of the more artistic methods of killing. 
 The military associations of Finsbury Fields 
 have already been touched upon, a more extended 
 reference to them being reserved for this place. 
 The Artillery Company, which was incorporated 
 by Henry VIII., in 1537, met in the Old Artillery 
 Garden, at the top of Artillery Lane, Bishopsgate. 
 The charter of incorporation instituted ' overseers 
 of the Science of Artyllary, that is to wyt, for 
 
 6—2 
 
84 London Theatres. 
 
 Longbowes, Crossbowes and Handgunnes.' The 
 Statute of 33 Henry VIII. (1541) enacted that all 
 men under 60 should have bows and arrows for 
 shooting. The London citizens practised at the 
 butts in Finsbury Fields. Musters of the trained 
 bands were also held there. Those musters pre- 
 sented no mean spectacle. The city was proud of 
 its army, and frequently showed itself ready not 
 only to muster for the defence of the realm, but to 
 contribute contingents, numbered by thousands, to 
 assist the sovereign in foreign wars. 
 
 The patriotic and warlike sentiments of the 
 citizens were conspicuously displayed when the 
 Earl of Essex left London on his expedition for 
 the subjugation of Ireland. Shakespeare's friend 
 and patron. Lord Southampton, was the General 
 of the Horse in the earl's army, and after the 
 departure of the expedition in March, 1599, the 
 poet composed the stirring drama of ' Henry V.,' 
 which was an oblique reflection of the enthusiasm 
 with which the earl was regarded in London, and 
 of the hopeful expectation with which the populace 
 awaited his victorious return. The play was acted 
 at the Curtain, presumably by the Burbage and 
 Shakespeare company, and was exceedingly popular. 
 As this occurred shortly after the removal of that 
 company's playhouse, The Theatre, from Shore- 
 ditch, the production of the play at the Curtain 
 may indicate a desire on the part of Shakespeare's 
 
The Curtain. 85 
 
 company to retain their hold upon the neighbour- 
 hood which they had left. But the martial note 
 which dominates the piece, and the stirring inci- 
 dents of war which constitute the action, were 
 appropriate to the military associations of the 
 neighbourhood, as well as to the fencing matches 
 frequently held in the playhouse ; and this may 
 have been the reason why the play was produced 
 at the Curtain rather than at the Globe. 
 
 The prologue of the play, spoken before each 
 act, throws considerable light upon the Curtain 
 and other Elizabethan playhouses. 
 
 In the prologue to the first act the playhouse is 
 compared to a 'cockpit,' and described as a 
 * wooden O ' : 
 
 ' But pardon, gentles all, 
 
 The flat unraised spirits that have dared 
 On this unworthy scafFold to bring forth 
 So great an object : can this cockpit hold 
 The vasty fields of France ? or may we cram 
 Within the, wooden O the very casques 
 That did affright the air at Agincourt ?', 
 
 The prologue appeals to the imagination of the 
 audience, and proceeds to paint the scenery of the 
 play in words. The address which heralds the 
 second act concludes thus : 
 
 ' and the scene 
 
 Is now transported, gentles, to Southampton ; 
 There is the playhouse now, there must you sit ; 
 And thence to France shall we convey you safe. 
 
86 London Theatres. 
 
 And bring you back, charming the narrow seas 
 To give you gentle pass ; for, if we may. 
 We'll not offend one stomach with our play. 
 But, till the king come forth, and not till then. 
 Unto Southampton do we shift our scene.' 
 
 The prologue of the third act begins : 
 
 ' Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies 
 
 In motion of no less celerity 
 , Than that of thought,' 
 
 and the Enghsh navy on its way to Harfleur is 
 brought before the mind's eye of the audience. 
 The prologue of the fourth act heralds the great 
 conflict of Agincourt : 
 
 ' And so our scene must to the battle fly ; 
 Where — O for pity — ^we shall much disgrace 
 With four or five most vile and ragged foils. 
 Right ill-disposed in brawl ridiculous. 
 The name of Agincourt. Yet sit and see. 
 Minding true things by what their mockeries be.' 
 
 It would be idle to apologize for the introduction 
 of these lines on the score of their familiarity ; 
 their absence from an account of the old theatres 
 would be a defect. They have frequently done 
 service to those who labour to prove that the old 
 playhouses were absolutely without the aids of 
 scenery ; but to those who apprehend the spirit of 
 the play it cannot but appear as a proof of dull- 
 ness to take these deprecations au pied de la lettre. 
 It is a gracefiil form of apology to exaggerate the 
 defect for which excuse is sought. The Curtain 
 
The Curtain. 87 
 
 playhouse, the scene of fencing matches, in which 
 members of the acting companies bore part, was 
 not likely to betray such deficiencies in its armoury 
 as to need apology in the literal sense for its 
 
 ' Four or five most vile and ragged foils 
 Right ill-disposed in brand ridiculous.' 
 
 The deprecation is evidence rather of the high 
 standard of the audience, than of the shortcomings 
 ' of the performance. 
 
 There is a probable connection between the 
 production of this play and a movement in the 
 destinies of the London theatres which took place 
 at this time. The removal by the Burbages ^to 
 Southwark a few months previously could not be 
 viewed with indifference by the theatrical pro- 
 prietors there, Edward AUeyn and Philip Hens- 
 lowe. The Theatre was removed to the Bank- 
 side on or about December 28, 1598 ; the final 
 quittance being made probably on January 20, 
 15.99, ^^ '^S9^-> according to the old style. We 
 may conclude, perhaps, that the popularity achieved 
 by Shakespeare's ' Henry V.' at the Curtain in the 
 succeeding summer, suggested to these careful, but 
 enterprising men, that they might make a counter- 
 move to the north. Accordingly we find that on 
 the following 8th January, 1 599-1600, a contract 
 was entered into between Henslowe and AUeyn 
 of the one part and Peter Street, citizen and car- 
 
 U^ 
 
88 London Theatres. 
 
 penter, of London, on the other part, for building 
 a new playhouse near Golden Lane, Cripplegate, 
 which became known as the Fortune. Peter 
 Street, it will be remembered, assisted the Bur- 
 bages in the removal of The Theatre, and the 
 contract expressly enjoined" that the new playhouse 
 should be made in all respects like the Globe. 
 
 The untiring opposition offered to the play- 
 houses had apparently been successful in the case 
 of The Theatre ; but in the result increased 
 vitality was thrown into the existence of the Cur- 
 tain, and the opponents of the stage had the 
 mortification of seeing another theatre rising near 
 Golden Lane. Representations were made to the 
 privy council, and the reply of my lords reads 
 like a death warrant for the Curtain. Under date 
 22nd June, 1600, they write to the effect that 
 inasmuch as Alleyn's playhouse in Golden Lane 
 was not intended to increase the number of play- 
 houses, but to be in lieu of the Curtain, he should 
 be permitted to complete it.* In the event, the 
 Fortune was completed, and the Curtain continued 
 to exist. 
 
 The history of the Curtain before this crisis is 
 naturally associated in some measure with that of 
 The Theatre, and has consequently been touched 
 ipon in the preceding chapter. 
 
 We have seen that the Curtain was linked with 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 354.. 
 
The Curtain. 89 
 
 The Theatre in the denunciations of divines and in 
 the appeals addressed to the privy council by the 
 corporation. These attacks culminated in the 
 order of the council for the suppression of the 
 playhouses, in 1597, an order which — like the 
 order in June, 1600, for ending the existence of 
 the Curtain in favour of the Fortune — was happily 
 ineifective.* A final effort to compass the de- 
 struction of the Curtain was made in 1601, but 
 the old playhouse again weathered the storm, and 
 continued its long, if chequered career, probably 
 to the closing of the theatres under the Puritan 
 regime. 
 
 It has been remarked that the players, by their 
 indiscreet ridicule of influential citizens, brought 
 much of this opposition on themselves. This 
 topic has been already discussed in the pre^ous 
 chapter, in connection with The Theatre. But 
 there is evidence that the players at the Curtain, 
 after the removal of The Theatre, carried on the 
 isame satirical warfare. In 1601 they especially 
 offended by satirizing some living notabilities, and 
 appeal was made to the Privy Council that the 
 abuse might be stayed. Accordingly, on May 10, 
 1601, my lords addressed the following letter to 
 ' certain Justices of the Peace in the County of 
 Middlesex : Wee do understand that certaine 
 players, that use to recyte their playes at the Cur- 
 * Jnte, p. 73. 
 
90 London Theatres. 
 
 taine in Moorefeildes, do represent upon the stage 
 in their interludes the persons of some gent, of 
 good desert and quallity that are yet alive under 
 obscure manner, but yet in such sorte as all the 
 hearers may take notice both of the matter and 
 the persons that are meant thereby. This beinge 
 a thinge very unfitte, offensive and contrary to 
 such direccion as have bin heretofore taken, that 
 no plaies should be openly shewed but such as 
 were first perused and allowed, and that might 
 minister no occasion of offence or scandall, wee do 
 hereby require you that you do forthwith forbidd 
 those players, to whomsoever they appertaine, that 
 do play at the Courtaine in Moorefeildes, to repre- 
 sent any such play, and that you will examine 
 them who made that play and to shew the same 
 unto you, and, as you in your discrecions shall 
 thincke the same unfitte to be publiquely shewed, 
 to forbidd them from henceforth to play the same 
 eyther privately or publiquely ; and yf, upon 
 veiwe of the said play, you shall finde the subject" 
 so odious and inconvenient as is informed, wee 
 require you to take bond of the cheifest of them 
 to aunswere their rashe and indiscreete dealing 
 before us.'* 
 
 In these satirical onslaughts upon the corpora- 
 tion the sympathies of the audience undoubtedly 
 
 * MS. Register of the Privy Council. See Halliwell- 
 Phillipps, ' Outlines,' 6th edition, i. 342. 
 
The Curtain. 9] 
 
 were with the actors. Mr. Stopford Brooke, in a 
 luminous criticism of Shakespeare's ' Richard III.,' 
 objects to the ridicule thrown upon the mayor 
 and corporation in that play, but it will readily be 
 seen that the theatrical history of the time explains 
 it. Mr. Brooke writes : — 
 
 ' The seventh scene, where Richard is induced 
 to accept the crown as it were by force, is, I think, 
 overdone. So I say is Richard's dissiniulation in 
 many passages in the play. It is too gross, too 
 palpable. The scene of Richard between the two 
 bishops is ridiculous, over-sensational ; it almost 
 trenches upon farce. It lowers the dignity of 
 English citizens. It exhibits Shakespeare's con- 
 tempt, it may be said, for the mob, but he has here 
 transferred that contempt from the mob to the 
 mayor and grave burghers of the city ; and I 
 wonder the people endured it when it was re- 
 presented.'* 
 
 So far from objecting to these scenes, the 
 audience probably enjoyed them as much as the 
 players. They were ' topical,' as we should say 
 in these days, and if the actors made- their worships 
 appear ridiculous on the stage, we may be sure 
 that the playgoers of that time ' endured it ' with 
 extreme heartiness. 
 
 We may allow that it was indiscreet of the 
 
 * Rev. Stopford A. Brooke on ' Richard III.,' N.S.S. Trans. 
 1880-6, p. 516. 
 
London Theatres. 
 
 players to lay themselves open to so serious a com- 
 plaint from their good friends the lords of the privy 
 council. But the provocation was excessive. The 
 unmeasured terms in which the stage was publicly 
 denounced ; the offensive exaggerations thrown 
 out in the white heat of Puritan indignation ; the 
 bitter vituperation with which the actors were 
 pursued from both the pulpit and the press — 
 clearly with the object of stirring up and keeping 
 alive the agitation against the theatres — could not 
 fail to beget resentment and retaliation. Some 
 specimens of these tirades have been given in the 
 account of The Theatre ; one more may be added 
 here, from Stubbes' ' Anatomie of Abuses,' 1583. 
 After alluding to The Theatre and Curtain as 
 ' Venus pallaces,' he writes : ' Doe they not main- 
 taine bawdrie, insinuat foolerie, and renue the 
 remembraunce of Heathen idolatrie.'' Doe thei 
 not induce whoredome and uncleannesse .'' Nay, 
 are thei not rather plaine devourers of maidenly 
 virginitie and chastitie.? for proofe whereof but 
 marke the flockyng and runnyng to Theaters and 
 Curtens daylie and hourelie, night and dale, tyme 
 and tide, to see playes and enterludesj where suche 
 wanton gestures, such bawdie speeches, suche 
 laughyng and flearyng, suche kissyng and bussyng, 
 suche clippyng and culling, such wincking and 
 glauncing of wanton eyes and the like as is won- 
 derfuU to beholde.' No wonder that the sober 
 
The Curtain. 93 
 
 citizens opposed the stage ; and no wonder that 
 the players retorted. The gibes came chiefly 
 from the so-called ' clowns/ in extemporal flashes, 
 during their impromptu entertainments known as 
 jigs, or drolls. These men must have possessed 
 great natural wit of the Touchstone order, and 
 much license was allowed them. The chief 
 ' clowns ' at the Curtain were Robert Armin and 
 Richard Tarlton. The former afterwards per- 
 formed at the Globe. The latter became famous 
 at The Theatre as well as the Curtain, and died 
 before the removal of The Theatre (see ante, p. 68). 
 The wonder, indeed, is not that the audience 
 tolerated the ridicule of the mayor and corpora- 
 tion in ' Richard III.,' but that practically the 
 same people who had roared at the coarse buf- 
 fooneries of the clowns in the jigs and drolls, were 
 brought to perceive and appreciate those more 
 subtle forms of humour which appeal to us even 
 at the present day. The truth is that the educa- 
 , tional influence of Shakespeare upon the public 
 was enormous. When ' Hamlet ' was produced at 
 the Globe, in 1602, he paid a tribute to the 
 memory of Tarlton, in the name of Yorick, the 
 king's jester, after haying reproved in a previous 
 scene the excesses and abuse of license by which 
 he and other clowns sometimes marred the effect 
 of plays. If Tarlton's ' Jigge of a Horse-loade of 
 Fooles,' said to have been given at the Curtain in 
 
94 London Theatres. 
 
 ridicule of the city authorities,* may be taken in 
 any way to represent the kind of thing which 
 brought about the above letter from the privy 
 council, the discreet fun made of the mayor and 
 aldermen in ' Richard III.' might by contrast 
 almost have been relished by their worships them- 
 selves, could they have witnessed it. This they 
 would never have consented to do — in a play- 
 house. But if her majesty had graciously com- 
 manded them to the court to witness the play — 
 that would have been quite different ! 
 
 The description of The Theatre applies gene- 
 rally to the Curtain. We derive its shape fi-om its 
 ""being called a cockpit, and alluded to as ' this 
 wooden O ;' and this description shows that it 
 resernbled The Theatre, although it is generally 
 supposed to have been smaller than that playhouse. 
 Like The Theatre, it was open to the sky ; spec- 
 tators were admitted to standing room in the pit 
 at a charge of a penny, while there were galleries 
 and rooms, or boxes, at graduating higher charges.- 
 Pickpockets were able to help themselves from the 
 pockets of those who were absorbed in the play, 
 as is shown by the following notice of such an 
 occurrence in 1599 : 
 
 ' 1 1 March, 42 Eliz. — Recognizance taken before 
 
 * One of Mr. Collier's MSS., used in his 'New Facts' 
 regarding the life of Shakespeare. Printed by Halliwell, ed. 
 ' Tarlton's Jests,' Shakespeare Society, pp. xx-xxvi. 
 
The Curtain. 95 
 
 Nicholas Collyns, Esq., J. P., of Richard Fletcher, 
 of the city of Norwich, pewterer, in the sum of 
 ten pounds, for the said Richard's appearance at 
 the next General Session of the Peace, to give 
 evidence against William Hankins, " chardged with 
 a purse taken at a play at the Curten with 
 xxvij. vi^. in it." ' 
 
 ' 19 March, 42 Eliz. — Recognizance . . . 
 for William Hankins, " he being charged with a 
 purse taken at the Curten." ' — ' Middlesex County 
 Records/ vol. i., 259. 
 
 It was in this year that Will Kempe, a member 
 of the Lord Chamberlain's company, danced his 
 famous Morris-dance from London to Norwich, 
 a feat which he celebrated in the following year 
 by the publication of his pamphlet ' Kemps Nine 
 Daies Wonder.' In this book, in describing his 
 stay at Burntwood, he relates that in this town 
 two cut-purses were taken into custody, ' that with 
 two other their companions followed me from 
 London ;' when apprehended they made out that 
 they were countenanced by Kempe, whereupon 
 'the officers bringing them to my inne, I iustly 
 denyed their acquaintance, sauing that I remem- 
 bered one of them to be a noted cut-purse, such a one 
 as we tye to a poast on our stage, for all people to 
 wonder at, when at a play they are taken pilfering.'* 
 
 * 'Kemps Nine Daies Wonder,' ed. Dyce, Camden 
 Society; p. 6. 
 
K 
 
 dai( 
 
 icl( 
 
 emps nine aaics vvonacc. 
 
 Performed in a daunce from 
 
 London to Norwich. 
 
 Containingthe fleafure, fames and. J^nde entertainment 
 
 of William Ktmf betweenc London and thatCitty 
 
 inhislatcMorrice. 
 
 Wherein isfomcwhacfetdowncworthnote.} toreprooue 
 
 thefliundcrs fpred ofhim: many things merty, 
 
 nothing hurtfu 11. 
 
 Written by him/e/fe tofitisfie hisfriemii' 
 
 LONDON 
 
 Printed hy U^Ao^ox Nicolas Ling^ and are to be 
 folde at hisfliop at the weft doorc of Saint 
 Paules Church. x6qq. 
 
 Facsimile of Title-page of ' Kemps Nine Daies Wonder.' 
 
The Curtain. 97 
 
 The allusion here is probably to the above depre- 
 dation by Hankins. 
 
 The history of the Curtain may be divided into 
 three parts : i. The period during which its 
 history was partially linked with that of The 
 Theatre, 1576-1598. 2. The critical period fol- 
 lowing the removal of The Theatre, when an 
 agitation was got up to abolish it in favour of 
 Edward AUeyn's new playhouse near Golden 
 Lane, the Fortune, 1599-1601, or 1602. 3. The 
 concluding period of its history, from the acces- 
 sion of James I., in 1603, to the end. 
 
 The period comprised in the first two of the 
 three divisions mentioned above has been given 
 so far as the facts won from oblivion by latter- 
 day research will admit. Before proceeding with 
 the remaining period, two incidents of extreme 
 interest, which in all probability belong to the 
 story of the Curtain in the first period, but 
 which cannot absolutely be vouched for as proven 
 facts, may be related here. Mr. HalUwell- 
 Phillipps was of opinion (i) that 'Romeo and 
 Juliet ' was brought out at the Curtain ; and (2) 
 that Ben Jonson's ' Every Man in his Humour ' 
 was introduced to the public at this playhouse 
 through the intercession of Shakespeare. 
 
 The case for the former incident is built on the 
 the following lines from Marston's ' Scourge of 
 Villanie,' 1598 : 
 
 7 
 
98 London Theatres. 
 
 'Luscus, what's plaid to-day ? faith, now I know 
 
 I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow 
 
 Naught but pure luliat and Romio. 
 
 Say, who acts best ? Drusus or Roscio 1 
 
 Now I have him, that nere of ought did speake 
 
 But when of playes or Plaiers he did treate. 
 
 H'ath made a common-place booke out of plaies, 
 
 And speakes in print, at least, what ere he sayes 
 
 Is warranted by Curtaine plaudeties. 
 
 If ere you heard him courting Lesbitis eyes; 
 
 Say (Curteous Sir), speakes he not mouingly 
 
 From out some new pathetique Tragedie ? 
 
 He writes, he railes, he iests, he courts, what not, 
 
 And all from out his huge, long-scraped stock 
 
 Of well-penn'd playes.'* 
 
 The question turns' on the above words ' Cur- 
 taine plaudeties.^ Do they refer to the Curtain 
 playhouse, or is ' curtaine ' a synonym for ' theatri- 
 cal,' in reference to the curtains of the stage ? The 
 balance of probability is certainly in favour of the 
 reference being to the playhouse. And this general 
 likelihood is supported by facts, which indicate 
 (i) that the chamberlain's company acted at the 
 Curtain as well as The Theatre, and (2) that the 
 reference on the title-page of ' Romeo and Juliet,' 
 ed. 1597 — 'plaid publiquely by the Right 
 Honourable the L. of Hunsdon his Servants ' — 
 is to the chamberlain's company under another 
 name. 
 
 I. That the chamberlain's company acted at 
 
 * Halliwell's 'Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare,' 
 Pt. i., App. xxvii., p. 121. 
 
The Curtain. 99 
 
 the Curtain is supported by the fact that Pope, 
 one of the members of the company, was also a 
 sharer in that establishment ; that Armin, another 
 member of the company, is known to have acted 
 there in 1600, and that the Curtain at this period 
 was one of the homes of the legitimate drama.* 
 
 2. That Lord Hunsdon's men were, in fact, 
 the chamberlain's company, is supported by the 
 following entry in the accounts of the treasurer 
 of the chamber to Queen Elizabeth : ' To John 
 Hemynge and George Bryan, servantes to the late 
 Lord Chamberlayne, and now servauntes to the 
 Lorde Hunsdon, upon the Councelles warraunte 
 dated at Whitehall xxj. mo die Decembris, 1596, 
 for five enterludes or playes shewed by them before 
 her majestic on St. Stephen's daye at nighte, the 
 sondaye nighte following, Twelfe Nighte, on 
 St. John's daye, and on Shrove-sunday at nighte 
 laste, the some of xxxiij//. vjj. viiji^., and by waye of 
 her Majestie's rewarde, xxj/z. xiijj. 'vii]d., in all the 
 some of Hi' The lord chamberlain, i.e.. Lord 
 Hunsdon, died on July 22nd, 1596, and his son, 
 Lord Hunsdon, was appointed lord chamberlain 
 on April 1 7th, 1597. ' Romeo and Juliet ' was acted 
 
 * ' Or if my dispose 
 Persuade nxt to a play, He to the Rose, 
 Or Curtaine, one of Plautus comedies. 
 Or the patheticke Spaniard's tragedies.' 
 
 Skiaktheia, 1598 
 
 7—2 
 
lOO London Theatres. 
 
 between those dates, when the company was known 
 as the Lord Hunsdon's servants, and Marston's 
 reference to the ' Curtaine plaudeties ' is taken as 
 determining that the play was produced at this 
 playhouse. In the second quarto of the play, 
 1599, *^^ name Kemp is prefixed to some of the 
 speeches of Peter.* This correlates with the cut- 
 purse episode at the Curtain noted above, and the 
 probability that Kempe was alluding to it becomes 
 strengthened. 
 
 With regard to the other incident : ' Rare 
 Ben's comedy of " Every Man in his Humour " 
 was most likely produced there [i.e., the Curtain] 
 in the year 1598,' writes Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps. 
 The anecdote on which this conjecture was made 
 is given by Rowe thus : ' His (Shakespeare's) 
 acquaintance with Ben Jonson began with a 
 remarkable piece of humanity and good-nature ; 
 Mr. Jonson, who was at that time altogether 
 unknown to the world, had offered one of his 
 plays to the players in order to have it acted, and 
 the persons into whose hands it was put, after 
 having turned it carelessly and superciliously over, 
 were just upon returning it to him with an ill- 
 natured answer that it would be of no service to 
 their company, when Shakespeare luckily cast his 
 eye upon it, and found something so well in it as 
 
 * 'Kemps Nine Daies Wonder,' ed. Dyce, Camden 
 Society, Introd., vi. note. 
 
The Curtain. loi 
 
 to engage him first to read it through, and after- 
 wards to recommend Mr. Jonson and his writings 
 to the public' As Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps pointed 
 out, ' the statement that rare Ben was then abso- 
 lutely new to literature is certainly erroneous, 
 however ignorant the Burbages or their colleagues 
 may have been of his primitive efforts.' 
 
 Jonson had been writing for Henslowe, the pro- 
 prietor of the Rose Theatre, but this connection had 
 been severed owing to Jonson's duel with Gabriel 
 Spencer, which will be further noticed in a subse- 
 quent chapter, and at this time Jonson was in a 
 position which rendered the decision on his play 
 one of great moment to him. That Shakespeare 
 and Jonson entertained a great regard for each 
 other, and that Jonson has done honour to his 
 own memory by honouring in beautiful and touch- 
 ing words the friend and rival who died before 
 him, supports the credibility of Rowe's story. So 
 generous a commencement of their intercourse 
 would explain why their rivalry, which was un- 
 doubtedly keen, never disturbed their mutual 
 esteem. 
 
 The connection of the chamberlain's compa,ny 
 -with the Curtain becomes interesting when placed 
 in juxtaposition with the other theatres in the hands 
 of the Burbages. From 1596 to 1598 the follow- 
 ing playhouses {not necessarily continuously) were 
 in the occupation of the company : 
 
I02 London Theatres. 
 
 The Theatre, the Curtain, the Blackfriars. 
 
 From 1599 to 1602 : 
 
 The Globe, the Curtain, the Blackfriars. 
 
 The opposition to The Theatre and the diffi- 
 culty with Giles Allen as to the renewal of the 
 lease in 1597, must be viewed in connection with 
 the establishment of the Blackfriars Theatre by 
 Burbage in 1596. Similarly the opening of the 
 Globe in 1599 must be regarded in its bearing 
 upon the agitation against the Curtain, 1 599-1601, 
 and the building of the Fortune Theatre near 
 Cripplegate by Alleyn, 1 599-1 600. The pro- 
 duction at the Curtain of such strong plays as 
 ' Romeo and Juliet' in 1596, ' Every Man in his 
 Humour' in 1598, and 'Henry V.' in' 1599, in- 
 dicates a desire on the part of the Burbages to 
 retain a vigorous hold upon the old playhouse 
 while their ventures at Blackfriars and the Bank- 
 side were maturing. In effect, we find that on 
 those new theatres proving successful, the com- 
 pany relinquished its connection with the Curtain. 
 
 It is supposed that the Children of the Revels 
 acted at the Blackfriars Theatre, and that while 
 they were in occupation Burbage's company acted 
 only at the Globe ; and to meet the improbability 
 of the Burbages giving place to the eyry of chil- 
 dren, it is suggested that the Burbages forsook the 
 Middlesex part of London altogether in the 
 summer months, and acted only at the Globe. 
 
The Curtain. 103 
 
 But may not the connection of the chamberlain's 
 company with the Curtain show that the Burbages 
 did not leave the playgoers of London in Middle- 
 sex without entertainment beyond that furnished 
 by the children ? This point, so far as the present 
 writer is aware, has not hitherto been suggested or 
 discussed. 
 
 On the accession of James I. in 1603, the 
 chamberlain's company became distinctively the 
 king's company of players, and henceforth acted 
 only at the Globe and the Blackfriars. But they 
 were succeeded at the Curtain by a company 
 named, after the consort of James, the queen's 
 company ; and we may see in this step a decisive 
 answer to those who had been clamouring for the 
 destruction of the old playhouse, and perhaps also 
 the fact points to some arrangement with the 
 premier company. The following is a notice of 
 the authority granted to the new queen's company : 
 
 License to Thomas Greene, Chris. Beeston, 
 Thomas Hawood, and six others, servants to the 
 queen, to ' exercise the art and faculty of playing 
 comedies, tragedies, histories, interludes, morals, 
 pastorals, stage plays, etc.,' in their ' usual houses 
 called the Curtayne and the Bore's Head,' in 
 Middlesex, or elsewhere, as they may think fit as 
 the plague decreases to thirty per week in London.* 
 
 * 'Cal. State Papers,' Domestic Series, 1623-1625, 
 Addenda, James I. This was probably the Boar's Head in 
 
I04 London Theatres. 
 
 In the following year the lords of the council 
 wrote to the lord mayor and the magistrates of 
 Surrey and Middlesex, desiring them to sanction 
 performances at the Globe, Fortune, and Curtain 
 Theatres, 
 
 Malone states that in Heath's Epigrams, 1610, 
 the Curtain is mentioned as being open. 
 
 G. Wither, in his ' Abuses Stript and Whipt,' 
 16 1 3, ridiculing alow class of versifiers, says :* 
 
 ' Base fellows whom mere time 
 Hath made sufficient to bring forth a rhyme, 
 A Curtain Jig, a libel, or a ballad.' 
 
 In 1 615 Wentworth Smith's play, called 
 ' Hector of Germany,' was performed at the 
 Curtain by some ' young men of the City.'f Like 
 The Theatre, the Curtain was let out on hire ; 
 and it is an interesting reflection upon the civic 
 antagonism to the stage to find the young men of 
 the city giving an amateur performance at the 
 Curtain. In 16 17 the Curtain became occupied 
 by the prince's company, and in ' Vox Graculi ; 
 or, the Jackdaw's Prognostication for 1623,' it 
 is thus alluded to : 
 
 'About this time new plays will be in more 
 
 Great Eastcheap — Shakespeare's Boar's Head. Cunningham 
 suggests that Shakespeare chose it because the arms of Bur- 
 bage, the great actor, were three boars' heads. 
 
 * Collier's ' History of Dramatic Poetry,' iii. 88. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
The Curtain. 105 
 
 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 Spittle in a whole month.' ' 
 
 Malone gives the will of John Underwood, by 
 which he consigns his share in the Curtain, ' situ- 
 ated in or near HoUowey [i.e., Holywell], in the 
 Parish of St. Leonard, London,' to his five 
 children. 
 
 The parish registers of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, 
 contain the following entries relative to the Cur- 
 tain.* Some of the entries refer to inhabitants on 
 the land or in the house called respectively the 
 Curtain Garden and Curtain House, who may or 
 may not have been connected with the theatre ; 
 but these cases appear to be distinguished, and the 
 entries followed by the simple word ' Curtain ' 
 appear to identify the person with the playhouse. 
 Those entries in which the word ' Curtain ' does 
 not appear at all refer to actors or members of 
 their families. From this record we see that 
 James Burbage, ' the first builder of playhouses,' 
 was put to rest in the parish where he built his 
 ' Theatre,' and that his famous son Richard 
 apparently continued to live in the old neighbour- 
 hood till his death. The father is described as 
 from Halliwell, the son from Halliwell Street : 
 
 * Henry Ellis, ' Parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch,' 1798. 
 
io6 London Theatres. 
 
 'Joane Dowle, the wife of Isaac Dowle, buried the 19th of 
 Februarie. Curtayn. 1580. — Oliver Stiddard, the sonne of 
 Thomas Stiddard, bapt. 17 Feb. Curtaine. 1582. — John 
 Aynsworth (the player), Sept. 28, 1582.^-Agnes Beal, the 
 daughter of Richard Beal, was baptized June 6. Curtaine. 
 1583. — Richard Tarrelton was buried the Sep. 3. 1 588. 
 Halliwell Street. — Humphrey . . . from the Curtaine Garden 
 buried the 25th of Aprill. Curtaine. 1592. — James Burbege, 
 the Sonne of Cuthbert Burbege, buried the 15th Julye, 1597. 
 — James Burbege was buried the 2d of February, 1596, 
 from Halliwell. — Cuthbert Cowlye, the- sonne of Richard 
 Cowlye, was baptized the 8th day of May from Allins. 
 1597. — Richard Cowlye, the sonne of Richard Cowlye, was' 
 baptized the 29th of Aprill. Halliwell. 1599. — Eliz. 
 Cowley, wife of Richard, buryed 28 Sep., 1616. H. Street. 
 — Elizabeth Burbedge, the daughter of Cuthbert Burbedge, 
 was baptized the 30th of December, 1602. Halliwell. — 
 Richard Burbadge, Player, was bur. 16 March, 161 8-1 9, 
 Halliwell Street. — Cuthbert Burbadge was buryed the 17th 
 Sep., 1636. — Geo. Wilkins (Poet), Aug. 9th, 161 3, buried. — 
 Margery, the daughter of William Bamster, and Jane, his 
 wife, was bur. 31st January, 1639, from the Curtaine House. 
 — ^John, the sonne of Wm. Hyemarth, and Jbane, his wife, 
 was baptized the same day from the Curtaine House. 15th 
 March, 1639.' 
 
 The last reference to the Curtain known to 
 Collier and to Halliwell-Phillipps is the above 
 quotation from 'Vox Graculi,' 1623. A later 
 notice (1627) occurs in the 'Middlesex County 
 Records ' as follows : 
 
 '21 Feb., 3 Charles I. — Recognizances taken before 
 Richard Lowther, Esq., J. P., of Thomas Roades, of White- 
 chappell, yeoman, and William Crosswell, of Shoreditch, ink- 
 horne-maker, in the sum of ten pounds each, and of Richard 
 
The Curtain. 107 
 
 Burford, of Whitechappell, yeoman, in the sum of twenty 
 pounds, for the appearance of the said Richard Burford at 
 the next S.P. for Middlesex, " to aunswear the complaint of 
 the inhabitants of Shoreditch for casting six tunn of filth, 
 taken out of common previes; into the common shoare neef 
 the Curtaine Playhouse." Also Recognizances taken on the 
 same day before tlie same J. P., for the appearance of the 
 aforesaid Thomas Roades, of Whitechappell, yeoman, at the 
 same S.P., to answer to the same complaint of the inhabitants 
 of Shorditch. S.P.R., 5 April, 4 Charles I.'* 
 
 There appears to be no reason to doubt that the 
 Curtain continued to exist down to the time of 
 the general suppression of the theatres in 1642- 
 1647. If this may be assumed, we may claim for 
 the Curtain the distinction of the -longest exist- 
 ence of any of the old playhouses. 
 
 Maitland wrote in his ' History of London,' 
 1756 (vol. ii., p. 1368), that the ruins of the 
 Priory of Holywell ' are still to be seen in King 
 John's Court in Holy well-lane.' The section from 
 Chassereau's map, 1745 (see ante), shows the 
 neighbourhood as it was at the period of Mait- 
 land's ' History,' when the site of the playhouse 
 existed as Curtain Court. 
 
 * ' Middlesex County Records,' iii. 164. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE SURREY SIDE. 
 
 WE have now to cross the river and consider 
 the playhouses which grew up in the fields 
 and open spaces on the Surrey side. Pursuing the 
 same method of inquiry which we applied in the 
 case of the Shoreditch theatres, we will first study 
 the genius loci, and review the conditions which 
 preceded the building of playhouses. 
 
 From the days of Edward the Confessor, when 
 Earl Godwin held the Gildable Manor, South wark 
 was a focus of stirring life. As a predecessor has 
 remarked :* ' Although Westminster possessed an 
 irresistible attraction to a pious sovereign through 
 the vicinity of a favoured church, Norman kings 
 engrossed in the pleasures of the chase, and con- 
 stantly embroiled in Continental wars, found the 
 ancient capital of Winchester better adapted for 
 
 * Hubert Hall, F.S.A., 'Antiquities of the Exchequer,' 
 p. 8 (Camden Library). 
 
The Surrey Side. 109 
 
 the pursuit of sport as well as for the maintenance 
 of their foreign communications through the 
 proximity of the great mediaeval seaport, South- 
 ampton.' Indeed, the traffic between London 
 and Winchester and Southampton must have been 
 great, and although ferries across the Thames 
 were numerous, much of it must have passed 
 over the bridge by Southwark. The pilgrims 
 to Canterbury, assembled at the Tabard Inn, 
 furnished Chaucer's immortal portrait - gallery. 
 Eminent prelates had their ' inns,' or town 
 quarters, in the neighbourhood. Carriers' inns, 
 taverns, and hostelries abounded. It was a place 
 of passage, of entertainment, of coming and going, 
 of rest and pleasure after toilsome journeys. In 
 the High Street was a ' Ring,' where bulls were 
 baited by dogs ; in the inn-yards were music and 
 performances of comedies, histories, tragedies, and 
 interludes by companies of players. At Paris 
 Garden, within a few minutes' walk, were to be seen 
 the bears and dogs kept for baiting — ' the king's 
 pastime.' 
 
 The government of the locality for a long period 
 remained uncertain, changing, and ill defined. 
 Men who had infringed the ordinances of the city 
 found refuge in the purlieus of Southwark. The 
 Surrey justices did not exercise their powers in the 
 manner or degree desired by the city, and the 
 corporation sought a remedy in repeated attempts 
 
no London Theatres. 
 
 to extend its jurisdiction southward of the bridge. 
 Appeals for redress were frequently made to the 
 privy council, alike by the corporation and by 
 aggrieved individuals. So late as 1 547 an appeal of 
 this kind which directly touches dramatic history was 
 made by Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. 
 He addresses this appeal to Paget, and writes that 
 he intends to have a solemn dirge and Mass for 
 the late king (Henry VIII.) ; but the players in • 
 Southwark, he complains, say that they also will 
 have ' a solemne playe to trye who shal have most 
 resorte, they in game, or I in earnest '; and the 
 bishop begs for the interference of the protector 
 (Somerset) to prevent this mockery.* This appeal 
 was addressed to the privy council because, prac- 
 tically, the whole of Southwark was at that time 
 -4- vested in the crown. 
 
 The nucleus of Southwark was the Gildable 
 Manor, which extended from the dock near , the 
 west end of St. Saviour's Church, on the west, to 
 Hay's Wharf on the east, and southward nearly 
 to St. Margaret's Hill.f In the time of Edward 
 the Confessor the manor formed part of the pos- 
 sessions of Earl Godwin, and after the Conquest 
 it became the property of the Earls of Warren 
 and Surrey.:]: In the first year of the reign of 
 
 * ' Cal. State Papers, Domestic,' February 5, 1547. 
 t G. R. Corner, F.S.A., in ' Archseologia,' xxxviii. 39, 
 J Ibid., XXV. 620-622, wherein Corper describes the limits 
 of the manor in detail. 
 
The Surrey Side. iii 
 
 Edward III. (1327) the city made its first step 
 towards obtaining the control of Southwark : 
 ' Upon the citizens' petition to the King in parlia- 
 ment concerning robberies, felonies, etc., where 
 the robbers, felons, etc., fled into Southwark, and 
 could not be attached by the ministers of the City; 
 for prevention in future, the King, with the con- 
 sent of parliament, granted to the city the said 
 town [vill] of Southwark to hold to them and 
 their successors for ever for a farm, and rent to be 
 paid yearly at the exchequer, at the times due and 
 accustomed. Witness himself at Westminster, the 
 6th day of March, in the first year of his reign.'* 
 But this grant" did not supersede the right of 
 Earl Warren to appoint a bailiff of his own liberty, 
 which continued to have its own prison, called 
 ' The Cage ';■{" and the manor, which included ' the 
 vill of Southwark,' remained vested in the Planta- 
 genets, successively Earls of Warren and Surrey, 
 until the death of John Plantagenet in 1347. J 
 Outside the area of the charter was the King's 
 Manor, at that date the property of the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, and the Great Liberty 
 Manor, which belonged to the monastery of 
 Bermondsey.§ 
 
 * D. Hughson, ' Epitome of the Privileges of London,' 
 1816, p. 29. 
 
 t Corner, * Archaeologia,' xxxviii. 39, 40. 
 
 X Ibid. 
 
 § Ibid., XXV. 621. 
 
112 London Theatres. 
 
 ! 
 
 In 1377 the citizens petitioned the king for 
 fiarther powers, ' and that the King's marshal 
 should not intermeddle with the part which was 
 gildable.' The petition was refused. In 1397 the 
 Earl of Arundel, who then held the manor, was 
 attainted, and the appointment of the bailiff was 
 exercised by the king.* This shows clearly that 
 the grant of jurisdiction to the city in no way 
 limited the feudal right of the crown. But in 
 the charter granted by the city-loving king, 
 Edward IV., a definite advance was made. It is 
 dated in the second year of his reign (1462), and 
 recites that 'Whereas certain doubts concerning 
 the use of some liberties belonging to the town of 
 Southwark, formerly granted to the citizens by 
 King Edward III.,' the king now grants to the 
 city the said town of Southwark, with all appur- 
 tenances ; waifs, estrays, treasure-trove, goods and 
 chattels of all traitors, felons, fugitives, and out- 
 laws ; all goods disclaimed or found ; all escheats 
 and forfeitures, as fully and wholly as the king 
 would have if the town were in his hands. The 
 grant includes also the assize of bread, wine, etc., 
 victuals, and things saleable ; the clerkship of the 
 market, with all forfeitures and fines; execution 
 and return of writs to be -by officers of the city ; 
 ' and that neither the King's clerk of the market 
 nor the sheriff of Surrey do in any respect inter- 
 * W. Rendle, ' Old Southwark,' p. 7. 
 
The Surrey Side. 113 
 
 meddle therein.'* This grant seems to leave 
 unconveyed nothing of the manorial jurisdiction 
 within ' the town,' i.e., the limits of the Gildable 
 Manor. It establishes a yearly fair, to be held on 
 the 7th, 8th, and 9th days of September, which 
 became subsequently famous as the Lady Fair of 
 Southwark. The king expressly grants ' that the 
 mayor, commonalty, or their deputies may take 
 and arrest felons, thieves, etc., and commit them to 
 Newgate.' The charter sums up in a general grant 
 of all rights appertaining to the town, with all its 
 liberties, ' the rights of the Archbishop, of Canter- 
 bury only excepted.' At the Dissolution Cranmer 
 parted with these rights to the king (Henry VIII.), 
 and the Canterbury holding became the King's 
 Manor. The Great Liberty Manor, which com- 
 prised the property of the Monastery of Bermondsey, 
 also fell into the king's hands, as did the holdings 
 of the Priory of St. Mary Overy and other reli- 
 gious establishments. The ' Liberty of the Manor,' 
 held by Brandoh, Duke of Suffolk, who married 
 the King's sister, became the king's by exchange 
 in i53S.t 
 
 By this process it came about that the Gildable 
 Manor or vill of Southwark was encompassed by 
 the king ; but throughout these confiscations, 
 purchases, and exchanges one remarkable excep- 
 
 * Hughson, 'Privileges of London,' p. 35. 
 t Rendle, ' Old Southwark,' p. 3 et seq. 
 
114 London Theatres. 
 
 tion, full of interest and significance as regards our 
 present subject of inquiry, was made. ' Win- 
 chester House and the Bishop of Winchester's 
 Liberty, always known as the Clink, were not 
 interfered with.'* This Liberty became the theatre 
 of playhouses, and will be further considered here- 
 after. 
 
 Such was the political condition of Southwark 
 in the time of Henry VIIL ; and when, on the 
 death of the king in 1547, Gardiner proposed to 
 hold a solemn dirge and Mass, and appealed to the 
 Privy Council because ' the players in Southwark ' 
 proposed for their part to ' have a solemne playe ' 
 for the occasion, the bishop was clearly applying 
 to the right authority. An appeal to the mayor 
 and commonalty would have been useless, not- 
 withstanding their charter of Edward IV. Besides, 
 it was a very limited Southwark over which their 
 theoretical jurisdiction extended, and there were 
 inn-yards outside their jurisdiction. Four years 
 later the city, at last, gained its point by the 
 charter of 4 Edward VL ; but before we notice 
 this further let us consider Southwark and the 
 Surrey side after the Reformation — after the dis- 
 solution of the religious houses — when evidence 
 that the king was lord paramount existed in every 
 direction. 
 
 It was essentially a pleasure resort, especially in 
 * Rendle, ' Old Southwark,' p. 3 et seq. 
 
The Surrey Side. 115 
 
 the summer months. That the May-day games 
 
 and observances were celebrated we may infer from 
 
 the place-name, ' Maypole Alley ' in the High 
 
 Street.* Also in the High Street was a bull-ring, 
 
 where bulls were baited^a very ancient sport, f 
 
 Such rings existed in a number of English towns, 
 
 and might be described as larger and stronger 
 
 cock-pits, which were of later date. The influence 
 
 of such structures in determining the round shape 
 
 of the earliest playhouses was considerable, but 
 
 secondary ; the traditional ' ring ' entered into 
 
 dramatic evolution in connection with other forms 
 
 of ' play ' more nearly allied to the drama. J- As 
 
 to the gehesis of this particular ' ring,' nothing is 
 
 known ; but it may be noted that the Roman 
 
 * ' Marshalsea prison was situated exactly opposite Maypole 
 Alley, in the High Street.' — Rendle, ' Old Southwark,' p. 109. 
 
 t An indenture, 17 April, 3 Eliz., 1 561, corroborates the 
 fact of our bull-ring. Christofer RoUe, of London, gent., 
 sells to George Thompson, of St. George's, Southwark, 
 carpenter, and Johane, his wife, *all those fourtene tenementes 
 or cotages and gardeyns commonly called the Bulryng, sett, 
 lying, and beyng on the streyte syde, by the alley called the 
 BuUryng, in the Parishe of St. George, in Southwark, that is 
 to sale betweenc the mesuage or late inn called the George, 
 nowe in teanure of Rychard Bellamy by lease on the south 
 parte, and the parke there on the west parte, and the landes 
 of the said Christofer Rolle, now called the Pewter Pott in 
 the Hoope, on the north parte, and the Kynge's High Streete, 
 of the Borough of Southwark, on the east parte.' — Rendle, 
 ' Old Southwark,' p. 31, quoting Mr. Halliwell's Notes. 
 
 X See ante. Chap. I., passim. 
 
 8—2 
 
ii6 London Theatres. 
 
 occupation of Southwark was confined within the 
 limits of the Gildable Manor, and the situation is 
 not an unlikely one for a Roman amphitheatre. 
 
 Beyond the limits of the Gildable Manor were 
 St. George's Fields and Newington Butts, which 
 themselves constituted a theatre for the pastimes of 
 the people. There was a guild of ' the bretherne 
 and systers of the Church of our Lady of Seynt 
 George the Martyr in Sowthwerke.'* No records 
 of the guild, except the brief from which these 
 words are quoted, have been recovered ; but there 
 is no reason to suppose that the association differed 
 from others which existed in various parts of the 
 country, and the outward and visible sign of these 
 guilds was their annual pageant on St. George's 
 Day, April 23. The pageant consisted of a 
 dramatic representation of the legend of St. George 
 and the Dragon, and there are notices of it both 
 before and after the Reformation.-}- With the 
 pageants were processions, accompanied by eminent 
 personages of the neighbourhood, from the mayor 
 to the lord - lieutenant. At Southwark the 
 rendezvous would be St. George's Fields, where, 
 in the time of Henry VIII., were butts for practis- 
 ing shooting. The central figure of the pageant, 
 
 * Brief given by Halliwell [-Phillipps] in ' Catalogue of 
 Broadsides,' etc., p. 211 ; Rendle, 'Old Southwark,' p. 71. 
 
 t These have been brought together in Kelly's ' Notices 
 of Leicester,' pp. 39-57. 
 
The Surrey Side. 117 
 
 St. George of England in complete armour,* amid 
 the military associations of the butts, with the 
 arrows flying to their marks, suggests the germ of 
 some situations in the later historical plays, as, for 
 instance, Henry with his army on French soil 
 before Harfleur or in the field of Agincourt. 
 
 In the reign of Henry VIII. several acts were 
 passed for promoting the practice of shooting with 
 the long-bow : 
 
 ' Soon afterwards — that is, in the twenty-ninth year of the 
 same King's reign — the use of cross-bows, under certain 
 restrictions, was permitted, a patent being granted by him to 
 Sir Christopher Morris, master of his ordnance, Anthony 
 Knevyt and Peter Mewtas, gentlemen of his privy chamber, 
 for them to be overseers of the science of artillery, by which 
 was meant long-bows, cross-bows, and hand-guns. Others 
 were appointed to be masters and rulers of the same science, 
 with power to them and their successors to establish a 
 perpetual corporation, called the Fraternity of St. George, and 
 to admit such persons as they found to be eligible. The 
 members of this society were also permitted, for pastime sake, 
 to practise shooting at all sorts of marks and butts, and at the 
 game of popinjay and other games, as at fowls and the like, 
 in the city and suburbs of London, as well as in any other 
 convenient places.'t 
 
 By the dissolution of the religious houses the 
 system of organized mendicancy, which had ob- 
 tained in connection with them, was broken down, 
 
 * Suits of armour were bequeathed to churches havin g 
 St. George guilds, for the purpose of the annual celebrations, 
 t Strutt, 'Sports and Pastimes,' 4to., pp. 44,^45. 
 
1 1 8 London Theatres. 
 
 and a large number of the mendicants became the 
 ' rogues and vagabonds ' of subsequent proclama- 
 tions and statutes, which sought to frighten and 
 coerce these people out of their habits of vaga- 
 bondage. In Southwark — which we have seen by 
 petitions of the citizens in the time of Edward III. 
 was in a very lawless state compared with the 
 city — the suppression of the many religious houses 
 of various kinds which existed in the neighbour- 
 hood resulted in making the disorganization a 
 great deal worse. Mendicants and unemployed 
 swelled the ranks of habitual idlers. The stews 
 on the Bankside (allowed houses for prostitution 
 under the regulation of the Bishop of Winchester) 
 brought the lawless and profligate to the place 
 from air parts of London. To the west of these 
 between the Liberty of the Bishop of Winchester 
 and Lambeth Marsh, was Paris Garden, where the 
 bears for baiting were kept. The lordship of the 
 king became extended in this direction also, through 
 the dissolution of Bermondsey Monastery, to which 
 the manor belonged. ' By the Act 28 Henry VIII., 
 c. 2 1 , it was given to the king ; and by another 
 statute in the same year (ch. 38) the manors of 
 Paris Garden, Hyde, and others were granted to 
 the Queen.'* 
 
 Among the ecclesiastical properties surrendered 
 to Henry were the ' inns,' or town residences of 
 
 * Collier, 'History of Dramatic Poetry,' iii. 95, note. 
 
The Surrey Side. 
 
 119 
 
 important ecclesiastics. These included the inn 
 and gardens of the Abbot of Battle ; the 
 Bishop of Rochester's inn, west of Foul Lane ; 
 Abbot of Hyde's, within the Tabard, and the 
 Abbot of Augustine's by the river.* These inns 
 generally are to be distinguished from the public, 
 or carriers', inns. 
 
 THE TABARD INN. 
 
 But the ancient and famous Tabard combined 
 the characteristics of both classes of inn. It was 
 the property of the Abbot of Hyde, near Win- 
 chester, and at the dissolution it was noted in the 
 
 * Rendle, ' Old Southwark,' 34. 
 
I20 London Theatres. 
 
 surrender as ' one hostelry called the Taberd, the 
 Abbot's place, the Abbot's stable, the garden be- 
 longing.'* The inn and buildings are represented 
 as one arrow-shot from his majesty's house and 
 park in Southwark.f 
 
 One of the last acts of Henry VIII, in connec- 
 tion with Southwark was an attempt to grapple 
 with its social condition, its accumulation of unem- 
 ployed, of unskilled labour, and of idlers. The 
 following is from the king's proclamation issued 
 1546: 
 
 'For reformation whereof like as his most royall Matie 
 hath thought convenient and doth determyne to vse and 
 ymploie all such ruffyns, Vagabondes, Masteries men, common 
 players, and evill disposed persons to serve his Matie & his 
 Realme in theis his wrarres in certaine Gallies and other like 
 vesselles whiche his highnes entendeth to arme forth against 
 his enemyes before the first of June next comyng.' J 
 
 If the condition of Southwark before the 
 Reformation seemed to present a good case for 
 extending the jurisdiction of the city, there can 
 be no doubt that the suppression of the ecclesi- 
 astical establishments greatly accentuated the case, 
 and, indeed, the above proclamation of Henry 
 the year before his death sufficiently shows this. 
 Strong government, either from the king and 
 council or the corporation was called for by the 
 circumstances, and if Henry had lived the strong 
 
 * Rendle, ' Old Southwrark,' 55. ^ Hid., 56. 
 
 I Collier, 'History of Dramatic Poetry,' i. 135. 
 
The Surrey Side. 121 
 
 government would doubtless have come from the 
 crown. The strong sovereign died ; the govern- 
 ment of a minor with a Protector succeeded ; the 
 opportunity of the city had come at last. 
 
 In 1550, by the charter 4 Edward VI., the 
 power of the city in Southwark was secured. It 
 happened, unfortunately, that the players of these 
 years, although their vocation was distinct, became 
 associated, in the eyes of authority generally, with 
 the unemployed and thriftless, the 'rogues and 
 vagabonds' of the proclamation. Consequently 
 the handing over of Southwark to the govern- 
 ment of the city resulted in a dislodgment of the 
 players from their customary haunts. 
 
 The charter* grants absolutely ' all that our 
 Lordship and Manor of Southwark late pertaining 
 to the late Monastery of Bermondsey ' ; and it 
 conveys in express terms the various properties 
 which had come into the possession of the crown 
 by the process we have described. The considera- 
 tion for the grant was a payment of £,(>^'] is. id., 
 and the grantees were ' the mayor, commonalty ' 
 and citizens of London.' The only reservation is 
 seen in the passage following the grant of the 
 SuiFolk possessions ' which were late purchased by 
 our dear father Henry the Vlllth, late King of 
 England, of the same Charles, late Duke of 
 
 * D. Hughson, ' The Privileges of Southwark,' etc., 
 1818 (?), p. 10 et seq. 
 
122 London Theatres. 
 
 SuiFolk ; except, nevertheless, always to us, and 
 to our heirs and successors, all that our capital, 
 messuage and mansion house called Southwark 
 Place in Southwark aforesaid, late the Duke of 
 Suffolk's, and all gardens and ground to the same 
 adjoining or appertaining, and all our Park in 
 Southwark aforesaid, and all the messuages and all 
 the buildings and grounds callfed the Antelope 
 there.' 
 
 It was mentioned at the beginning of this 
 chapter that the open ground lying along the 
 Bankside at the back of Winchester House and its 
 park was the site of the playhouses on the Surrey 
 side of London. In the charter 4 Edward VI., 
 there is no mention made either of Winchester 
 House, or its park, or of the liberty extending 
 westward, either by way of grant or of exception. 
 And this confirms Mr. Rendle's statement that it 
 did not pass to the crown along with the general 
 surrender of ecclesiastical tenures. Consequently 
 the status or tenure of this tract of ground re- 
 mained as it was in Henry's reign. 
 
 Among the tenements mentioned in the various 
 conveyances in the charter are the Swan, the 
 Mermaid, and the Rose, all three names interest- 
 ing to us on account of later dramatic associations ; 
 but these tenements were in the manor of South- 
 wark, and consequently had no actual connection 
 with the places we are concerned with. 
 
The Surrey Side. 123 
 
 The charter expressly gives the right to ' take 
 and arrest all manner of felons, thieves and other 
 malefactors ' found within the area of the grant, 
 and the city officers ' may bring them to our Gaol 
 of Newgate, there to be kept till by process of 
 law they may be delivered.' 
 
 In giving the mayor and corporation the right 
 to hold a fair every year for three days, the words 
 are used ' through all the town, borough, parishes 
 and precincts aforesaid '; but this could not apply 
 to the liberty of the Bishop of Winchester, 
 known more generally as the Clink. The convey- 
 ance of Southwark to the city was clearly against 
 the wishes of the inhabitants at the time ; they 
 would rather have remained answerable to the 
 justices of Surrey. But by the early part of the 
 present century time had accomplished its work, 
 and we find Dr. Hughson addressing an ' Appeal ' 
 to the city Corporation in terms of hyperbolical 
 patriotism, which seem to imply that, let come 
 what may, the good people of. Southwark will die 
 in behalf of their privileges as citizens of London 
 against the worst that the justices of Surrey may 
 do. In this 'Appeal' Hughson wrote (p. 16), 
 ' that the town and borough of Southwark, and all 
 the parishes and precincts in and through the 
 town and borough,' were under the government 
 of the city; but if at this date (18 18) the Clink 
 liberty had not become extinct, all the arguments 
 
1 24 London Theatres. 
 
 which he advances in behalf of the liberty of 
 Southwark as part of the liberty of London (pp. 
 14-16) would apply with equal force to the 
 liberty of the Clink as distinct from any other 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 There is no evidence that plays were immedi- 
 ately suppressed in Southwark as a consequence of 
 the grant of the charter, but they became subject 
 to the same jealous supervision which prevailed in 
 the citv. Apparently the bull-ring in the High 
 Street soon sank under this rigour.* But the 
 edict of 1575, which banished the players from 
 jurisdiction of the mayor, applied, of course, 
 equally to Southwark, The result of the banish- 
 ment was the theatre at Newington Butts, and the 
 playhouses in the Clink liberty on the Bankside, 
 viz., the Rose, the Swan, the Globe, and the 
 Hope. 
 
 * It was extinct some time before the sale of the property 
 in 1561 (see ante, p. 115). 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE AMPHITHEATRES. 
 
 THE precursorsof the playhousesin the Clink or 
 Winchester liberty on the Bankside were the 
 amphitheatres devoted to .baiting sports (see map). 
 Within the political considerations set forth in the 
 preceding chapter, these circuses were an outcome 
 of the associations of the neighbourhood. Before 
 them bull-baiting was carried on at the bull-ring 
 in the High Street, and bear-baiting probably at 
 Paris Garden, to the west of the Clink. 
 
 It is a curious point that none of the maps show 
 a similar circus in Paris Garden co-existent with 
 those here shown. That there was such a building 
 has hitherto been accepted upon evidence which 
 does not appear to have been scrutinized. The 
 palpable existence of amphitheatres in the Clink, 
 along with the absence in the maps of such a con- 
 struction in the neighbouring Paris Garden, was 
 one of the causes of the cbrifiision which formerly 
 
/ / 
 
The Amphitheatres. 127 
 
 prevailed in dramatic history as to the topography 
 of the district. On the site or thereabouts of the 
 amphitheatres shown in the maps of Aggas and of 
 Braun the ' Bear-house ' and ' Bear-garden ' of a 
 later date came into existence, and references to 
 baiting "at Paris Garden became ascribed to, these 
 places. The late Mr. Rendle, by demonstrating 
 the limits of Paris Garden manor and of the Win- 
 chester liberty, threw a new light on the subject. 
 It appeared to be unlikely that references would 
 be made distinctly to the bear-baiting in Paris 
 Garden if the bear-baiting in the Clink liberty, were 
 meant. But the point is still left in some doubt. 
 In the first place, the geography of this liniited 
 district may not have been generally known with 
 that precision which we discover^ in legal and 
 official documents which have survived. We must 
 bear in mind the effect of custom, and the use of 
 terms in the ordinary everyday sense, apart from 
 the exactitude of legal definition. Paris Garden 
 stairs was apparently the most important landing- 
 stage, although there were others westward, as well 
 as eastward of this, nearer the bridge. The 
 pleasure-seekers came mostly by water and to Paris 
 Garden stairs, near which were the stews and the 
 Falcon Inn ; and there is nothing to show that 
 they distinguished between the Gardens to the right 
 or left of Paris Garden Lane. The origin of the 
 bear-baiting on the Surrey side was undoubtedly in 
 
128 London Theatres. 
 
 Paris Garden. But whether an amphitheatre existed 
 there at the date of our maps, and not shown in 
 either of them, is another question. Anybody who 
 has studied early maps is aware that too much 
 reliance must not be placed upon them. But their 
 unanimity on this point is remarkable. None of 
 them show a circus or amphitheatre in Paris Garden. 
 It is not in Norden's map of 1 593, the most reliable 
 map of London in the sixteenth century. On the 
 other hand, the successor of such a circus, if it 
 ever existed — viz., the Swan Theatre — is shown in 
 the most reliable and important of the riverside 
 views (as distinct from maps), that of Visscher, 
 of which sections are given later in this book. 
 
 The authority for the origin of Paris Garden is 
 the ' Glossographia ' of Blount (1681), for which 
 we are indebted to Malone in a note on 
 Henry VIIL, act v., scene 3.* Richard II., by 
 proclamation, ordered that the butchers of London 
 should purchase some ground 'juxta domum 
 Robert! de Parys,' for reception of their garbage 
 and entrails of beasts, to the end that the city 
 might not be annoyed thereby. Here we have 
 provision for feeding dogs and bears, and the name 
 ' Paris Garden ' is also accounted for. But it is a 
 long time before we hear of bears and baiting, 
 although the lack of record is no doubt accidental. 
 
 * Blount's citation (5th edition, p. 473) is|Clo3e Roll, 16 
 Richard II., Dors. ii. 
 
The Amphitheatres. 129 
 
 It is not improbable that the sport was intro- 
 duced from the Continent by some one or other of 
 Richard's foreign favourites. 
 
 The next notice is from Collier.* He writes : 
 ' The most ancient notice of Paris Garden as the 
 scene of such amusements \i.e., baiting] that we 
 have met with is in a book of the household 
 expenses of the Earl of Northumberland, where, 
 under date of 17 Henry Vlll., it is said that the 
 earl went to Paris Garden to behold the baiting 
 there. 
 
 I cannot find this in the Northumberland House- 
 hold Book. From Collier, however, the statement 
 was repeated by Cunningham in his ' Handbook of 
 London' (1850), sub voce 'Paris Garden Theatre,' 
 which he describes as : ' A circus in the manor of 
 Paris Garden, in Southwark, erected for bull and 
 bear baiting as early as 17th Henry VIII.,' etc. 
 This, apparently, is the source of Mr. Rendle's 
 note: '1526. Bears are baited here';t and in 
 another place : ' The earliest notice I have of bear 
 sports on the Bank is about 1526.'^: The state- 
 ment reappears in Mr. Wheatley's '-London Past 
 and Present' (1891), founded on Cunningham's 
 handbook. 
 
 * 'History of Dramatic Poetry,' etc., iii. 94. 
 t New Shakspere Society, Harrison's ' Description of 
 England,' ed. Furnivall, Part II., Appendix I., p. iii. 
 I ' Walford's Antiquarian,' viii. 55. 
 
 9 
 
130 London Theatres. 
 
 The Northumberland Household Book is a 
 code of the regulations of the earl's castles of 
 Wresill and Lekinfield, in Yorkshire. It is not 
 concerned with the expenditure of the earl away 
 from those places, as at London, for instance, which 
 doubtless he occasionally visited. An entry which 
 may have given rise to the statement as to Paris 
 Garden occurs under the heading of ' Rewardis 
 customable usede yerely to be yeven by my Lorde 
 to strangers, as players, mynstraills,' etc., as follows : 
 ' Item, my Lord usith and accustomyth to gyf 
 yerely the Kynge ^ the Queenes Barwarde If they 
 have one, When they custom to come into hym 
 yerely . , . vjj. viij^.'* But this provision, like 
 all the others in the same book, is for home 
 expenditure, as is another entry concerning bear- 
 baiting : ' Item, my Lorde usith and accustomyth 
 to gyfe yerly when his Lordshipe is at home to 
 his Barward when he comyth to my Lord in 
 Cristmas with his Lordshippes Beests for makynge 
 of his Lordschips pastyme the said xij days — 
 xxj.'t Collier's statement is the more puzzling 
 from his specifying the date, viz., 17 Henry VIII. 
 The dates given in the Household Book barely 
 reach this. The earliest of the dated entries is 
 
 * 'Regulations of the Household of Henry Algernon 
 Percy, Fifth Earl of Northumberland, at his Castles of 
 Wresill and Lekinfield,' ed. T. Percy, Bishop of Dromore 
 (1770). P- 339- 
 
 t Ibid., p. 343. 
 
The Amphitheatres. 131 
 
 4 Henry VIII., and the latest 17 Henry VIII. 
 The rest of the book is occupied with orders and 
 regulations without date. Among these is the 
 order as to rewards, in which the above memoranda 
 as to bear-wards occur. Apparently Collier derived 
 his date from the last dated bill (on p. 297). 
 The next notice is also from Collier, date 1 544 : 
 ' In 1 544 the Duke of Nexara [Najera] was in 
 England as ambassador from Spain. One of his 
 suite wrote an accourit of some passages in their 
 travels, and especially during their stay of eight 
 days in London. After speaking of the wild beasts 
 in the Tower, he thus notices the sports at Paris 
 Garden : 
 
 ' On the other side of the town we have seen seven bears, 
 some of them very large ; they are driven into a circus, where 
 they are confined by a long rope, while large and courageous 
 dogs are let loose upon them as if to be devoured, and a fight 
 takes place. It is not bad sport to witness the conflict. The 
 large bears contend with three or four dogs, and sometimes 
 one is victorious and sometimes the other ; the bears are 
 ferocious and of great strength, and not only defend them- 
 selves with their teeth, but hug the dogs so closely with their 
 forelegs, that, if they were not rescued by their masters, they 
 would be suffocated. At the same place a pony is baited, 
 with a monkey on its back, defending itself against the dogs 
 by kicking them ; and the shrieks of the monkey, when he 
 sees the dogs hanging from the ears and neck of the pony, 
 render the scene very laughable.'* 
 
 •(Collier's introduction of Paris Garden in this 
 
 * Collier, ' History of Dramatic Poetry,' iii. 93. 
 
 9—2 
 
132 London Theatres. 
 
 way is quite gratuitous. The words of the narra- 
 tive are, ' In another part of the city we saw seven 
 bears,' etc., and there is no mention of Paris 
 Garden at all. I should have preferred to give Sir 
 F. Madden's version of the Spanish,* but sub- 
 stantially they agree, and the excerpt as it stands is 
 a useful illustration of Collier's method. 
 
 The next notice, again from Collier, was derived 
 by him from Pennant : ' In Pennant's " London " 
 the following stanzas are quoted, and are there 
 said to have been written by one Crowley, a poet 
 in the reign of Henry VIII. He was a noted 
 printer, and published in 1550 one-and-thirty 
 epigrams, wherein are briefly touched so many 
 abuses that may and ought to be put away : 
 
 • What follie is this to keep with danger, 
 A great mastive dog, and fowle ouglie bear ; 
 And to this end, to see them two fight, 
 With terrible tearings, a ful ouglie sight; 
 And methinkes those men are most fools of al, 
 ^hose store of money is but very smal ; 
 And yet every Sunday they will surely spend 
 One penny or two, the bearward's living to mend. 
 At Paris Garden each Sunday, a man shall not fail 
 To find two or three hundred for the bearward's vale, 
 One halfpenny apiece they use for to give, 
 When some have no more in their purses, I believe ; 
 Wei, at the last day, their conscience wil declare, 
 What the poor ought to have al that they may spare. 
 If you therefore give to see a bear fight. 
 Be sure God His curse upon you will light !' 
 
 This apparently was the source of Mr. Rendle's 
 note : '1550. It is noted now, as always, that the 
 * Archaologia, vol. xxiii., 344-357. 
 
The Amphitheatres. 133 
 
 great day is Sunday, and that these rude sports pay 
 better than more select entertainments.'* 
 
 It will be noticed that there is no mention made 
 in Crowley's lines of an amphitheatre or circus in 
 Paris Garden. The original of this somewhat 
 loosely given reference is, ' One and thyrtie Epi- 
 grammes, wherein are bryfely touched so many 
 abuses that maye and ought to be put away. Com- 
 piled and imprinted by Robert Crowley, dwellynge 
 in Elye rentes in Holburne, Anno Domini, 
 1550.' The verses are headed ' Of Bearbaytynge.'t 
 The date renders allusion to the amphitheatre in 
 the Clink liberty quite possible. On the other 
 hand, Paris Garden is distinctly named ; although 
 as against that we must allow for the possibility of 
 a custom of alluding to the Clink bear-baiting as 
 Paris Garden, on account of the latter having been 
 so long the home of the bears. If there were any 
 evidence of the public exhibition of bear-baiting in 
 Paris Garden before the amphitheatres shown in 
 our maps, we should infer the existence of a 
 circus. But the evidence of the Northumberland 
 Household Book, the only basis for the sup- 
 position, has broken down under examination. 
 The Crowley evidence comes within the period of 
 our amphitheatres. 
 
 * New Shakspere Society, Harrison's 'Description of 
 England,' ed. Furnivall, Part II., Appendix I., p. iii. 
 
 t ' Select Works of Robert Crowley,' ed. J. M. Cowper : 
 Early English Text Society, 1872. 
 
134 London Theatres. 
 
 As to the date of the construction of the amphi- 
 theatres we have no record, and our maps are 
 without date. But both Aggas and Braun show 
 St, Paul's with the spire which was destroyed by- 
 lightning in 1561 ; and even admitting the 
 possibility of these maps being founded on earlier 
 ones, or of their having been added to and modified 
 subsequently, the point is unaffected, because if 
 St. Paul's were shown with a spire in a map issued 
 after 1561, this does not prove that the amphi- 
 theatres were added after that date, but rather the 
 contrary. I am inclined to associate the con- 
 struction of the amphitheatres with the establish- 
 ment of the authority of the city in Southwark. 
 The bull-ring in the High Street, which existed in 
 1542,* disappeared at some time before 1561, 
 when the site was sold ;t and the course of events 
 suggests that the sport was removed to the Bank- 
 side, in anticipation or in consequence of the 
 charter 4 Edward VI. It appears in Aggas and in 
 Braun as the ' BowU-Bayting.' The neighbouring 
 amphitheatre, the ' Beare-Bayting,' appears to have 
 been an offshoot of the garbage place, with its 
 bears, in Paris Garden. 
 
 We have, at least, one clear allusion to these 
 amphitheatres, viz., in Machyn's Diary : ' The sam 
 
 * Maps and plans of the Duchy of Lancester. See Rendle, 
 ' Old Southwark.' 
 t See ante, p. 115. 
 
The Amphitheatres. 135 
 
 day [9th December, 1554] at after-non was a 
 berebeytyn on the Banke syde, and ther the grett 
 blynd bere broke losse, and in rorinyng away he 
 chakt a servyng man by the calfF of the lege, and 
 bytt a gret pesse away, and after by the hokyll- 
 bone, that with-in iij. days after he ded.'* 
 
 We have now to notice the references to baiting 
 on the Surrey side between the date of the. Aggas 
 and Braun maps (which we take to lie between 
 1 560-1 572) and the date of Norden, 1593. The 
 evidence of a circus in Paris Garden at this period 
 is much stronger, although in estimating it we 
 must bear in mind the existence of the amphi- 
 theatres so near at hand in the Clink liberty, and 
 allow for the inexactness of colloquial allusion : 
 'John Bradford, the martyr, preaching before 
 Edward VL, showed " the tokens of God's judg- 
 ment at hand for the contempt of the Gospel, as 
 that certain gentlemen upon the Sabbath day going 
 in a wherry to Paris Garden to the bear-baiting 
 were drowned," etc. ("Two Notable Sermons," 
 etc., 1574).'! 'Going in a wherry to Paris 
 Garden ' might possibly be suggested by the usual 
 landing-stage, Paris Garden stairs, and the fact 
 that bears belonging to the king were kept there. 
 
 * 'Diary of Henry Machyn,' 1 5 50-1 563 ; Camden Society, 
 1848, p. 78. Another entry is discussed /oj?, Chap. VII. 
 
 t H. B. Wheatley, ' London Past and Present,' sub voce 
 ' Paris Garden Theatre.' 
 
136 London Theatres. 
 
 The public baiting may have been apart, in the 
 CUnk liberty, as shown in our maps. 
 
 In some particulars given as to the Manor of 
 the Maze, belonging to the Copley family, in St. 
 Olave's, Southwark, 1472-1623,* the following 
 occurs under date 1575: ' Itm., gyven to the 
 master of Paryshe Garden his man for goynge with 
 Thos. Sharpies into Barmensy Street to see certen 
 mastyve dogges, appointed by Thomas Brooke so 
 to do.'t This is further evidence of the. keeping 
 of the baiting animals in Paris Garden, but it gives 
 no further clue as to the existence of a circus. 
 
 We have carefully distinguished between the 
 references to Paris Garden before 1572 and those 
 between 1573 and 1592, because the case for a 
 Paris Garden circus in the latter period is much 
 stronger. The notice which follows is the strongest 
 -item in the case. On a Sunday, in 1583, an 
 accident occurred at the baiting, which was looked 
 upon as the Nemesis prophesied by the Puritans, 
 for the desecration of the Sabbath by the baiting 
 sports, and the lord mayor, in a letter to the 
 lord treasurer, informs him of the catastrophe : 
 
 ' - ... A great mishap had happened at Paris Gardens by 
 the fall of a scaffold, whereby a great number of people were 
 hurt and some killed. This he attributed to the hand of God 
 on account of the abuse of the Sabbath-day ; and he requested 
 
 * 'Collectanea Geneal. et Topog.,' vol. viii., p. 253. 
 t Ibid., p. 258. 
 
The Amphitheatres. 137 
 
 the Lord Treasurer to give order for the redress of such con- 
 tempt of God's service.'* 
 
 The appeal was not without effect, for the lord 
 
 treasurer replied as follows : 
 
 ' With reference to the disaster at Paris Gardens, he would 
 bring the matter before the' Council and get some general 
 order passed prohibiting such exhibitions. In the meantime 
 he recommended the Lord Mayor, with the advice of the 
 Aldermen, to issue a general order to every ward for the 
 prevention of such profane assemblies on the Sabbath-day.'f 
 
 From the ' Godly Exhortation ' of John Field, 
 which he published on the occasion of this accident, 
 we learn that the amphitheatre would hold above a 
 thousand people, that the gallery was double and 
 compassed the yard roundabout, and that it was 
 old and rotten. Stow records the accident in his 
 ' Annals ' in the following passage : 
 
 ' The same 13 day of January being Sunday about foure 
 of the clocke in the afternoone, the old and underpropped 
 scaffolds round about the Beare-garden, commonly called 
 Patis Garden, on the south side of ye river of Thamis over 
 against the cittie of London, over-charged with people, fell 
 suddenly downe, whereby to number of eyght persons men 
 and women were slaine, and many others sore hurt and 
 bruised to the shortening of their lives. A friendly warning 
 to such as more delight themselves in the crueltie of beastes 
 than in the workes of mercy, the fruits of a true professed 
 faith, which ought to be the Sabboth dayes exercise.'^ 
 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 336. \ Ibid. 
 
 X Stow's ' Annals,' continued by Howes, 695. An account 
 of the accident is given by Stubbes in his ' Anatomie of 
 Abuses,' see New Shakspere Society reprint, ed. Furnivall, 
 p. 179. 
 
138 London Theatres. 
 
 Was this an old and rude construction in Paris 
 Garden iteslf ignored by Aggas in 1560 and 
 Braun in 1572? Was it a circus put tap there 
 after 1572? The records of this accident form 
 the strongest item in the evidence for a circus in 
 Paris Garden. If we suppose its existence on 
 this count, we have only to suppose further that 
 it was not rebuilt, and its absence from Norden 
 (1593), the best map of the time, is explained. 
 
 This accident, like the plague, was interpreted 
 as a warning against such amusements. The 
 following attempt to invoke the aid of the council 
 — already referred to in a previous chapter dealing 
 with The Theatre — is aimed at the amphitheatres 
 on the Bankside, as well as the playhouses in 
 Shoreditch : 
 
 ' Letter from the Lord Mayor to Sir Francis Walsingham, 
 Knight : — For the stay of the plague the Court of Aldermen 
 had published certain orders, which they intended to execute 
 with diligence. Among other great inconveniences were the 
 assemblies of people to plays, bear-baiting, fencers, aYid pro- 
 fane spectacles at The Theatre and Curtain and other like 
 places, to which great multitudes of the worst sort of people 
 resorted. Being beyond the jurisdiction of the City, the 
 restraints in the City were useless, unless like orders were 
 carried out in the places adjoining. He therefore requested 
 the matter might be brought to the notice of the Council, 
 that some steps might be taken to redress the danger.'* 
 
 There remains one more reference to be con- 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 337 ; date May 3, 1583. 
 
The Amphitheatres. 139 
 
 sidered. Nash, in his 'Strange Newes' (1592), 
 directed against Gabriel Harvey, says :* 
 
 ' Oh, it is a pestillent libeller against beggers : he meanes 
 shortly to set foorth a booke cald his Paraphrase upon Paris 
 Garden, wherein he will so tamper with the Interpreter of 
 the Puppits, and betouse Harry of Tame and Great Ned, 
 that Titius shall not upbraid Caius with everie thing and 
 nothing, nor Zoylus anie more flurt at Homer, nor Thersites 
 fling at Agamemnon.' 
 
 This appears to be unequivocal ; yet Stow's 
 words, ' Bear Garden, commonly called Paris 
 Garden,' would probably justify our assuming 
 that Nash meant the Bear Garden in the Clink. 
 It is certainly remarkable that while we have 
 these representations of amphitheatres on the 
 Bankside before 1593, with their addenda of 
 ponds, houses, etc., some of the references to 
 baiting at this period should speak of ' Paris 
 Garden.' That we are not the victims of a freak 
 on the part of the cartographers we know from 
 the evidence of John Taylor, the water-poet, taken 
 in a case of disputed title between the king 
 (James I.) and the Bishop of Winchester as to a 
 site in the Clink liberty.! Taylor, at the time 
 of giving this evidence, was seventy-seven years 
 of age, from which we may conclude that he was 
 giving his recollections of the Bankside from about 
 
 * 'Strange newes Of the Intercepting certaine Letters, 
 etc. ByTho. Nashe. London, 1592.' Collier's reprint, p. 32. 
 
 t ' Exchequer Depositions,' 1 8 James I. Given by the 
 late W. Rendle in Walford's ' Antiquarian,' No. 44, vol. viii. 
 
140 London Theatres. 
 
 the year 1 5'6o,the earliest date we have supposed for 
 Aggas's map : ' To the 14th Interr. in the deposi- 
 tions " he saith that he remembereth that the game 
 of beare-bayting hath been kept in fower severall 
 places (viz'-) at Mason Steares on the bankside ; 
 neere Maid-lane by the corner of the Pyke Garden 
 [these are the two shown in our map] ; at the 
 beare garden which was parcell of the possession 
 of William Payne ; and the place where they are 
 now kept." ' Of the two latter, one was the ' Beare- 
 house ' of Norden's map, the other a later building, 
 the Hope Theatre.* 
 
 By way of a guide to the puzzling references 
 to Paris Garden, Mr. Wheatley suggests that 
 references to Paris Garden are to Paris Garden 
 Theatre, while Bear Garden references may be to 
 either the Hope or Paris Garden Theatre. But 
 it appears that the formula hardly applies, so far as 
 we have tested it, in regard to the amphitheatres. 
 The second clause of the formula belongs to a 
 later period, and will be referi-ed to in a subsequent 
 chapter. 
 
 * Mr. Rendle's observations on the evidence are as 
 follows : ' Nothing can be clearer ; the two latter were — 
 the one at the north courtelage in the lane known as the 
 Bear Garden, the other at the south courtelage in the same 
 lane, known as the New Bear Garden, otherwise The Hope. 
 William Payne's place, next the Thames, can be traced back 
 into the possession of John Allen, until it came down to 
 Edward Alleyn, and was sold by him at a large profit to 
 Henslowe ; the same for which Morgan Pope, in 1586, paid 
 to the vestry of St. Saviour's 6s. 8d. by the year for tithes.' 
 
The Amphitheatres. 141 
 
 Taking the evidence as a whole, it seems to 
 show that we may rely on the maps, and construe 
 the references to baiting at Paris Garden as re- 
 ferring to baiting performances in the amphi- 
 theatres shown in the maps of Aggas and of 
 Braun and Hogenberg ; the fact of the animals 
 being kept in Paris Garden perhaps explaining 
 why the sports were spoken of as the Paris 
 Garden baiting. The words of Stow, when 
 recording the accident- — ' the scaffolds round 
 about the Bear Garden commonly called Paris 
 Garden ' — certainly agree with this conclusion. 
 We may still suppose that there may have been 
 a circus in Paris Garden itself after the date of 
 our maps. But on the other hand, when we look 
 at the later Norden map, and find in place of 
 our two amphitheatres only a single ' beare- 
 house,' it is only natural to imagine that the 
 accident of 1583 was the end of one of them, 
 and that the ' beare-house ' represents the survivor. 
 
 The undoubted existence of these amphitheatres 
 in the liberty of the Bishop of Winchester, imme- 
 diately after the inclusion of Southwark in the 
 city jurisdiction, is a point of great interest as mark- 
 ing an intermediate stage in the making of the 
 Elizabethan playhouse. Their significance from 
 this point of view has been touched upon in the 
 opening chapter of this book, under the heading 
 ' Before the Playhouses.' 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 NEWINGTON BUTTS AND THE ROSE. 
 
 THAT the dramatic associations of Newington 
 Butts, indicated in Chapter IV., were 
 continued in the era of playhouses we know 
 from a document — perhaps the most valuable 
 record of the drama in Elizabeth's reign — the 
 Diary of Philip Henslowe, the partner of Edward 
 AUeyn, the actor, who founded Dulwich College, 
 where the MS. is preserved. The Diary was made 
 for business purposes, and without a thought of 
 the historical uses for which we scrutinize and 
 weigh its entries to-day. It has no pretence to 
 chronological order, or to classification of the par- 
 ticulars it gives. On some points it is exasperat- 
 ingly reticent, and on others it seems to mock us 
 with its unfulfilled indications. 
 
 The Diary gives clear evidence of the perform- 
 ance of plays at Newington Butts, but the existence 
 of a playhouse there depends upon inference. The 
 
OJ ant of tht fcfrmer 
 12 Ctmptufiti is Ihe 
 ■La. JUajftr iif l/it 
 Cyte eomnlg cAotm. 
 
 c. DifptopigaUjIrtete. 
 
 C. AliiaUawtt 
 
 wall. 
 
 ■d. ^. fttph^nt. 
 
 t. Sytu^ JhctU. 
 
 y. A/iUrmanburye. 
 
 ^. Hart icon. 
 
 A, Aider/gait JlrtfU. 
 i Chartvhowft. 
 
 .k. floltanie Conduii. 
 
 !.■ Ckaitnuiy lane 
 m. TrmpU-taxr. 
 
 n. HMoura. 
 
 p. Grayet.Jivr lani, 
 
 p. S Aiidrou-a. 
 
 ij. Niti-gaJe. 
 
 T. S. Idna. 
 
 f. S. trtcJJiaatbtU. 
 
 t. Chcitpfyde. 
 
 V. HiaHtrt tan/e. 
 «'. Urndrfmttt. 
 X. T/u Jihekes. 
 y. The E.cchannge^ 
 z. CuTitrhitt. 
 
 iHiWa Mipl] 
 
 •1. ColmanJtretle. 
 
 3. JiqffiMgt halt 
 
 4. HnunJHilehe. 
 
 5. headen kail. 
 
 6. Graiioasjlreete. 
 
 7. Hitrmge fionfr. 
 6.'Fanc/iiirche. 
 p. Mnrte lane. 
 
 10. 'Aruchyn laite. 
 
 11. I'aaf fj. 
 la. EnJhlint[K. 
 
 iryUfiJirtt-le. 
 -I4. Fitter lane. 
 
 iCk Tfuififs Jltevte. 
 ) J. L^dtwjloae, 
 iB. 0/dt Boflye. 
 I 19. CUrieiiu:U. 
 iff. lyitichtjl^ ioufe. 
 ii. baitle bridgt. 
 a». HvTModfo^Jlnetf^ 
 Jriaiiiifj Xordrn S"' 
 - y/ui iJrJiri^,^i ojiiio 
 I ' '593- 
 
 -- i •'^^m^an^ltn 
 
 rTbc oiigin.ll i.m in 31 tin li>ii 
 
 Oj OMt 0/ Ihe furm.-r 
 IS CiinipaHtt.\ it III. 
 Lo. Maj/ur (/ l/i. 
 CjfU rniHmlv diii'iii. 
 
 a. Ui{fliufaj^ot<Jttnrc- 
 
 l>. Popie. 
 
 f. Athal/auti in (lie 
 
 , «w//.,- 
 dL. S. TafiJijfiu. 
 
 e. Sslii" Jirvcte. 
 
 f. AldmuuHturijr. 
 
 g. Barl-iiaa. 
 
 h. Aldi-rfgine Jttitb- 
 
 i. Charlrr/ioujr 
 
 k. HaJlvrii, Coi„lii,l 
 
 L CkaotU'iry Ian?, 
 
 m. Templrtan. 
 
 n. H^ltourrt. 
 
 »■ Gznyri Ihh tune, 
 
 p. S. Amlroit^t. 
 
 <]■ Nni-gate. 
 
 r. S: /owi- 
 
 / S. NtcjhamhU. 
 
 t. Cflrap Jl/ili: 
 
 u. BurkUn burtjt. 
 
 li'. lirmlijlrretc, 
 
 T. T/ieJtoctrt. 
 
 y. The E-Tihaange, 
 
 »j L'urMchUI. 
 
 [No I InMip.) 
 
 3. Culiuanflfeete. 
 
 3. MaJJuigi hull. 
 
 4. HuunJJih!ie. 
 j. Livdtn hail, 
 
 <i. Graiteiis Jirerle. 
 
 7. Heneoge hou/t. 
 
 6. faiullUTrkM. 
 
 jg. Mfifke Ian*. 
 
 ft- Miitdiyu limtf 
 
 a I, I'auUt. 
 
 ;a. £afitl,en]H^. 
 
 IJ. FUttJife,tt. 
 
 14- JF>lter.iaiit. 
 
 i.V A' U'"l//i'>u,. 
 
 16 Thcmesjirfrit. 
 
 17. L»n,lo»_flime. 
 
 18 Uide Daytye. 
 
 19 Vlrrhrnuitll. 
 
 20 lyift/irlirT f^ii^r. 
 31. /Jal//c /ri(/jr. 
 a». Heraxiil/'ii \lT,ft, 
 
 luaniirt Nimlrti .in 
 glut itrftritijit aiiHu 
 
 NORDEN S MAP OF LONDON 
 
 Insert between pp. 142-143. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 143 
 
 evidence consists of the following heading to some 
 entries of receipts at the performances of various 
 plays : 
 
 ' In the name of God, Amen, beginninge at 
 Newington, my Lord Admeralle and my Lorde 
 Chamberlen men, as fo^oweth. 1594-' 
 
 The chamberlain's company in this joint arrange- 
 ment was that to which Shakespeare was attached, 
 and this part of the Diary has accordingly received 
 much attention. The unanimity with which, on 
 this evidence, the existence of a theatre at 
 Newington Butts has been inferred is the more 
 remarkable because it seems to rest on the record 
 alone, and not upon a wider induction, such as that 
 attempted in our chapter 'on 'The Surrey Side.' 
 From one to another the meagre evidence has been 
 repeated, and the existence of a playhouse tacitly 
 accepted by all. 
 
 It would be wrong to impute this repetition to 
 mere slavish imitation, because there is an equal 
 probability that it may have proceeded from a 
 general consideration of the evidence of the Diary. 
 The alternative to a playhouse would be an inn- 
 yard, or some spot in the open-air in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the Butts. In any case, the fact of 
 the performance of plays here, in consequence of 
 the extension of the city authority over Southwark, 
 takes historical precedence over the playhouses (as' 
 distinct from the amphitheatres) on the Bankside, 
 
144 London Theatres. 
 
 which we know did not exist before 1586, and 
 may not have existed before 1592.* There is a 
 long period — between 1550 and 1586-1592 — 
 during which the players, who had been accus- 
 tomed to entertain the public in the Southwark 
 inn-yards, carried on their performances elsewhere. 
 There is no actual documentary record of this 
 period ; but it is the very province of historical 
 criticism to throw light into such dark places. 
 Illumination depends on the use of facts as much 
 as on their number. History has its , laws of 
 sequence, of cause and effect, as well as other 
 sciences. 
 
 On the Surrey, side, after the charter of 
 Edward VI., we have conditions corresponding to 
 those which produced the theatres in the fields on 
 the northern side of London, The Theatre and 
 the Curtain. History is vocal of these, because 
 there were disputes in connection with them, which 
 gave employment to scriveners, whose engross- 
 ments have survived the accidents of time. But 
 suppose the reverse of the case. Suppose a play- 
 house at Newingtdn Butts, with a history similar 
 to that of the Shoreditch theatres ; and suppose in 
 place of our history of the Shoreditch theatres a 
 meagre record of the fact of plays performed at 
 Holywell. Then, connecting (i) the banishment 
 of players from the city with (2) the fact of plays 
 * Evidence of this will be found infra. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 145 
 
 at Holywell, we should note (3) the significance 
 of the place, (4) the neighbourhood of Finsbury 
 Fields, with its sports and pastimes, and, comparing 
 the conditions, we should perceive the analogy 
 with Newington Butts, and infer the existence of a 
 playhouse. 
 
 Now, to leave this illustrative supposition, and 
 taking the case as it stands, we have : (i) Banish- 
 ment of players from Southwark ; (2) fact of plays 
 at Newington Butts ; (3) significance of the place ; 
 (4) neighbourhood of St. George's Fields, with 
 sports and pastimes ; and, comparing the con- 
 ditions, we perceive the analogy with The Theatre 
 and the Curtain, and infer the existence of a play- 
 house. At any rate, we may safely infer that the 
 record in Henslowe's Diary, which has survived the 
 accidents of time, merely indicates, rather than re- 
 presents, the dramatic history of Newington Butts. 
 
 There is one fact which goes heavily against the 
 existence of a playhouse at Newington Butts before 
 1576, and that is the claim made by the survivors 
 of James Burbage, in reference to The Theatre, 
 that he was the first builder of playhouses. But 
 the intention here is not to prove the existence of 
 a playhouse : it is to show the strong presumption 
 there is of an unrecorded dramatic history in con- 
 nection with Newington Butts. For the period 
 between 1550 and 1576 there were the conditions 
 for the presentation of pageants, with their 
 
 10 
 
146 London Theatres. 
 
 'scaffolds' for the spectators, from which the 
 players could have taken hints. Further, the fact 
 that St. George's Fields and Newington Butts were 
 a holiday resort for Londoners suggests a well- 
 frequented inn, of the type familiar to us, with 
 spacious yard and galleries round. After the 
 establishment of The Theatre and the Curtain, it 
 was probably a calculation as to the likelihood of 
 sufficient profit that determined whether or no 
 there should be a playhouse at Newington Butts. 
 
 It is impossible to use a document like Hen- 
 slowe's Diary aright unless we constantly bear in 
 mind the accidental nature of its existence and 
 preservation. It is a record, but unintentionally 
 so ; the period of its commencement had no 
 conscious reference to any starting-point in dramatic 
 history. We must always look beyond it, and 
 away from it, as well as at it. The view hitherto 
 taken of Newington Butts has been limited to the 
 slight indication which the Diary gives, whereas a 
 general view suggests a history before Henslowe 
 came into contact with it at all. Moreover, there 
 is nbthing in the Diary itself to neutralize the sup- 
 position that it has only a chance or accidental 
 beginning. It is true that the marriage of AUeyn 
 with Henslowe's step-daughter in October, 1592, 
 suggests a reason for starting the book ; but, on 
 the other hand, the earliest entries in point of time 
 begin in February, 1592, and there is nothing to 
 show that the partnership between Henslowe and 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 147 
 
 AHeyn began subsequently to the marriage. The 
 marriage may have come about in consequence of 
 the partnership. If so, the record, if any existed, 
 is lost. In short, the Diary appears to have no 
 significance in its commencement, and may have 
 been preceded by some other book of record. 
 
 The dramatic predispositions of Newington 
 Butts have been indicated. There is, outside the 
 Diary of Henslowe, at least one record of plays 
 there, viz., in 1586-^-the very year Henslowe 
 was contemplating the construction of his Rose 
 Theatre. It is noted in the register of the privy 
 council in that year that their lordships had desired 
 the lord mayor, in pursuance of representations 
 made by him in the matter, to restrain and pro- 
 hibit plays within the city, ' and that their Lord- 
 shippes have taken the like order for the prohibiting 
 of the use of playes at the Theatre and th' other 
 places about Newington out of his charge.'* 
 Again, Howes, in his ' Continuation of Stow's 
 Annals,' 1631, concludes an enumeration of 
 London theatres built during sixty years previous 
 by adding, ' besides one in former time at Newing- 
 ton Buts.' The next point to note is the evidence 
 of Henslowe having lived in the Clink liberty 
 in 1577 ;t how long he may have lived there 
 
 • Halliwell-Phillipps,' Outlines,' i. 331. 
 f G. F. Warner's ' Catalogue of MSS. and Muniments of 
 Alleyn's College of God's Gift at Dulwich' (1881), p. 157. 
 
 10 — 2 
 
148 London Theatres. 
 
 previously we do not know. At a later date he is 
 described as a dyer and citizen of London, and 
 when we first hear of him he may have been 
 carrying on business as a dyer. But from 
 various accounts at the end of the Diary, belong- 
 ing to the years 1577 and 1578, it appears that 
 he was concerned with the cutting of wood in 
 Ashdown Forest, Sussex, where his father had been, 
 and perhaps was still, master of the game.* The 
 record also includes various advances made on 
 pledges. It is a mere fragmentary record, and 
 there is nothing after 1578 till the book was taken 
 into use for dramatic purposes in 1592. 
 
 But these few pawnbroking entries appear to 
 -[ indicate the germ of Henslowe's theatrical enter- 
 prise. After 1592, and throughout the Diary, we 
 have memoranda and entries showing that Hen- 
 slowe stood in the relation of banker to the 
 players. He lays out money for them indi- 
 vidually or collectively, as the case may be, and 
 then there are periodical settlements. Midway 
 between the dates 1578 and 1592 he acquired his 
 Little Rose estate in the Gink, viz., in 1585, and 
 two years later he entered into a partnership in 
 respect of a parcel of the ground and a playhouse 
 to be erected thereon.t We do not accurately 
 know when the Rose Theatre was built and first 
 
 * Warner's Catalogue of Dulwich MSS., 157. 
 t Ibid., 233. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 149 
 
 used for plays ; but the fact that he contemplated 
 this theatre in 1587 affords some ground for sup- 
 posing that he was concerned in theatrical affairs 
 when we first hear of him as dwelling in the Clink, 
 and, indeed, the advances on pledges in 1577 and 
 1578 may have been made to players, and not the 
 first of such transactions in which he was con- 
 cerned. It is quite possible that between the 
 amphitheatres and the Rose there is a link missing 
 in the history, so far as it has been pieced together 
 by investigation. For the sake of filling the 
 lacuna, let us resort to analogy, and suppose the 
 presentation of plays in inn-yards or in enclosed 
 gardens within the Liberty. If it should transpire 
 hereafter that there are references to perform- 
 ances of plays at the Rose before 1592, I should 
 not myself impugn the evidence of the Diary, but 
 conclude that plays were presented on Henslowe's 
 Rose estate before the construction of the play- 
 house His holding consisted of a messuage or 
 tenement with two gardens adjoining.* At this 
 time The Theatre and the Curtain across the water 
 were thriving concerns, and while on the one hand 
 this example may have suggested the playhouse 
 scheme of 1587, probability points to an earlier 
 adoption of the new departure in play-acting on 
 the Surrey side. If there were a playhouse at 
 Newington Butts, this would be the probable 
 * Warner's Catalogue, p. •231- 
 
ifo London Theatres. 
 
 period of its origin, and from Henslowe's con- 
 nection with plays at Newington in 1594 we 
 may infer him as the likely proprietor. 
 
 Now, there are two accounts in the Diary which 
 we must specially discuss. They are the two 
 earliest in date. The first is a record of receipts 
 at the performances of various plays by Lord 
 Strange's company, with the heading, ' In the 
 name of God, Amen, 1591, beginge the 19 of 
 febreary, my lord Stranges men, as foloweth.'* 
 The next is a long account of charges ' layd owt 
 a bowte my play howsse in the yeare of our Lord 
 I592.'t Hitherto, the assumption has been that 
 the latter must actually have been prior to the 
 former of these accounts, for the reason that the 
 building of the playhouse logically precedes the 
 acting of plays. But facts precede logic in 
 historical matters, and it is possible to show that 
 the first of these accounts is really prior in date. 
 The ' 1591 ' against '1592' will not of itself 
 decide the point, because the dates are given 
 according to the old style, and both were actually 
 in 1592. Henslowe was clearly an imperfectly 
 educated man, and he frequently in various parts 
 of his Diary repeats the old year after March 25, 
 sometimes till he gets well into April, when he 
 
 * Diary of Philip Henslowe, ed. J. Payne Collier, Shake- 
 speare Society, 1853, pp. 20-28. 
 t Ibid., 10-16. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 151 
 
 changes it to the correct year. His tendency is 
 always in this direction, and we may safely con- 
 clude that when he wrote 1592 at the head of his 
 playhouse account it was not 1591. In fact, the 
 date covers the year in the Old Style, March 26, 
 1592, till March 25 following, and allowing for 
 Henslowe's tendency to forget the alteration of 
 year, the account may actually have been entered 
 in the Diary in April, 1593. But this suggests 
 an important question. Where were Lord Strange's 
 men playing during the period of the account 
 which we find preceded the playhouse account .'' 
 
 The nature of the account implies that they 
 were performing in a theatre. Concurrently, in 
 another place, are entries of payments of fees to 
 the master of the revels in respect of new pieces 
 produced. This indicates Henslowe's position as 
 theatrical manager. What the sums recorded as 
 received at each performance represent we do not 
 exactly know, but the most probable conclusion 
 seems to be that they represent a percentage of 
 the takings for use of properties, rent of the play- 
 house, and repayments on account of advances 
 made to the players. The alternative is that 
 they represent the total takings, which would be 
 subject to a similar deduction afterwards. In 
 that case, however, we should look for entries 
 of the net amounts separately ; but these we do 
 not find. 
 
152 London Theatres. 
 
 At what theatre were they playing ? If it was 
 not at the Rose we should decide that it was at 
 Newington ; and if at Newington, that the nature 
 of the account implies a theatre there. 
 
 It seems impossible to associate the 1592 play- 
 house account with any other house than the Rose. 
 The question is, Was the money spent in repairing, 
 or in building, the playhouse ? Another account, 
 dated in Lent, 1595 (from which we may derive 
 the date February, 1596) is headed thus: 'A 
 nott what I have layd owt abowt my play- 
 howsse for payntynge and doinge it abowt w*^ 
 ealme hordes and other Repracyones.' This was 
 clearly for repair. But the heading of the 1592 
 account has nothing about repair, and this we must 
 consider with the very great difference of the 
 accounts in respect of length and items. The 
 1595 account has only 24 items ; the 1592 
 account has at least 120, how many more we 
 cannot say, because the lower part of one of the 
 leaves of the account is torn away. 
 
 We have here some ground for supposing that 
 Lord Strange's men did not act at the Rose during 
 the period of their account, February 19 to June 22, 
 1 59 1, old style. Because, if the playhouse were in 
 existence then, it is most unlikely that performances 
 could have taken place in a house which had fallen 
 in such a condition as to require this extraordinary 
 amount of reparation. Further, if we suppose that 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. T53 
 
 this 1592 account was for repairs, how can we 
 explain the dilapidated condition of the house, 
 which must have been built some time after the 
 deed of partnership in 1587 ? 
 
 There is nothing to show that the deed was 
 carried out. The main provision of the deed so 
 far as Henslowe's partner, a grocer, was concerned, 
 was the holding of a small tenement at the south 
 end of the ground near Maiden Lane and Rose 
 Alleys, ' to keepe victualinge in or to putt to any 
 ot.ier use.' Besides this, he was to have half the 
 receipts of the playhouse ; and he was to pay 
 Henslowe j^8i6 in quarterly instalments of 
 j^2 5 los. It is a curious arrangement. Perhaps 
 the man died ; perhaps Henslowe postponed making 
 the playhouse, or let him have the use of the tene- 
 ment on some other 'arrangement. At any rate, 
 we have no evidence of the playhouse having been 
 built, and considering that the deed was for eight 
 and a quarter years, and if carried out would have 
 been in operation at the period of the Diary, which 
 is altogether silent as to Henslowe's partner in the 
 deed, there seems some warrant for supposing that 
 it was not carried out. According to the deed, 
 Henslowe was to have erected the playhouse at his 
 own cost, so that the point is not affected by his 
 expending this money in 1592 without mention of 
 his partner. Yet, on the other hand, such an ex- 
 tensive outlay would bring his partner a benefit 
 
154 London Theatres. 
 
 against which we should look for the mention of 
 some receipt. 
 
 Further than this, there are some indications in 
 the Diary that the work was in progress while the 
 company were playing. These entries are dated in 
 March, 1591 {i.e., 1592), some time after the com- 
 pany began playing on February 19, and in no way 
 conflict with the reasons above stated for conclud- 
 ing that the playhouse account of 1592 is subse- 
 quent to the account of Lord Strange's company.* 
 
 It is quite possible that the work on the play- 
 house was going on all through the year 1592. 
 The collection of the material must itself have 
 taken considerable time. Much of it was supplied 
 by one J. Griggs (variously spelt in the account), 
 and there is in the Diary (p. 52, quite out of 
 place, a blank page having been taken for the 
 purpose) a receipt, or I.O.U., from John Griggs to 
 Henslowe, dated July 13, 1592, which probably 
 had reference to these playhouse transactions. 
 
 The conclusion may be stated : That if the 1592 
 playhouse account were for repairs, it is not im- 
 possible, but extremely unlikely, that Lord Strange's 
 men were playing at the Rose during the period 
 of the earliest account we meet with in Henslowe's 
 
 * Henslowe's Diarjr, ed. Collier, pp. 15, 16. The entries 
 are dated March 7, 1591 ; March 23, 1591 ; and March 28, 
 1 591. (He invariably forgot to change the year after 
 March 25.) 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 155 
 
 Diary, February 19 to June 22, 1592. If the 
 playhouse account be not for repairs, but for build- 
 ing, then the company must have been performing 
 at some other theatre, and that would be New- 
 ington Butts. It is a pity that the point is incapable 
 of absolute proof, because the proof would invest 
 the Newington .playhouse with a very interesting, 
 if brief, history, and the Rose would even then be 
 the best recorded theatre of the Elizabethan age. 
 
 Baffling and illusive as it is on many important 
 points, Henslowe's Diary furnishes clear information 
 as to the construction of his playhouse, the Rose. 
 The items include a large number of payments to 
 the ironmonger in Southwark at the sign of the 
 Frying-pan, for nails of various kinds duly men- 
 tioned. The man who used them was paid is. id. 
 a day : ' Itm paid the nailer for iiij days = iiijj. 413^.' 
 The house was mainly constructed of wood, and 
 the first item in the account is for the purchase 
 of the barge in which it was brought by water. 
 There are many items for wood of various kinds 
 — deal-boards, quarter-boards, inch-boards. The 
 wood and the nails were the chief elements in the 
 building. But there are entries for lime, for mud, 
 for 'chake' and bricks, and for bricklaying. 
 There are payments for laths and for wages to the 
 plasterer. Entries of the various sums paid for 
 workmen's wages are duly made ; and as to the 
 roof, there are the payments for rafters and the 
 
156 London Theatres. 
 
 various payments to the thatcher which give an 
 account of that. A thatched roof, open to the 
 sky over the yard or pit, as in the case of the 
 other playhouses, and the entry ' Itm pd for a 
 maste,' tells us that above the roof a flag was dis- 
 played as a signal for the performances. As to 
 the interior, the entry ' Im pd for xxvj fore 
 powles ' may concern the . poles for supporting the 
 galleries ; and two entries, each for two dozen 
 turned ballusters, may have been for the staircases.' 
 As for the stage itself, we have only one entry, but 
 it is interesting : ' Itm pd for payntinge my stage 
 xjj.' The actors' dressing room — called a tire 
 ( = attire) house in those days, was duly provided, 
 as we learn incidentally from the payment for 
 ceiling the room ' over the tyerhowsse.' This was 
 a room reserved for visitors of position ; there w^as 
 another similar, called ' my lord's rome,' for ceil- 
 ing which also a payment is recorded. Another 
 adjunct is indicated in the entry, ' Pd for make- 
 inge the penthowsse shed at the tyeringe howsse 
 doore,' including items for old timber, boards 
 and quarters, nails, hinges, bolts, and carpenters' 
 wages. 
 
 The entry for painting the stage is the only 
 item for painting in the account. But in the 
 1595 account for repairs — if we assume that it 
 concerns the same playhouse — there are several 
 entries of payments to ' the paynter.' Henslowe 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 157 
 
 had probably found that unpainted wood will not 
 resist the weather. The reparations consisted 
 chiefly in fresh woodwork and painting. 
 
 Between the 1592 playhouse account and the 
 account of Lord Strange's men referred to above, 
 there is an account which most likely concerned 
 Heuslowe's theatrical affairs, but it is impossible 
 to say in what way. In form and matter it re- 
 sembles the playhouse account. It is headed, ' A 
 not what I have layd a bowt the howsse which was 
 Hew Daveses, as foloweth. 1593. Looke the 
 next leafe.' On the next leaf the account is con- 
 tinued for further payments, in 1595. The house 
 which was Hugh Daviess : and at the head of the 
 1595 addendum, 'the howsse which hewe Daves 
 dwelt in laste.' So that it had been a dwelling- 
 house ; what was it after this money had been 
 spent on it .? The name Hugh Davies occurs later 
 in the Diary, but in connection with nothing that 
 throws any light on this house. It is impossible 
 to explain very clearly the suggestion of dramatic 
 associations which accrues to this account from its 
 place in the diary and in connection with what 
 precedes it and comes after it. 
 
 Between the two sections of the account there 
 is an account of payments to the master of the 
 revels. Before it there is the 1592 playhouse 
 account ; after it, the account of Lord Strange's 
 company of players. The items do not help us. 
 
158 London Theatres. 
 
 They are for building materials, wood, tiles, nails, 
 and so on ; and while, on the one hand, a pay- 
 ment for ' setting U2__the port-hole,' and another 
 for a round pole, (seem to idmostj suggest a play- 
 house, yet, on the other hand^ the chimney and 
 the ' manteltie ' (mantelpiece) suggest a dwelling. 
 Possibly it was an inn in connection with the play- 
 house. It was a usual adjunct ; a survival of the 
 inn-yard performances. 
 
 The theatrical events recorded by Henslowe in 
 the account of plays produced by Lord Strange's 
 company, from February 19, 1591 (Old Style) to 
 June 22, 1592, may possibly concern the Rose, 
 but it is apparent from the foregoing discussion 
 that it is more probable that these events belong 
 to the Newington theatre. The group of play- 
 wrights in Henslowe's pay included Marlowe and 
 Greene, and Peek and Nash, to mention only the 
 chief; the leading actor of the companies (Lord 
 Strange's and the Lord Admiral's) was Edward 
 Alleyn ; and to these we may add an obscure but 
 useful and worthy fellow, William Shakespeare. The 
 Lord Strange's men began playing on Saturday, 
 February 19, opening with Robert Greene's ' Friar 
 Bacon and Friar Bongay.' On the following day, 
 Sunday, a play with an obscure title, but probably 
 George Peek's ' Battle of Alcazar,' was performed. 
 Of other plays that have come down to us Greene's 
 ' Orlando Furioso ' was given on the following 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 159 
 
 day, Monday ; and Marlowe's ' Jew of Malta ' on 
 February 26. 
 
 Then later we have this entry : 
 
 ' Rd at henery the vj, the 3 of marche 1 591 . . . iij" xvj" v^' 
 
 Collier's note on this is given below.* The 
 entry has in the margin the letters ' n e,' by 
 which Henslowe distinguished first performances. 
 The letters probably stand for ' new enterlude,' or 
 they may be an abbreviation of ' new ' only. It 
 is quite possible that among the many plays 
 mentioned in the years 1 592-1 593, which are lost 
 to us, there may have been others of which 
 Shakespeare was wholly or partly author. But 
 the success of the play was extraordinary, and may 
 by itself have caused the outburst of jealousy on 
 the part of poor Greene shortly afterwards. Nash 
 in his ' Pierce Penilesse,' which was entered in the 
 registers of the Stationers' Company on August 8, 
 1592, states that the performances of the play 
 had been witnessed by ' ten thousand spectators 
 
 * ' This play, whether by Shakespeare or not, was extremely 
 popular and profitable. It produced Henslowe £1 us. od. 
 for his share on its fourteenth representation. On its per- 
 formance in i59i,wehere see that it brought him ^3 i6s. jd. 
 Malone was of opinion that it was the first part of " Henty 
 the Sixth," included among Shakespeare's works ; and it is 
 certain that this entry of March 3, 1591, relates to its 
 original production, as Henslowe has put his mark n e in the 
 margin.'— Henslowe's Diary, ed. Collier, Shakespeare Society, 
 
 p. 22. 
 
i6o London Theatres. 
 
 at least ' ; and Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps remarks 
 that, 'although this statement may be over- 
 strained, there can be no hesitation in receiving 
 it as a valid testimony to the singular popularity 
 of the new drama.'* The passage from Nash is : 
 
 ' How would it have joyed brave Talbot (the terror of the 
 French) to thinke that, after he had lyen two hundred yeare 
 in his toomb, he should triumph againe on the stage, and 
 have his bones new embalmed with the teares of ten thousand 
 spectators at least, at severall times, who, in the tragedian 
 that represents his person, imagine they behold him fresh 
 bleeding.' 
 
 Of the immediate predecessors of Shakespeare, 
 the two chief died tragically very soon after this 
 success. On September 3, 1592, while the 
 theatres were closed on account of the plague, 
 Robert Greene died, and his ' Groat's Worth of 
 Wit,' in which he betrayed his jealous dread of 
 Shakespeare, was — as stated on the title-page — 
 ' written before his death, and published at his 
 dying request.' On June i following, Marlowe 
 came by his violent death ; but his end was 
 hardly more tragic than that of poor Greene, who 
 died in great distress of mind and body, as is 
 evident in his address of the above-mentioned 
 book : ' To those Gentlemen, his quondam ac- 
 quaintance, that spend their wits in making plaies, 
 R. G. wisheth a better exercise and wisdome to 
 
 • ' Outlines of Life of Shakespeare,' 6th cd., i. 86 ; ii. 81, 
 267. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. i6i 
 
 prevent his extremities.' He addresses three of 
 his comrades in successive appeals without name, 
 but with allusions which would identify them 
 probably to the public at that time. The first to 
 the atheist Marlowe : 
 
 ' Wonder not, for with thee wil I first begin, thou famous 
 gracer of tragedians, that Greene, who hath said with thee, 
 like the foole in his heart, there is no God, should now give 
 glorie unto His greatnesse ; for penitrating is His power, 
 His hand lies heavie upon me. He hath spoken unto me with 
 a voice of thunder, and I have felt He is a God that can 
 punish enemies. Why should thy excellent wit. His gift, be 
 so blinded, that thou should'st give no glory to the giver? 
 . . . [the appeal concludes with the curiously prophetic 
 words :] I knowe the least of my demerits merit this miser- 
 able death ; but wilfuU striving against knowne truth ex- 
 ceedeth al the terrors of my soule. Defer not, with me, till 
 this last point of extremitie ; for little knowest thou how in 
 the end thou shalt be visited.' 
 
 The passages following this were probably 
 addressed to Nash and Peele ; and it is in the last 
 that his anger against the players breaks out, 
 Shakespeare, AUeyn, and Henslowe being specially 
 aimed at : 
 
 ' . . . were it not an idolatrous oath, I would sweare by 
 sweet S. George thou art unworthie better hap, sith thou 
 dependest on so meane a stay. Base minded men al three of 
 you, if by my miserie ye be, not warned ; for unto none of 
 you, like me, sought those burres to cleave ; those puppits, I 
 meane, that speake from our mouths, those anticks garnished 
 in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they al 
 have beene beholding, is it not like that you to whom they all 
 have beene beholding, shall, were ye in that case that I am 
 
 IT 
 
1 62 London Theatres. 
 
 now, be both at once of them forsaken ? Yes, trust them 
 not ; for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, 
 that, with his Tyger'i heart wrapt in a Player's hide* supposes 
 he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of 
 you ; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his owne 
 conceit the only Shake-scene in a countrie. O that I might 
 intreate your rare wits to be imployed in more profitable 
 courses, and let those apes imitate your past excellence, and 
 never more acquaint them with your admired inventions ! I 
 know the best husband of you all will never prove an 
 usurer, and the kindest of them all will never proove a kinde 
 nurse ; yet, whilst you may, seeke you better maisters, for it is 
 pittie men of such rare wits should be subject to the pleasures 
 of such rude groomes.t 
 
 ' In this I might insert two more, that both have writ 
 against these buckram gentlemen ; but let their owne works 
 serve to witnesse against their owne wickednesse, if they 
 persever to maintain any more such peasants.t For other 
 new commers, I leave them to the mercie of these painted 
 monsters, who I doubt not, will drive the best minded to 
 despise them ; for the rest it skils not though they make a 
 jeast at them. 
 
 ' . . . Trust not then, I beseech yee, to such weake stales ; 
 for they are as changeable in minde as in many attires. . . .' 
 
 It is not necessary heire to go at length into the 
 vexed question as to the share of Shakespeare in 
 
 * ' O, tiger's heart, wrapt in a woman's hide.' — ' Henry VI.,' 
 Part III., act i., scene iv. 
 
 t Following upon the above obvious allusions to Shake- 
 speare, these references to ' grooms ' and ' peasants ' seem to 
 point to the rustic from Stratford-on-Avon, whose first occu- 
 pation in London, according to tradition, was to take charge 
 of the horses of visitors to the Theatre and the Curtain in 
 Shoreditch. I believe these indications have not heretofore 
 been noticed. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 163 
 
 the authorship of the three parts of 'Henry VI.' 
 The epilogue to ' Henry V.,' produced later, shows 
 that they were considered to belong to him and 
 his company (the chamberlain's), and they were 
 included by his editors in the folio edition of 
 1623. The line from the third part, travestied by 
 Greefte, is of distinctly Marlowean quality. But 
 Marlowe was the leading playwright throughout 
 Shakespeare's apprenticeship period — 1586-1592 
 — and Shakespeare as an actor had been accus- 
 tomed to declaim ' Marlowe's mighty line.' It is 
 more reasonable to impute the resemblance (by no 
 nieans confined to this line) to Marlowe's influence, 
 than to conclude, in spite of the indications to the 
 contrary, that Marlowe shared the authorship. 
 
 It would seem that Shakespeare himself was 
 impressed by Greene's walrnings. He turned his 
 attention to poetry, and dedicated his ' Venus and 
 Adonis' to Lord Southampton (1593), and shortly 
 afterwards he severed his connection with Hens- 
 lowe and Alleyn. Greene's iteration, ' sith thou 
 dependest on so meane a stay,' and 'trust not, 
 then, I beseech yee, to such weake stales,' may 
 perhaps be compared with Shakespeare's dedication 
 of • Venus and Adonis ' : ' ... nor how the worlde 
 will censure me for choosing so strong a proppe 
 to support so weake a burthen.' 
 
 The season of Lord Strange's company closed 
 on June 22, 1592, owing to the plague, and re- 
 
 II — 2 
 
164 London Theatres. 
 
 opened on the following December 29. In the 
 meantime, doubtless, the work on the Rose had 
 been going forward, and perhaps the account — 
 December 29, 1592, to February i, 1593* 
 — was for Lord Strange's men at that play- 
 house. The plague interrupted again, and among 
 the Dulwich MSS. there is an un-dated warrant 
 from the Privy Council, which may possibly refer 
 to this time, rescinding an order whereby they 
 ' did restraine the Lorde Strange his servauntes 
 from playinge at the rose on the banckside and 
 enioyned them to plaie three daies at newington 
 Butts,' and permitting that ' the Rose maie be at 
 libertie without anye restrainte, so longe as yt 
 shalbe free from infection of sicknes.'f Henslowe 
 has no accounts till Pecember 27 following, when 
 the company of the Earl of Sussex played till 
 February 6, 1594, J probably at the Rose, but it 
 is impossible to say decisively ; it might have 
 been at Newington. This season is especially 
 interesting, on. account of the production of 
 Shakespeare's ' Titus and Andronicus ' on January 
 23 for the first time (denoted by the letters • n e,' 
 as explained above) : 
 
 'Rd at titus and ondronicus, the 23 of Jenewary 1593 iij'i 
 viij» ' 
 
 * Henslowe's Diary, ed. Collier, pp. 29, 30. 
 t Warner's Catalogue, p. 12. 
 t Henslowe's Diary, pp. 31-33. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 165 
 
 — the largest sum received since the previous 
 
 December 29.* The play was repeated on January 
 
 28 and on February 6, when the account ends. 
 
 The next account is headed :. 'In the name of 
 
 God, Amen, begininge at Easter, 1593, the 
 
 Quene's men and my lord of Susex to geather.' 
 
 The 1593 should be 1594, apparently ; this short 
 
 account extends from April i to 8, 1594. It is 
 
 succeeded by a short account. May 14 to 16, 
 
 1594, ' by my lord admirall's men ' ; and then we 
 
 come to the account already cited, ante, p. 143, 
 
 with the heading, ' beginninge at Newington, my 
 
 Lord Admiral le and my Lorde Chamberlen men 
 
 as foloweth, 1594,' which has served the purpose 
 
 of a text to the present chapter. 
 
 How long did this joint arrangement last? 
 Collier seems to have been misled by too literal an 
 acceptance of the evidence of the Diary. In his 
 Introduction (p. xvii.) he writes : ' On page 35 
 begins a highly valuable enumeration of all the 
 dramas represented between June 3, 1594, and 
 July 18, 1596, during the whole of which two 
 years and six weeks the Lord Admiral's players 
 were jointly occupying, or possibly playing in 
 combination at, the Newington Theatre with the 
 Lord Chamberlain's servants.' And in a footnote 
 in the Diary itself (p. 60), in reference to a break 
 
 * Collier seems to accept Malone's view that this was ' the 
 original " Titus Andronicus " before Shakespeare touched it.' 
 But see Halliwell-Phillipps' ' Outlines,' 6th ed., i. 97, 
 
1 66 London Theatres. 
 
 in the continuity of the account — caused by the 
 interposition of entries of another kind, he 
 observes : ' Here, on another leaf, Henslowe con- 
 tinues the long list of plays represented by the 
 Lord Admiral's and the Lord Chamberlain's 
 players at Newington Butts.' Collier dwells on 
 the length of the account, but apparently without 
 entertaining any doubt as to his conclusion upon 
 it. Yet it is not necessary to go outside the 
 evidence in the account to arrive at a quite different 
 conclusion. 
 
 1. The account begins June 3. Under the 
 entry for June 1 3 a line is drawn ; and from that 
 point the amounts received are much larger than 
 from June 3-13. 
 
 2. The account is continuous until March 14, 
 in the following year, 1595. After the entry for 
 that day (p. 51) a line is drawn across the page, 
 and the account is resumed on Easter Monday 
 (April 22 ?). , 
 
 3. There is another break between June 26 and 
 August 25 (p. 55). 
 
 4. Another break occurs after the entry for 
 February 27, 1596 (p. 65). The account of 
 receipts at plays is resumed on April 1 2. Collier's 
 own note on this is : ' This looks like a continua- 
 tion of the former account, but it begins at the 
 top of a separate page, and there is an interval 
 between the 27th February, 1595-96, and the 
 loth {sic) April, 1596.' 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 167 
 
 The severance between the companies may have 
 occurred at either of these points. 
 
 The absence of a fresh heading counts for little. 
 If the Chamberlain's men left at either of these 
 points, the Admiral's men continued ; there was 
 no break in the production of plays and receipt of 
 profits by Henslowe, the record of which is the 
 object of the account. 
 
 Again, in his Introduction (p. xx), Collier 
 remarks : ' It is singular that most of the old plays 
 which our great dramatist is supposed more or less 
 to have employed, and of the stories of which he 
 availed himself, are found in Henslowe's list of 
 this period.' He is speaking of the whole period 
 he had in view — June 3, 1594, to July 18, 1596. 
 He continues : ' Here we find a Titus Andronicus, 
 a Lear, a Hamlet, a Henry V. and a Henry VI., 
 a Buckingham, the old Taming of a Shrew, and 
 several others.' But he does not mention that, of 
 these seven plays, three were produced among the 
 ten performances before the first line of division 
 in the Diary, and that of those, one was Shake- 
 speare's play, viz., ' Titus Andronicus ' (produced 
 twice), and that the other two are recognisable as 
 possible originals of Shakespeare's dramas — viz., 
 ' Hamlet ' and ' Taming of a Shrew '—while the 
 others he mentions are more doubtful. ' Henry V. 
 was not produced till November 28, 1595, and it 
 is marked as a new play. But the most extra- 
 
1 68 London Theatres. 
 
 ordinary thing is that the other two plays men- 
 tioned by Collier — viz., ' Henry VI.' and 
 ' Buckingham ' — don't occur in the account at all. 
 So that the feature of the entries which he brings 
 forward to support his conclusion that the cham- 
 berlain's men were playing at Newington all this 
 time, when brought to the test, shows the opposite; 
 and the fact that, with the exception of ' Henry V.,' 
 the other plays with the Shakespearean titles occur 
 before the first divisional line after the tenth 
 entry, suggests that it was only during this very 
 short period that the two companies were acting in 
 some joint arrangement. After this line there is 
 no more mention of Shakespeare's play 'Titus 
 Andronicus.' 
 
 Further, it may be added that, even if the com- 
 panies parted at one of the subsequent divisional 
 points, we need not conclude that they were 
 acting all the time at Newington, and leaving the 
 Rose unused and unoccupied. The words of the 
 heading, 'Beginning at Newington,' need not 
 imply continuous acting there throughout the 
 period of the account until we come to a fresh 
 heading. But that was Collier's conclusion. 
 
 When the Rose was closed by order, on account 
 of the plague, Henslowe received permission to 
 play at Newington, because, being further away 
 in the fields, there was less danger of infection 
 from the assemblage of people there. It may 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. i6^ 
 
 have been in consequence of some such order that 
 the chamberlain's men, to save loss of time and 
 money, obtained a similar permission, and made 
 arrangements with Henslowe accordingly. It was, 
 probably, only a temporary arrangement, but a good 
 one for the Burbages, for they took Shakespeare 
 away with them as a member of their company. 
 
 There is an almost clear connection between 
 Greene's flurt at the upstart Crow, the dedication 
 of ' Venus and Adonis,' and Shake'speare's joining 
 the lord chamberlain's company. The latter 
 events followed hard upon the first ; for although 
 we do not know the actual date of Shakespeare's 
 accession, we know it was before Christmas, 1594, 
 when the company played before the, Queen at 
 Greenwich.* This departure in Shakespeare's 
 career has not been considered in connection with 
 the problem of the three parts of ' Henry VI.,' 
 but it seems to throw some light on it. The 
 companies were always jealous over their play- 
 house copies, because the effect of the circulation 
 of a play in print was to lessen its novelty and 
 attraction on the boards. When Shakespeare 
 joined the chamberlain's men, what was done in 
 regard to the plays he had produced under' 
 Henslowe.? They were the 'Henry VI.' plays 
 and ' Titus Andronicus.' Let us consider the 
 sequence of events. 
 
 * See ante,'p. 72. 
 
17° London Theatres. 
 
 The publication of the poem ' Venus and 
 Adonis' in 1593 raised Shakespeare into fame. 
 The Earl of Sussex company began playing, pro- 
 bably at the Rose, on December 27, 1593, and on 
 January 23 following they produced Shakespeare's 
 'Titus and Andronicus,' the large audience (which 
 we may deduce from Henslowe's entry) having 
 been probably attracted to witness the first per- 
 formance of a new play by the now famous poet. 
 The play was repeated on January 28 and 
 February 6, when the theatre closed. On this 
 day — February 6 — the play was entered on the 
 books of the Stationers' Company by Danter, who 
 subsequently published it. The play had been 
 acted by other companies, those of Earl Derby and 
 Earl Pembroke, as appeared on the title-page, 
 1594.* Whether Shakespeare or Henslowe leased 
 the' acting rights to these companies, we know 
 that Shakespeare promptly secured the exclusive 
 right of the play directly the contract with the 
 Sussex men ended. But a version of what we 
 now call the Second Part of ' Henry VI.' was also 
 published in this year (1594), and a version of 
 what we now call the Third Part of ' Henry VI.' 
 was published shortly after, in 1595. And in 
 1594 Shakespeare joined the chamberlain's men. 
 
 * On the excellent authority of Langbaine. See ' Out- 
 lines,' 6th ed., ii. z6i. Shakespeare was connected with the 
 Earl of Pembroke's company. See 'Outlines,' i. 215. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 171 
 
 It is certainly worth consideration whether the 
 publication of these quartos was not connected, 
 like the publication of ' Titus Andronicus,' with 
 Shakespeare's departure from the Rose and 
 Newington Theatres and the management of 
 Henslowe. 
 
 The progression of Shakespeare from this point 
 is on a superior plane. He is the famous poet, 
 consorting with eminent courtiers, writing plays 
 for the company which had an almost official 
 connection with the court of Queen Bess — a con- 
 nection which became distinct a few years later, 
 when, on the accession of James, the company 
 became ' the King's players.' On the other hand, 
 Henslowe and Alleyn continue to do good business 
 at the Rose until the close of the year 1598, when 
 the chamberlain's company came back from oVer 
 the water and erected their Globe playhouse on 
 the Bankside. From that point the fortunes of 
 the Rose Theatre decline, from their meridian and 
 soon reach zero. 
 
 The history of these years may easily be gathered 
 from the Diary. We have page after page of 
 entries similar to those already quoted : the date, 
 received at such and such a play, and the amount. 
 The old manager frequently bungles over the titles 
 of the plays, but for the most part they are de- 
 cipherable ; a large proportion of those mentioned 
 have not survived, but familiar titles recur fre- 
 
172 London Theatres. 
 
 quently, notably those of Kit Marlowe's famous 
 plays, ' Faust ' (which generally figures as ' fostes '), 
 the ' Jew of Malta ' (which drops from Henslowe*s 
 pen as 'the Jew,' or 'the Jew of Mai tun'), and 
 ' Tamburlaine ' (recognisable as ' tamberlen '). The 
 interest of the Diary, therefore, is largely literary ; 
 but there are some curious and interesting items of 
 theatrical interest which may be referred to here. 
 
 A few characteristic memoranda will indicate 
 the arrangements for dressing the parts : 
 
 ' Sowld Mr. Richard Jones, player, a manes gowne of 
 peche coler In grayne, the z of Septmbr 1594, to be payd by 
 fyve shellenges a weeke imediately folowinge and beginynge 
 as fowloweth.' 
 
 The weekly payments were punctually made, 
 and are duly recorded (Diary, p. 66). The 
 players evidently shared the responsibility of the 
 management. They were chargeable for their 
 acting gear. Another sign of the individuality of 
 their position is, that they took boys in apprentice- 
 ship to train them as actors. An entry similar to 
 the above occurs on p. 69 : 
 
 ' Sowld unto Jeames Donstall, player, the 27 of aguste 1 595 
 a manes gown of purpell coller cloth, faced with conney and 
 layd on the sieves with buttens, for xxxxiij^ m]^ to be payd 
 xx« in hand and xxiij^ iiij"! at mychellmaste next cominge 
 after the datte above written.' 
 
 The tireman of the theatre bought apparel ; 
 he probably had a supply, and lent the gear to the 
 actors on hire. There is an entry of a sale to him, 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 173 
 
 Stephen Magelt, or Magett, on the next page, of 
 ' a dublet of fuschen playne and a payer of Vene- 
 syones of brade cloth, with ij laces of belement,' 
 which seems cheap at ' xvj^' Sometimes they bought 
 the stuff and had it made up into apparel after- 
 wards : 
 
 'S*owld unto Mr. Jonnes, player, the vj of Maye 1596, 
 ij yardes and iij quarters of brode clothe for eyghtene shelynges, 
 to be payd by iiij° a weacke.' 
 
 On the same day the tireman bought ' a clocke 
 [cloak] of sade grene." On January 2, 1597, 
 Henslowe sold ' unto Thomas Towne, a player, a 
 Blacke clothe clocke layd with sylke lace, for 
 xxvj^ viij"^.' 
 
 The following entry gives a good idea of the 
 business relations between the manager and the 
 Rose company : 
 
 ' Lente unto my lord admerall players at severall tymes in Redey 
 money as foloweth. 1 596. 
 
 ' Lent unto Jeames Donstall for to by thinges for the playe 
 ofValteger - - - - v^ 
 
 ' Lent unto marten slater, to bye coper lace and frenge for 
 the play ofValteger, the 28 of novembr 1596 - xxxx^ 
 
 'Lent unto marten slather, the 29 of novembr 1596 to by 
 for the play of valteger lace and other things - xxv» 
 
 'Dd. unto Steven the tyerman, for to delyver unto the 
 company, for to by a head-tier and a Rebato and other 
 thinges, the 3 of Desembr 1 596 - »j ' ^^ 
 
 'Lent unto my sonne [Edward AUeyn] to by the saten 
 dublet with sylver lace - - - " '"J 
 
 ' Dd unto my sonne for to by sylcke and other thinges for 
 Guido [a play] , - - - " "ip «" 
 
174 London Theatres. 
 
 There are other accounts of advances to the 
 company in which the titles of the plays concerned, 
 or the object of expenditure, are not mentioned. 
 Again, there are numerous loans, many of which 
 were made to actors, and often with the details of 
 repayment. Sometimes money is advanced on 
 pledges. Thus Thomas Towne, the player, who 
 bought the black cloth coat mentioned above, 
 borrowed 5s. on a scarf in 1598 (p. 81), and two 
 years later received a similar accommodation 
 (p. 92) : 
 
 'Lent unto Thomas Towne the 3 of march 1 600 upon 
 a gowld Ringe with a greene stone in it the some of xx". p"* 
 
 ' Lent unto Thomas Towne, by my wiffe, the 1 3 of marche 
 1601, upon a paire of sylcke stockens, tenne shellens, w'*" 
 stockens he fetched, agayne and payd us not ; so he oweth us 
 stylle - - x»' 
 
 Payments and part-payments and advances to 
 authors for new plays are very numerous. The 
 following specimen brings a famous name before 
 us : 
 
 'Lent unto Bengemen Johnson the 3 of desembr 1597, 
 upon a boocke w"='^ he showed the plotte unto the company, 
 which he promysed to dd. unto the company at crystmas next, 
 the some of - - - xx** 
 
 The following memorandum (p. 115) is cha- 
 racteristic of the lives of the old actors : 
 
 'Lent unto Mrs. Birde, alles [alias] Borne, the 26 of 
 novembr 1600 in Redye monye, to descarge her husband owt 
 of the Kynges benche when he laye upon my lorde Jeffe 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 175 
 
 Justes warant [Lord Chief Justice's warrant] for hurtinge of 
 a felowe which browght his wiffc a leatter : some of three 
 powndes I saye iij''' 
 
 There is an unusually explicit receipt by Michael 
 Drayton, in which the amount agreed upon as the 
 price of the play is mentioned (p. 95) : 
 
 ' I received forty shillinges of Mr, Phillip Hinslowe, in part 
 of vj'', for the playe of Willm Longsword, to be delivered 
 presently, within 2 or three dayes, the xxj* of January 1598.' 
 
 These typical entries are taken from the earlier 
 pages. There is a more methodical record for the 
 years 1597-98 (pp. 117-128), in which the various 
 objects of expenditure appear continuously one 
 under another, and afford a very good insight into 
 the work of the Rose Theatre. A specimen is here 
 given : 
 
 ' Layd owt for my lord Admeralks meane, asjolotoeth, 1 597 : 
 
 ' Pd unto Antony Mondaye and Drayton for the laste 
 payment of the Boocke of mother Readcape, the 3 of 
 Jenewary 1597 the some of - - Iv" 
 
 'Layd owte for coper lace for the littell boye, for a valle 
 for the boye, ageanste the playe of Dido and Eneus, the 3 of 
 Jenewary 1597 - xxix* 
 
 * « » * * 
 
 'Lent unto the company the 15 of Jenewary 1597 to bye a 
 boocke of Mr. Dicker [Dekker] called fayeton, fower pounde. 
 I saye lent - i"j" 
 
 ***** 
 
 ' Lent unto Thomas dowton for the company to bye a sewte 
 for phayeton, and ij rebates and j fardengalle, the 26 oi 
 Jenewary 1598 the some of three pownde. I saye lent iij'' 
 
 'Lent unto Thomas Dowton the 28 of Jenewary 1598 to 
 
176 London Theatres. 
 
 bye a whitte satten dublette for phayeton, forty shyllenges. 
 I saye lent - xxxx' 
 
 'Lent unto the company the 4 of febreary 1 598 to disecharge 
 Mr. Dicker owt of the cownter in the powltrey, the some of 
 fortie shillinges. I saye dd to thomas Dowton.' 
 
 Dekker in prison in the Counter and the com- 
 pany paying his discharge, so that he may be present 
 at the first performance, probably : this is a pleas- 
 ing episode on to which we can project our mental 
 vision across three centuries. In a note, Collier 
 makes the likely suggestion that ' Phaeton ' was 
 ' The Sun's Darling,' by Ford and Dekker. We can 
 only cull here and there from this account for the 
 sake of some side-light upon Elizabethan theatrical 
 matters. For instance, the following four entries 
 (pp. 120, 121): 
 
 'Lent unto Drayton and Cheattell the 13 of marche 1598 
 in pte paymente of a boocke, wher in is a pte of a weallche 
 man written, which they have promysed to delyver by the 
 XX daye next folowinge I say lent R. [ready] money xxxx" 
 
 ' Lent unto the company to paye Drayton and Dyckers and 
 Chetell ther full payment for the boocke called the famous 
 wares of Henry the fyrste and the prynce of Walks, the 
 some of- iiijli v* 
 
 ' Lent at that tyme unto the company for to spend at the 
 Readynge of that boocke at the sonne in new fysh streate v" 
 
 ' Pd unto the carman for caryinge and brygyn of the stufe 
 backe agayne when they played in fleat-streat, pryvat, and 
 then owr stufe was loste - . iijs ' 
 
 The 'stuff' of this entry was doubtless the 
 company's wardrobe and properties ; the last 
 words of the entry seem to breathe disgust : 'and 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 177 
 
 then our stuff was lost !' — although I did pay that 
 carman three shillings! But the previous entry- 
 furnishes a glimpse of greater interest : the com- 
 pany assembled drinking together at the Sun in 
 New Fish Street, and one of them, or perhaps one 
 of the authors, reading the MS. of the new play ! 
 This suggests a similar scene at the Mermaid, with 
 Shakespeare as the central figure. 
 
 We can gather from the Diary that the 
 arrangement between Henslowe and the players 
 underwent modification from time to time ; or 
 possibly, under the influence of his more cultured 
 son-in-law and partner, the old manager became 
 more carefiil and explicit in his book-keeping. If 
 we bring these indications into focus, they reveal a 
 good deal of the internal economy of the theatres at 
 that period. In January, 1597, Henslowe adopted 
 a new method of account. The last entry in the 
 old form is : 
 
 '22 of Jenewary 1597 Rd. at Jeronymo - xix^' 
 
 An example of the new form is : 
 
 'Janewary 
 1597 
 
 27 
 
 Rd at womon hard 
 to please . . . 
 
 II 
 
 06 07 08 ' 
 
 The sums are now given in Arabic numerals, and 
 there is an additional column ; but what the figures 
 represent is not apparent, although they probably 
 concern a reckoning between Henslowe and the 
 company. The left-hand column contains not 
 
 12 
 
178 London Theatres. 
 
 only the year and month of date, but also margin- 
 alia. For instance (p. 91): 
 
 ' the xj of October begane my lord admerals and my lord 
 Pembrockes men to playe at my howsse, 1597.' 
 
 The last entry in this form is October 5, 1597. 
 But the account appears to be continued in a 
 different form elsewhere (p. 102) under the follow- 
 ing heading : 
 
 ' A Juste acownte of all suche monye as I have Receved of my 
 lord admeralles and my lord offembrocke men as foloweth begynynge 
 the 21 Octobr 1597.' 
 
 The entries give only the date and the lump 
 sum, in this form : 
 
 ' Rd the 21 of octobr 1597 - v'» j' vj"!.' 
 
 And the sums are above the previous average, 
 because the manager is now taking toll of two 
 companies instead of one. Whatever the arrange- 
 ment was, some members of the company held 
 shares : 
 
 'A Juste acownte of the money which I have Reeeved of Hum- 
 freye Jeaffes hallfe sheare, beginynge the 14 ofjenewary 1597 as 
 foloweth : 
 
 'Rd the 21 of Jenewary 1597 [1598] - viij«' 
 
 And so week by week till March 4, 1598, that 
 is seven weeks, and the total is three pounds. 
 That would be six pounds for a full share for 
 seven weeks. The account has this addendum : 
 
 'This some was payd backe agayne unto the company of 
 my lord admeralles players the 8 of marchc 1598 and the 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 179 
 
 shared it a mongste them : I saye pd backe agayne the some 
 of iiji'. 
 
 Apparently Ben Jonson took a share, but the 
 arrangement fell through. The following entry 
 occurs in the Diary (p. 80), but is crossed out 
 in the MS. : 
 
 'Rd of Bengemenes Johnsones share as folov/eth, 1597 : 
 Rd the z8 of July 1597 - iij^ix^' 
 
 Gabriel Spenser, a prominent actor in the com- 
 pany — whose name will always be linked with 
 that of Ben Jonson, for reasons set forth at a 
 subsequent part of the present chapter — was a 
 shareholder in the Rose Theatre (Diary, p. 98) : 
 
 ' Rd of gabrell Spenser at severall tymes, of his share in the 
 gallereyes, as foloweth, begynynge the 6 of aprell 1598 : 
 Rd the 6 of aprell 1598 - v= vjd 
 
 Rd the 14 of maye 1598 vij= 
 
 Rd the 27 of maye 1 598 - - iiij' 
 
 Rd the 17 of June 1598 v= 
 
 Rd. the 24 of June 1598 - iiij"' 
 
 For five weeks, one share in the gallery amounted 
 to 25 s. 6d. 
 
 Apparently this arrangement with Spenser ceased 
 at this time ; for in the following month we have 
 an account with this heading (Diary, p. 129): 
 
 ' Here I Begyne to "Recei/e the viholle gallerys from this daye, 
 beinge the 29 of July 1598.' 
 
 The first week's receipts amounted to ;^io 14J. ; 
 and week by week the receipts are recorded to 
 
 12 — 2 
 
i8o London Theatres. 
 
 October 13, 1599 (p. 130), when apparently there 
 was some rearrangement, and the account is con- 
 tinued elsewhere (p. 151), the items overlapping 
 somewhat, under this heading : 
 
 ' Here I begane to Receve the galleries agayne, which they 
 Receved, begynynge at myhellmas wecke, being the 6 of octobr 1 599, 
 as fohzoeth.' 
 
 The reference ' they received ' in this heading is 
 perhaps explained by a memorandum at the close 
 of the previous section of the account (p. 130), 
 as follows : ' Receved with the company of my 
 Lord of notingame men to this place, being the 
 13 of October, 1599 ; and yt doth apere that I 
 have Received of the deate [debt] which they owe 
 unto me iij hundred fiftie and eyght powndes.' In 
 another place (p. 157) he gives the total outlay 
 made in behalf of the company, ;^632. The 
 references to the Nottingham men concern the 
 same company — the Admiral's — the position of 
 Lord Admiral being occupied by the Earl of 
 Nottingham at this time. 
 
 ^^358 is the total of the gallery account for 
 forty-four weeks, and Henslowe sets it against the 
 total of advances made for the players. The debt 
 was in respect of various outlays for the company, 
 similar to those already noticed, involving pay- 
 ments to authors, advances for apparel, and miscel- 
 laneous expenses. There is a further account 
 under this heading (p. 153) : 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. i8i 
 
 'Layde owt for the company of my lord of Notingame menfromi 
 the 26 ofmaye 1599 "^ filoifeth, 1599.' 
 
 This extends to January 23, 1 600-1 (p. 175) ; 
 continued January 26 (p. 183), though how far 
 the entries from this point concern the Rose is not 
 clear. Henslowe and Alleyn's other theatre, the 
 Fortune, was opened in this year. 
 
 The Diary is a troublesome and confusing 
 document : it is not chronological, and leaves 
 which have been torn out of the original here and 
 there may or may not have contained continuations 
 of preceding matter. The above notes, therefore, 
 may be useful for reference, if the reader should 
 wish to pursue inquiry in the record itself. The 
 nature of Henslowe's position as manager of the 
 Rose is tolerably clear. He was the proprietor of 
 the theatre ; he financed the companies acting 
 there ; he advanced money for purchase of the 
 acting rights of new plays. It was a speculation, 
 he made the outlays at his own risk ; but his 
 management was successful and profitable. 
 
 After the establishment of the theatres, the 
 companies continued to act under licenses, but the 
 tendency was towards a weakening of their de- 
 pendence ; they remained nominally the servants 
 of their patrons, but tended ever more and more 
 to become actually the servants of the public. 
 They took boys in apprenticeship, and trained 
 them to act female characters ; the managers of 
 
1 82 London Theatres. 
 
 the theatres hired players directly on their own 
 account. These were called ' hirelings,' and 
 Stephen Gosson, in his 'School of Abuse,' men- 
 tions that they were paid six shillings per week. 
 Henslowe records such hires in his Diary. 
 
 'Memdum, that the 27 of Jeuley 1597 I heayred Thomas 
 Hearne with ij pence, for to searve me ij yeares in the qualetie 
 of playenge, for fyve shellynges a weacke for one yeare and 
 vjs viij"^ for the other yeare, which he hath covenanted hime 
 seallfe to searve me, and not to departe frome my companey 
 tyll this ij yeares be eanded ' (p. 256). 
 
 There is a similar agreement under date August 
 6, 1597, by which Richard Jones became bound 
 ' to continew and playe with the companye of my 
 lord Admeralles players,' for three years, ' to playe 
 in my howsse only known by the name of the 
 Rosse, and in no other howsse about London 
 publicke,' and if the theatre should be closed 
 ' then to go for the tyme into the contrey, and 
 after to returne agayne to London.' Four days 
 later William Borne became bound ' to come and 
 playe with my lord Admeralles men at my howsse, 
 called by the name of the Rosse, setewate one the 
 banck,' under a penalty of a hundred marks. 
 There are five other similar agreements, the last 
 being dated April 16, 1599 (1600). 
 
 Another entry records a loan of ten shillings to 
 John Helle, the clown, and below the entry there 
 is a record of the bond by which the clown is 
 bound 'to continew with me at my howsse in 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 183 
 
 playinge till Shrafte tyde,' under a penalty of 
 forty pounds. 
 
 A transaction which seems to show that boys 
 were regarded as chattels Is recorded thus : ' Bowght 
 my boye Jeames Brystow, of William Augusten, 
 player, the 18 of desembr 1597, for viijV 
 
 We have seen above that Gabriel Spenser, one 
 of the Rose players, held a share in the proceeds 
 of the galleries of the theatre in 1598, and also 
 that in the previous year an arrangement for Ben 
 Jonson becoming a shareholder was cancelled. 
 The fatal duel that took place between these two 
 men in 1598 demands some notice here. The 
 position occupied by them at the theatre was not 
 by any means identical. Probably both were 
 players ; but Jonson was also an author, and his 
 status by consequence was similar to that of other 
 authors — Greene, Marlowe and Shakespeare — who 
 were also actors on occasion, if not continuously. 
 We will glance at some entries in the Diary 
 concerning them and their relative position before 
 the duel. An entry of an advance to Ben Jonson 
 on a play he had in hand for the company has 
 already been noticed {ante, p. 1 74). The follow- 
 ing entries of a similar nature also occur. 
 
 ' Lent unto Bengemen Johnson, player, the 28 of July 1 597 
 in Redey money, the some of fower powndes to be payd yt 
 agayne when so ever either I or any for me, demand yt : I 
 saye. - - " " i"J"' 
 
184 London Theatres. 
 
 ' Lent Bengemyne Johnson, the 5 of Jenewary 1 597 in 
 Redey mony the some of - - - - v° 
 
 'Lent unto the company the 18 of aguste 1598, to bye a 
 Boocke called hoote anger sone cowld [Hot Anger soon Cold] 
 of Mr. porter, Mr. cheattell, and bengemen Johnson, in fulle 
 payment, the some of ... vij'i' 
 
 To Gabriel Spenser there are loans : March i o, 
 1598, los. ; March 20, 15s. ; April 5, 30s. 
 (Diary, 112). On April 9 he signs a receipt 
 with two other players for a loan of £6. On 
 April 24 he has another small loan of los. (p. 1 14), 
 under the entry of which there is the following : 
 
 'Lent unto gabrell spenser the 19 of maye 1598 to bye a 
 plume of feathers, w'^'^ his mane bradshawe feched of me, x^.' 
 
 There are other entries with his name ; and 
 the receipts on account of his share in the galleries 
 have already been noted (^anie, p. 179). Enough 
 has been given to show that both he and Jonson 
 were actively engaged in the work of the company 
 in the year of the duel. 
 
 At the close of 1597, Edward Alleyn, for 
 reasons unknown to us, discontinued acting ; he 
 had accumulated a good deal of money, and in 
 the previous year had invested it, or part of it, in 
 a lease of the parsonage of Firle, in Sussex. The 
 sum he paid for this lease indicates his prosperity, 
 £1,323 6s. 8d. The yearly rent was ^^31 12s. 4d., 
 the lease being assigned to Alleyn by a Sussex 
 gentleman — Arthur Langworth, of Ringmere, and 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 185 
 
 also of Broyle, both in Sussex.* Perhaps AUeyn 
 had determined to quit the stage altogether and be 
 a gentleman of limited means ; or he may have 
 ' leafte playinge ' to attend to his investment, and 
 also another matter which was exercising Hen- 
 slowe's mind as well as his own at this time. 
 They had been interested in the baiting sports on 
 the Bankside since 1594, the money invested by 
 them in the concern bringing in a very profitable 
 return. Ralph Bowes, who held the patent of 
 master of Paris Garden, died in 1598, and AUeyn 
 and Henslowe hoped for the reversion of the office. 
 They were not successful ; but these were circum- 
 stances of their position while AUeyn was staying 
 with his wife as guests of Arthur Langworth at 
 Broyle, in Sussex, during the summer months of 
 1598. In one of his letters addressed to Alleyn 
 wtiile he was away on this visit, Henslowe reports 
 the fatality which had befaUen their company. t~ 
 In the course of his letter he says he has con- 
 sidered the words between them as to the bear- 
 garden, and thinks it fit they should both be in 
 London to do what they can ; as for their last 
 talk about Mr. Pascalle (a gentleman server to the 
 queen, and an officer of the lord chamberlain, 
 with whom they had been trying to make interest 
 
 * Dulwich Catalogue, 255. 
 
 t The letter was printed by Collier, ' Memoirs of Edward 
 AUeyn,' p. 50, 
 
1 86 London Theatres. 
 
 with a view to the patent), Henslowe says he does 
 not forget to send news, but will tell him some 
 ' harde and heavey,' for one of his company, 
 ' that is gabrell,' i.e., Gabriel Spenser, has been 
 ' slayen in Hogesden [i.e., Hoxton] fylldes by the 
 hands of benjemen Jonson, bricklayer.' The letter 
 is dated London, September 26, 1598. 
 
 To our ears the word ' bricklayer,' as the 
 qualification of one of the greatest names in 
 English literature, sounds somewhat strange ; but, 
 to their honour, most of the actors had some 
 other calling, which we know — in some instances, 
 at any rate — was not merely nominal. Their 
 styling themselves according to their qualifications 
 in various trades was probably due to the proclama- 
 tions as to vagabonds and masterless men, and the 
 anxiety of the players to possess a recognised status 
 in law. But if Jonson at this time had been a 
 properly-constituted member of the company his 
 designation in that capacity would have taken 
 precedence, and his qualification would have been 
 ' servant of my Lord Admiral.' If he ceased to 
 be a member of the company, he would revert in 
 style to his former occupation. And there is every' 
 reason to suppose that he had left the company. 
 This seems to be at least a plausible explanation of 
 the much-commented-upon ' bricklayer ' descrip- 
 tion of Rare Ben Jonson. 
 
 Jt was in this same month — September, 1598 — 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 187 
 
 that Ben Jonson's comedy, ' Every Man in his 
 Humour,' was brought out by the lord cham- 
 berlain's men at the Curtain Theatre,* Shake- 
 speare himself sustaining a part in the representa- 
 tion. The position seems to be this. Jonson had 
 taken his play over to the great rival company — 
 the men of the lord chamberlain — and the irrita- 
 tion that Henslowe and the Rose players may 
 have felt at this was probably emphasized in 
 Henslowe's mind, because at this time he was 
 trying to make interest with the lord chamber- 
 lain in respect of the patent for the ' Royal Game 
 of Bears, Bulls, and Mastiff Dogs,' as it was styled. 
 Likely enough, Gabriel Spenser, who was share- 
 holder in Henslowe's theatre, and perhaps favoured 
 by the old manager, went over to Shoreditch, and, 
 meeting Ben Jonson, reproached him, and so pro- 
 duced the quarrel ; at any rate, the ascertained 
 facts, when brought together, seem to suggest 
 some such constructive hypothesis. 
 
 We , will now turn to the interesting details of 
 the encounter which were discovered by Mr. John 
 Cordy JeafFreson during his work of reducing into 
 a calendar the mass of documents comprismg 
 the Middlesex Sessions Rolls. He communicated 
 his find to the Athenaum, accompanied by some 
 admirable editorial comment ; and in the ensuing 
 account here given these communications and sub- 
 
 * Halliwell-PhilHpps' 'Outlines/ i. 154-156 ; 339. 34°- 
 
1 88 London Theatres. 
 
 sequent criticisms have been freely drawn upon.* 
 In communicating his discovery to the Athenaum, 
 Mr. JeafFreson pointed out that besides giving us 
 the indictment on which Ben Jonson was arraigned 
 in the Justice Hall of the Old Bailey at the gaol- 
 delivery of Newgate made in October, 1598, the 
 document gives us, immediately oyer its first 
 mention of the culprit, a brief minute of the prime 
 incidents and chief consequences of the arraign- 
 ment. 
 
 'It was the usual practice [he says] of the Middlesex 
 Clerk of the Peace thus to put on every important indictment 
 brief notes, or a single brief note of any matters or matter to 
 be held in remembrance respecting the facts of the case. 
 From such notes one learns whether prisoners put themselves 
 " Guilty,'' or pleaded innocence ; whether, in either case, 
 they pleaded their clerical privilege ; whether they were 
 sentenced to the gallows, the pillory, or the cart's tail. . In 
 short the note is a brief history of the course of events after 
 arraignment, even as the indictment itself is a brief history of 
 the case up to the time of arraignment.' 
 
 The document is in Latin, but here we have 
 space only for the English version supplied with 
 the Latin by Mr. JeafFreson, the precis heading 
 being printed in italics : 
 
 * Athenaum, No. 3045, March 6, 1886, pp. 337, 338 ; No. 
 3048, March 27, 1886, pp. 432, 433 ; a communication from 
 Dr. Nicholson, No. 3060, June 19, 1886, pp. 823, 824 ; note 
 by Mr. Daniel, No. 3061, June 26, 1886, p. 856. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 189 
 
 ' He confesses the indictment, asks for the book, reads like a clerk, 
 is marked with the letter T, and is delivered according to 
 the statute, etc. 
 
 'Middlesex : — The jurors for the Lady the Queen present, 
 that Benjamin Johnson, late of London, yeoman, on the 22nd 
 day of September, in the fortieth year of the reign of our 
 Lady Elizabeth by God's grace Queen of England, France, 
 and Ireland, Defender of the Faith etc., with force of arms, 
 etc., made an attack against and upon a certain Gabriel 
 Spencer, being in God's and the said Lady the Queen's peace, 
 at Shordiche in the aforesaid county of Middlesex, in the 
 Fields there, and with a certain sword of iron and steel called 
 a Rapiour, of the price of three shillings, which he then an'd 
 there had and held drawn in his right hand, feloniously and 
 wilfully beat and struck the same Gabriel, giving then and 
 there to the same Gabriel Spencer with the aforesaid sword 
 a mortal wound of the depth of six inches and of the breadth 
 of one inch in and upon the right side of the same Gabriel, 
 of which mortal blow the same Gabriel Spencer at Shordiche 
 aforesaid, in the aforesaid county, in the aforesaid Fields, then 
 and there died instantly. And thus the aforesaid jurors say 
 upon their oath, that the aforesaid Benjamin Johnson, at 
 Shorediche aforesaid, in the aforesaid county of Middlesex, 
 and in the aforesaid Fields, in the year and day aforesaid, 
 feloniously and wilfully killed and slew the aforesaid Gabriel 
 Spencer, against the peace of the said Lady the Queen, etc' 
 
 Mr. Jeaiireson truly remarks, 'There is some- 
 thing grimly fantastic in the notion of so good a 
 scholar as Ben Jonson " asking for the book," in 
 order to prove himself capable of reading his 
 "neck-verse" — something grotesquely horrible in 
 the thought that, but for benefit of clergy, so 
 bright a genius would have been hung at Tyburn 
 
190 London Theatres. 
 
 like any unlettered rascal convicted of having 
 stolen a horse or stabbed an enemy in the back,' 
 
 Mr. JeafFreson shows that, in cases where felons 
 possessed no chattels, it was the practice of the 
 clerk of the peace to note the fact ; and the 
 silence as to chattels therefore implies forfeiture, 
 so that Ben Jonson, although he escaped death, 
 was an absolutely ruined man. He went forth 
 into the world a beggar, with the ignominious 
 ' Tyburn T ' branded on the brawn of his left 
 thumb. Mr. Jeaffreson closes his valuable com- 
 munication with the following suggestive query : 
 ' Did Ben Jonson cut out the " litera T," or burn 
 it out of his flesh } or was it still faintly visible in 
 the old spot when he was placed in the coffin that 
 was borne in honour to Westminster Abbey ?' 
 
 Dr. Nicholson and Mr. Daniel subsequently 
 pointed out in the Athenaum some passages from 
 Dekker's ' Satiromastix ; or. The Untrussing of 
 the Humorous Poet,' in which allusion is made 
 to this episode in Jonson's career.* The references 
 are, as furnished by Dr. Nicholson, to Hawkins's 
 edition of ' Satiromastix.' Dekker's character of 
 Horace is intended as a reflection of Ben Jonson. 
 («) Tucca to Horace (p. 159) : 'Art not famous 
 enough yet, my mad Horastratus, for killing a 
 
 * Ben Jonson himself has the following allusion to neck- 
 verse several years later, in his 'Bartholomew Fair ' (1614), 
 Act i., scene iv. : 'I am no clerk, I scorn to be sav'd by my 
 book, i' faith I'll hang first.' 
 
Newington Butts and the' Rose. 191 
 
 player?' {¥) Asinius to Horace (p, 107) : 'Answer! 
 As God judge me, ningle, for thy wit thou mayst 
 answer any Justice of Peace in England, I warrant. 
 Thou writ'st in a most goodly hand, too — I like 
 that ; and read'st as legibly as some that have been 
 saved by their neck-verse.' (f) Tucca, speaking to 
 Horace, or Jonson (p. 168) : ' The best verse that 
 ever I knew him hack out was his white \t.e., his 
 clearing] neck-verse.' And before this (p. 119) he 
 says to Horace: 'Hold, hold up thy hand ; I've 
 seen the day thou didst not scorn to hold up thy 
 goUs,' the allusion here being to the custom of that 
 time of a prisoner at the bar holding up his hand 
 while his arraignment was read, {d) Tucca, after 
 Horace has been tossed in a blanket, says (p. 152): 
 ' Thou art the true-arraigned poet, and shouldst 
 have been hanged, but for one of these part-takers, 
 these charitable copper-lac'd Christians, that fetcht 
 thee out of purgatory.' Dr. Nicholson points out 
 that the play contains no charge on which it could 
 even have been supposed that Horace would have 
 been hanged, and the allusion to Jonson's felony 
 seems to be quite clear. Jonson's part in this con- 
 troversy with Dekker appeared in his ' Poetaster,' 
 in which two of the dramatis ■person^e are ' Horace ' 
 and 'Pantilius Tucca,' Both performances were pub- 
 lished in 4to. in 1602. That Jonson was saved by 
 the intervention of a friend, a player, may be inferred 
 from the speech last noted — {d). Collier noticed 
 
192 London Theatres. 
 
 this in his Introduction (p. xx) to the ' Memoirs 
 of Actors ' (Shakespeare Society), with the sugges- 
 tion that the intercessor was Shakespeare. It was 
 a random shot, but probably hit the mark ; because 
 a later and more exact student, Mr. Halliwell- 
 Phillipps, worked out the production of Jonson's 
 ' Every Man in his Humour ' as having been at the 
 Curtain Theatre, Shoreditch, in this same month, 
 1598 ; and the good office rendered by Shake- 
 speare — to whom, according to the tradition, the 
 acceptance of the play was due — indicates that the 
 friendship between Shakespeare and Ben Jonson 
 had begun. That it was warm, cemented by 
 favours and kindness, we can gather from Shake- 
 speare's general sentiments upon friendship in his 
 'Sonnets,' and from the express testimony left 
 on record by Ben Jonson himself There may 
 have been true gratitude in some of Jonson's ex- 
 pressions in reference to Shakespeare : witness the 
 dedication of his lines to Shakespeare in the prdle- 
 gomena of the first folio edition of the plays, 1623 
 — 'To the memory of my beloved, the author, 
 Mr. William Shakespeare, and what he hath left 
 us ;' and the following manly and touching tribute 
 which occurs among his obiter dicta many years 
 later : 
 
 ' De Shakespeare nostrat. I remember, the Players have 
 often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his 
 writing (whatsoever he penn'd), hee never blotted out line. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 193 
 
 My answer hath beene, would he had blotted a thousand. 
 Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told 
 posterity this, but for their ignorance, who chose that cir- 
 cumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most 
 faulted. And to justifie mine bwne candor, (for I lov'd the 
 man, and doe honour his memory (on this side idolatry) as 
 much as any.) Hee was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and 
 free nature ; had an excellent Phantsie ; brave notions, and 
 gentle expressions : wherein hee flow'd with that facility, 
 that sometime it was necessary he Should be stop'd : Sufflami- 
 nandus erat ; as Augustus said of Haierius. His wit was in his 
 owne power ; would the rule of it had beene so too. Many 
 times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter : As 
 when hee said in the person of Casar, one speaking to him ; 
 Ceesar, thou dost me wrong. Hee replyed : Casar did never 
 wrong, but with just' cause : zx^^ such like ; which were ridicu- 
 lous. But he redeemed his vices, with his vertues. There 
 was ever more in him tq_be praysed, then to be pardoned.'* 
 
 In the absence of direct) jproof, we can safely say 
 that the * part-taker,' the ' charitable copper-lac'd 
 Christian,' who ' fetcht-' Jonson ' out of purga- 
 tory,' was his friend William Shakespeare. This 
 allusion to copper-lace is interesting to students 
 of the Diary of Henslowe. His Memoranda re- 
 lating to the purchase of copper lace for the 
 players are remarkably numerous and the amounts 
 are large. 
 
 It is not a little curious that Mr. Jeafireson 
 discovered also among the Middlesex MSS. a 
 coroner's 'inquisition,' by which it appears that 
 
 * ' Timber ; or. Discoveries ; made upon men and matter : 
 By Ben : lohnson. London, Printed mdcxli.,' pp. 97, 98. 
 
1^4 London Theatres. 
 
 Gabriel Spenser himself, two years previously, had 
 slain a man in the same parish, and presumably 
 had escaped death as a felonious clerk, reading his 
 neck-verse and sustaining the branding of the 
 ' Tyburn T ' in his hand. This discovery comes 
 so absurdly apt as a solatium to sensitive Jonson 
 devotees that, remembering Mr. Jeaffreson's clever- 
 ness in improvising letters in the diction of the 
 period — as related in his interesting ' Recollec- 
 tions ' — one almost entertains a passing wonder if 
 he be not indulging in a clever joke ! But the 
 circumstances do not admit of such a supposition 
 for a moment, and students of the drama are 
 under obligation to Mr. Jeaffreson for publishing 
 his valuable discovery. 
 
 The inquisition, in the original Latin as well as 
 in English, will be found in the Athenaum* The 
 following summary of the facts is quoted from the 
 introductory remarks : 
 
 ' On the 3rd of December, in Elizabeth's thirty-ninth 
 regnal year, (1596 a.d.), something more than a year and 
 nine months before the fatal duel in Shoreditch, Gabriel 
 Spencer, of London, yeoman, was in the dwelling-house 
 (probably also in the shop) of Richard Easte, of the parish of 
 St. Leonard, in Shoreditch, barber, when he had a quarrel 
 with a certain James Feake. How the quarrel arose does 
 not appear. But it is on the record that it was a quarrel in 
 which there was an interchange of insulting and abusive 
 speech between James Feake and Gabriel Spencer. Angry 
 
 * No. 3048, March 27, 1886, pp. 432, 433. 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 195 
 
 at something Gabriel Spencer said to him, James Feake 
 caught up a copper candlestick, worth sixpence, and seemed 
 to be on the point of throwing it at his adversary when the 
 latter took prompt and extreme measures of self-defence. 
 Armed with a sword worth five shillings, Gabriel Spencer, 
 without drawing his weapon, lunged at the man who had 
 raised the copper candlestick, and with the sword and 
 scabbard struck James Feake between the ball and brow of 
 his right eye, giving him a wound that reached the brain. 
 The affair was over in a trice. James Feake dropped the 
 candlestick, and three days later died of the blow thus given 
 him. Of course there was a coroner's inquest, with a verdict 
 of homicide.' 
 
 In the case of Jonson the coroner's inquisition 
 has perished, and we have only the form of indict- 
 ment at the Old Bailey. In the case of Spenser 
 * the converse has happened — the indictment has 
 perished, while the inquisition has survived. But, 
 owing to the sirtiilarity of circumstances, the 
 inquisition in Spenser's case practically supplies 
 what is missing to complete the record of Ben 
 Jonson's felony. Undoubtedly Jonson's turpitude 
 is much lightened by his appearing in the light of 
 a Nemesis upon the quarrelsome and felonious 
 Gabriel. 
 
 At the close of this year, the chamberlain's 
 company established their Globe playhouse on the 
 Bankside ; and it is now for us to briefly consider 
 the history of the Rose Theatre from that point. 
 
 Notwithstanding the presence of the chamber- 
 lain's men in the neighbourhood, Henslowe 
 
 13—2 
 
196 London Theatres. 
 
 continued his disbursements in behalf of the players 
 of the admiral, the Earl of Nottingham, at the 
 Rose, without any apparent diminution during the 
 year 1599. After the entry for October 13, there 
 was a reckoning up, recorded by Henslowe in 
 these words : 
 
 ' Reckned with the company of my lorde the Earlle of 
 nottingames men to this place, and I have layd owt for them 
 the some of yj hundred and thirtie two powndes, and they 
 have payd unto me of this deathe [debt] iij hundred and' 
 fiftie and eyghte powndes, to this daye, being the 13 of 
 October, 1599.' 
 
 Then the record of expenditure continues. 
 The entries in the Diary tend to become more 
 methodical as time goes on, revealing, among 
 other things, that payments to authors by Hens- 
 lowe for new plays were expressly made in behalf 
 of the company, who, therefore, became the 
 owners of the plays. In July, 1600, there is 
 another reckoning with the company, in the form 
 of an acknowledgment by the players of the 
 amount of their indebtedness, as follows (p. 172) : 
 
 ' So that the full some of all the debtes which we owe 
 Mr. Henshlowe this xth of July, i6oo, cometh to just the 
 some of three hundred powndes .... ccc'' 
 
 ' Which some of three hundred poundes we whose names 
 are hereunder written doe acknowledge our dewe debt, and 
 doe promyse payment.' 
 
 Then follow the signatures of eleven actors, 
 being sharers of the company, exclusive of hire- 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 197 
 
 lings who were paid a weekly stipend, and boys 
 employed under the principal actors. A few 
 entries above, the following entry occurs : 
 
 ' Lent unto Thomas Dowton, the 5 of June, 1600, to bye 
 a sewt for his boye in the playe of cuped and siches [Cupid 
 and Psyche] the some of ..... xxxx* 
 
 By this time Henslowe and AUeyn had replied 
 to the move of the chamberlain's men southward 
 by making a counter-move northward, and were 
 building their Fortune playhouse in Golden Lane, 
 Cripplegate. We learn (p. 181) that ' my Lord of 
 Pembrockes men ' began playing at the Rose on 
 October 18, 1600, but the receipts of only two 
 performances are recorded, and the amounts are 
 very small. Perhaps the admiral's men had gone 
 to the Fortune. The contract for building that 
 theatre bears daite the previous 8th of January, and 
 it is therefore not impossible that it may have 
 been opened in. the autumn. 
 
 Henslowe now had to pay the master of the 
 revels a fee of ^^3 a month ; and unless the 
 receipts at the Rose were satisfactory, we can under- 
 stand he would close it, in order to escape the 
 liability. The payment of fees recorded (p. 179) 
 for October and November, 1599, and January, 
 February, April, and May, 1600, were probably 
 for the Rose. But the payments of July and 
 August, 1 601 (p. 181), a;-e expressly for the 
 Fortune. 
 
198 London Theatres. 
 
 It is possible that the admiral's men continued 
 to play at the Rose as well as the Fortune, and 
 the account beginning January 26, \(iOo{i.e. 1601) 
 (pp. 183-190) may refer to both houses. But 
 while mention of the Fortune occurs, there is 
 nothing as to the Rose ; the account continues 
 with intermission till March, 1603. In the mean- 
 time, Henslowe had arranged with the players of 
 the Earl of Worcester to occupy the Rose. His 
 account with this company (Diary, pp. 236-251), 
 begins August 17, 1602, and ends March 16, 1603. 
 The sums expended and advanced amount to 
 140//. ij. At the end of the account there is a 
 written acknowledgment of this liability, ex- 
 pressed plurally, the promise to pay to be signed 
 by all the members of the company, in the form 
 adopted in the case of the admiral's company at 
 a previous date (Diary, p. 172). Whether the 
 business was properly settled up we do not know, 
 as some leaves of the Diary have been cut away at 
 this point. But the company made a fresh start 
 on May 9, 1603, under 'the king's license,' i.e., 
 on the accession of James the Earl of Worcester's 
 company became licensed as the servants of the 
 queen, Anne of Denmark, consort of the new 
 king. However, there is only one entry under 
 this account, and it would seem that since the 
 chamberlain's men had been acting at the Globe 
 the Rose did not pay. But our sympathy with 
 
Newington Butts and the Rose. 199 
 
 AUeyn and Henslowe is tempered by the fact 
 that they drew handsome profits from the Bear 
 Garden on the Bankside, while their Fortune play- 
 house proved a great success, and furnished a large 
 part of the means which enabled Alleyn to build 
 and endow his great charity, the College of God's 
 Gift, at Dulwich. 
 
 The account with the Earl of Worcester's com- 
 pany has some interesting indications. One of the 
 early entries is for a supper held when the arrange- 
 ment with the company was entered into : 
 
 ' Layd out for the company at the Mermayd, when we 
 weare at our agrement the zi of aguste i6oz, toward our 
 super, the sum of ....... ii' 
 
 The names of William Kempe and John Lowin, 
 who subsequently became ornaments of the Shake- 
 speare-Burbage association, recur in this account. 
 It would seem likely that they went over to the 
 ' king's (late chamberlain's) men at the Globe, 
 when the queen's (late Worcester's) company left 
 the Rose. In this year Henslowe tried to dispose 
 of the lease of the Rose, as we learn from the 
 following entry in his Diary (p. 235) : 
 
 'Memorandum, tjiat the 25 of June, 1603, I talked with 
 Mr. Pope, at the scryveners shope wher he liffe, consernynge 
 the tackynge of the Lease of the Littell Roose, and he 
 showed me a wrytynge betwext the parishe and hime seallfe, 
 which was to pay twenty pownd a yeare Rent, and to 
 bestowe a hundred marckes upon billdinge, which I sayd I 
 wold rather puUe downe the playhowse then I wold do so, 
 
200 London Theatres. 
 
 and he beade me do, and sayd he gave me leave and wold 
 beare me owt, for yt wasse in hime to do yt.' 
 
 Perhaps this is the source of the following note 
 by Mr. Rendle :* ' Thomas Poope, a principal 
 actor in Shakespeare's plays, appears to have had 
 an agreement with the parish for the place, and to 
 have paid a rent of £10 a year.' If so, the 
 ' writing ' spoken of in the above entry in the 
 Diary must have belonged to the time before the 
 estate came into Henslowe's hands ; in which 
 case Pope held of either GrifFen or Withens, the 
 previous assignees of the lease. How it was' that 
 in these circumstances Pope was also under agree- 
 ment with the vestry is not readily explainable, 
 unless we may suppose that the overlordship of 
 the Bishops of Winchester in the Liberty had 
 descended to the vestry. 
 
 The history of the Rose after 1603 is not at all 
 clear, although it seems certain Henslowe discon- 
 tinued the use of it as a theatre after this date. 
 The building was used apparently for occasional 
 exhibitions of the ruder kind — fighting and sword- 
 play and puppets. The last notice of such is in 
 1620. The building does not figure in any maps 
 after this date. The name still survives in Rose 
 Alley, which marks the site once occupied by 
 Henslowe's ' playhowsse.' 
 
 • Harrison, N. S. Soc, Part II., Appendix I., p. xv. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE BEAR-GARDEN AND HOPE THEATRE. 
 
 THE ' Beare-howse,' situated near thd ' Play- 
 howse,' as shown in Norden's map of 1 593, 
 has all the appearance of a playhouse. Whether 
 the building was actually identical with the ' Beare- 
 bayting' amphitheatre shown by Aggas, and by 
 Braun and Hogenberg, it is not possible to decide. 
 Probably not, as these constructions were of a tem- 
 porary nature, and the span of twenty years between 
 these maps and Norden's admits of, if it does not 
 imply, a rebuilding. But from the point of view 
 of stage history it was a theatre — a place for sights 
 and public amusement, in which it is even possible 
 that dramatic entertainments took place. Subse- 
 quently it gave place to a playhouse, the Hope, 
 which afterwards lapsed into a bear-garden. 
 
 In describing the Surrey side in 1598, Stow* 
 
 * 'Survey of London,' 1598, p. 331. The passage is 
 unaltered in the 1603 edition : Thorn's reprint, p. 151. 
 
202 London Theatres, 
 
 tells us that on the west bank — i.e., west of the 
 bridge, in contradistinction to the bank east of 
 the bridge — 'there be two bear-gardens, the old 
 and new places, wherein be kept bears, bulls, and 
 other beasts to be baited ; as also mastiffs in 
 several kennels nourished to bait them. These 
 bears and other beasts are there baited in plots of 
 ground, scaffolded about for the beholders to stand 
 safe.' He does not mention Paris Garden, and it 
 is impossible now to identify these places pre- 
 cisely ; but the new bear-garden may safely be 
 identified with the ' bear-howse ' of Norden. This 
 was the place distinguished by Taylor — see ante, sub 
 voce ' Amphitheatres ' — as the ' beare garden which 
 was parcell of the possession of William Payne.' 
 
 At what date the bear-baiting amphitheatrd", 
 shown by Aggas, became the Bear-house of 
 Norden's map, we are without the means of 
 determining with certainty, but probability points 
 to the period of the accident in 1583, when the 
 old circus fell to pieces. The site — the garden 
 in which both structures existed — was the same, 
 so that under the name Bear-Garden we -have a 
 continuous history, which covers the whole subject 
 —a history which for its beginning would take us 
 to a date considerably earlier than that of the first 
 London theatre, while, owing to its resuscitation 
 at the Restoration, the Bear-Garden would link the 
 two main periods of dramatic history, as it serves 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 203 
 
 to bridge the chasm between the circus and the 
 playhouse. 
 
 Among the muniments at Dulwich College is 
 preserved the letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, 
 dated in June, 1573, granting to Raphe Bowes the 
 office of master of ' our games, pastymes and 
 sportes, that is to sale of all and everie our beares 
 bulles and mastyve dogges,' in ' as large and ample 
 manner and forme as Cuthbert Vaughan or Sir 
 Richard Longe deceased.' It may be observed 
 that this recital of ownership suffices to take us 
 back to post 1550, the date adopted in a previous 
 chapter as that of the origin of the amphitheatres 
 in the Clink. Before this the king's ' bear-ward ' 
 was an officer of the royal household, having his 
 office or headquarters in Paris Garden, where the 
 animals were kept and nourished by the ofFal of 
 the city of London, in accordance with the 
 proclamation of Richard II. already cited {supra, 
 p. 128). The office of royal bear-ward, or master 
 of Paris Garden, became an office of privilege, held 
 by royal letters patent, the profits of the public 
 exhibitions being the rewards or perquisites, in 
 respect of which the grant of the office was made 
 as a favour, and the crown secured the mainte- 
 nance of the royal game. With this process of 
 evolution the establishment of the Bear-Garden 
 and amphitheatres in the Clink Liberty has an 
 intimate connection, partly of cause, partly of 
 
204 London Theatres. 
 
 effect. It seems to be easy of comprehension that 
 the game associated with Paris Garden should con- 
 tinue to be spoken of in the same way after the 
 exhibitions took place on an enlarged scale in the 
 amphitheatres in the Clink. 
 
 The lesseeship and managership of the Bear- 
 Garden had no necessary official connection with 
 the mastership of the royal game ; but the busi- 
 ness connection was a vital one, because it was from 
 the Bear-Garden that the chief emoluments of the 
 office were drawn. The first lessee or manager of 
 the ' Bear-house ' was Morgan Pope, under the 
 mastership of Bowes. This can be seen by the 
 letters patent quoted above, that document being 
 endorsed, ' Exemplified at the request of Morgan 
 Pope, merchant, i8 Nov., a" 28 ' [1585]. 
 
 Assuming the building of the ' Bear-house ' after 
 the destruction of the amphitheatre in 1583, we 
 may conclude that in 1585 Morgan Pope became 
 its first manager, or 'keeper,' as he was called. 
 In the following year he became chargeable to the 
 parish of St. Saviour, as seen in the following 
 entry of the vestry minutes, given by Mr. Rendle : 
 '1586. 28 November: Morgan Pope did agree 
 to pay for tithes unto y"= parish for the bear garden, 
 and for the ground adjoining to the same where the 
 dogs are, 6s. 8d. at Christmas next, and so on after 
 at 6s. 8d. by the year.'* 
 
 ' Harrison's 'Description,' etc.. New Shalcspere Society, 
 Part II., Appendix I., p. xiv. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 205 
 
 The efforts made by Henslowe and Alleyn in 
 1598 — incidentally referred to in the previous 
 chapter — to obtain the office of master of the royal 
 games was unsuccessful, and the patent passed from 
 Bowes, to Dorington. Under Dorington, Jacob 
 Meade, of whom we shall hear more presently, 
 was ' keeper ' of the royal beasts. 
 
 We can see in all this an analogy to the con- 
 stitution of the acting companies ; there was a 
 devolution of privilege and a right of confiscation 
 in reserve. By privilege courtiers had companies 
 of players, who by . performing in public places 
 perfected themselyes in their art, and defrayed the 
 cost of their maintenance. The license they held 
 was the badge of control ; to deprive them of 
 that was to deprive them of the right of playing. 
 All were answerable, mediately or immediately, 
 to the Crown. In the case of the baiting, the 
 privilege was equally real, as the holder of the 
 patent was able to make profit out of the keeper, 
 who drew the receipts from public exhibitions, 
 just as the master of the revels derived a share of 
 profits from the playhouses. Eventually Hens- 
 lowe and Alleyn obtained the patent of master, 
 but before doing so they acted as keepers, in suc- 
 cession to Meade, under Dorington, and bitterly 
 complained of the hard terms he made with them.* 
 
 * 'Dulwich Catalogue,' passim. Alleyn and Henslowe 
 paid Dorington £10 a quarter for their commission to bait in 
 public. See ' Catalogue,' p. 67. 
 
2o6 London Theatres. 
 
 In effect, the public supported the amusements of 
 that day, but the principle of overlordship ran 
 throughout the system, and the control exercised 
 was so close as to be only feebly seen in that of the 
 lord chamberlain at the present time. 
 
 Apart from the profits of the keepership and 
 mastership of the game, AUeyn became owner 
 of the Bear-Garden itself — the ' ' Bear-house ' of 
 Norden, that is to say. Without access to the 
 notes of the late Mr. Rendle, it is not possible to 
 check his conclusions step by step. But he states 
 {ante, p. 140) that William Payne's place — i.e., 
 our 'Bear-house' — can be traced back into the 
 possession of John Allen, until it came down to 
 Edward AUeyn, and was sold by him at a large 
 profit to Henslowe. This latter transaction 
 appears in a general statement by Alleyn which is 
 generally accessible :* 
 
 ' What the Bear Garden cost me for my owne part 
 in December 1594. 
 
 First to Mr. Burnabie 200' 
 
 Then for the Patent - - 250 ' 
 
 Some is 450 
 I held itt 16 year and R. 160' per annum which 
 
 is _ - _ . p5o 
 
 Sowld itt to my father Hinchloe in Februarie 
 
 1610 for 580" 
 
 The receipts of Henslowe as partner in the 
 
 * Alleyn Papers, ed. Collier, for Shakespeare Society, pp. 
 xiii., xvii. ; and see 'Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 67, note. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 207 
 
 mastership may be gathered from the following 
 entry in his diary :* 
 
 Rd at the Bergarden this yeare 1608, beginingat chrystmas 
 holedayes, as foloweth : 
 
 Rd one mondaye, St Stevens daye - iiij" 
 
 Rd one tewesdaye, St. Johns daye vj'' 
 
 Rd one Wensdaye, being Shilldermas daye iij" xiij' ' 
 
 It appears to have been always a part of the 
 entertainment of distinguished foreign visitors to 
 show them the royal beasts, as well those kept in 
 the Tqwer as the baiting animals. In the time 
 of Henry VIII., the royal bear-ward probably gave 
 performances of baiting in Paris Garden itself — 
 the manor at that time being crown property — 
 and the exhibition witnessed by the Duke ot 
 Najera (discussed ante, p. 131) may have been 
 held there. But the conclusion adopted by the 
 present writer is, that after the extension of the 
 civic jurisdiction over the borough of Southwark 
 in 1550, the bull-baiting in the High Street, and 
 the public . bear-baiting in Paris Garden proper, 
 were removed to the liberty of the Clink, and took 
 place in the amphitheatres shown in our maps. It 
 is argued in the chapter (ante') dealing ^vith thbse 
 places, that every mention of public performances 
 of baiting between 1550 and 1593— whether 
 alluding to Paris Garden or the Bankside^actually 
 
 * Henslowe's Diary, ed. Collier, for Shakespeare Society, 
 p. 269. 
 
2o8 London Theatres. 
 
 refers to the amphitheatres in the Clink. A 
 notice of the baiting in 1554 is given from the 
 Diary of Henry Machyn [ante, p. 135). Another 
 notice in the same record occurs under date 1559. 
 Under date May 23, Machyn notes the arrival of 
 ambassadors from France, and on the following 
 day the diarist relates how they were brought from 
 the Bishop of London's palace, where they were 
 lodged, to the court, where there were grand 
 doings for their honour and entertainment. 
 Another entry in the Diary, on May 25, records 
 that the ambassadors were brought to the court 
 with music to dinner, for there was great cheer ; 
 ' and after dener,' to quote literally, ' to bear and 
 bull baytyng, and the Quen's grace and the 
 ambassadurs stod in the galere lokyng of the 
 pastym tyll vj at night.' This exhibition probably 
 took place at Whitehall. But on the following 
 day the ambassadors went over to see the baiting 
 on the Bankside. They went from the bishop's 
 palace which was near St. Paul's, to Paul's 
 Whart, ' and toke barge, and so to Parys Garden, 
 for ther was boyth bare and bull baytyng, and the 
 capten, with a C. of the gard to kepe rowm for 
 them to see the baytyng.'* 
 
 This mention of Paris Garden does not deter me 
 from concluding that this entertainment of the 
 
 * Diary of Henry Machyn, 1550-1563. Camden Society 
 (1848), pp. 197-198- 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 209 
 
 ambassadors took place in the amphitheatres shown 
 so clearly by Ralph Aggas (see map, ante, p. 126). 
 In his picture, a stately craft — probably the royal 
 barge — is in the river not far from the amphi- 
 theatres, going westward. But it will be seen that 
 the above notice from Machyn's Diary cannot 
 warrantably be construed into a record of a visit 
 by her majesty ' to Paris Gardens to see the bait- 
 ing of bears and bulls,' although that is the way 
 the record has been quoted heretofore. 
 
 In 1592 his Highness Frederick, Duke of Wir- 
 temberg, Count Miimppelgart — ^the ' Cosen Gar- 
 mombles ' and ' Duke de Jamanie ' of the ' Merry 
 Wives of Windsor ' — paid a visit to the court and 
 realm of England, an account of which was pub- 
 lished at Tubingen in 1602. The following 
 notice of a baiting at the ' Bear-howse ' of Norden's 
 map is taken from a translation of that work :* 
 
 'On the 1st of September his Highness was shown in 
 London the English dogs, of which there were about 1 20, all 
 kept in the same enclosure, but each in a separate kennel. 
 
 ' In order to gratify his Highness, and at his desire, two 
 bears and a bull were baited ; at such times you can per- 
 ceive the breed and mettle of the dogs, for although they 
 receive serious injuries from the bears, are caught by the 
 horns of the bull, and tossed into the air so as frequently to 
 fall down again upon the horns, they do not give in, [but 
 fasten on the bull so firmly] that one is obliged to pull them 
 back by the tails and force open their jaws. Four dogs at 
 
 * 'England as seen by Foreigners,' by W. B. Rye, pp. 
 
 45. 46- 
 
 14 
 
2IO London Theatres. 
 
 once were set on the bull ; they however could not gain any 
 advantage over him, for he so artfully contrived to ward off 
 their attacks that they could not well get at him ; on the 
 contrary, the bull served them very scurvily by striking and 
 beating at them,' 
 
 In an account of a banquet and entertainment 
 given by James I. to the Constable of Castile at 
 Whitehall Palace on Sunday, August 19, 1604, 
 after a ball, in which Shakespeare's patron, the Earl 
 of Southampton, was twice the partner of the 
 queen (Anne), we learn that the royal beasts had 
 been brought over for the occasion : ' All then 
 took their places at the windows of the room 
 which looked out upon a square, where a platform 
 was raised, and a vast crowd had assembled to see 
 the king's bears fight with greyhounds. This 
 afforded great amusement. Presently a bull, tied 
 to the end of a rope, was fiercely baited by dogs. 
 After this certain tumblers came, who danced 
 upon a rope, and performed various feats of agility 
 and skill on horseback.'* 
 
 It is significant of contemporary ideas upon the 
 drama that a visitor in 1610 disposes of the theatres 
 thus, in an enumeration of the sights of London : 
 ' The theatres {J'heatra Comcedorum) in which bears 
 and bulls fight with dogs ; also cock-fighting. 'f 
 
 The bears which at this period used to be baited 
 
 * ' England as seen by Foreigners,' by W. B. Rye, pp. 
 123, 124. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 133. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 2 1 1 
 
 at the ' Beare-house,' ' Old Harry Hunks ' and 
 
 ' Sacarson,' are frequently alluded to in the 
 
 literature of the time. Master Slender boasted 
 
 that he had seen Sacarson loose, and derived no 
 
 mean opinion of his own courage from that 
 
 fact.* One of Sir John Davys's 'Epigrammes' 
 
 was as follows : 
 
 ' Publius, student at the common law, 
 Oft leaves his books, and for his recreation 
 To Paris Garden doth himself withdraw. 
 Where he is ravish't with such delectation 
 As down amongst the bears and dogs he goes ; 
 Where, whilst he skipping cries, " To Head ! To Head !" 
 His satin doublet and his velvet hose 
 Are all with spittle from above bespread ; 
 Then he is like his father's country hall 
 Stinking of dogges, and muted all with hawks. 
 And rightly too on him this filth doth fall 
 Which for such filthy sports his books forsakes. 
 Leaving old Plowden, Dyer, and Brooke alone. 
 To see old Harry Hunks and Sacarson.'t 
 
 In some lines by Henry Peacham, prefixed to 
 Coryat's 'Crudities,' 1611, the following occurs : 
 ' Hunks of the Beare-garden to be feared if he be nigh on.' 
 
 * ' Merry Wives of Windsor,' Act i.. Scene i. This play 
 contains allusions to events which took place in 1592 ; but 
 the date of its production is uncertain. 
 
 t The date of Davys's ' Epigrams ' is not known. In 
 Hazlitt's 'Handbook' it is placed between 1596 and 1599. 
 Collier, in his ' Bibliogr.aphical Account,' under Marlowe 
 (with whose translations of Ovid the ' Epigrams ' were pub- 
 lished), states reasons for believing that they were printed not 
 long after Marlowe's death in 1593. 
 
 14 — 2 
 
212 London Theatres. 
 
 Another favourite bear was named ' Little Bess 
 of Bromley.'* The proximity of the Rose and 
 the Bear -Garden is thus alluded to in Dekker's 
 Satiromastix, in 1 602 : ' Thou hadst a breath as 
 sweet as the rose that grows by the Bear Garden ' 
 — in reference to the inevitable smell from the 
 kennels. 
 
 On the accession of James, the patent of master 
 of the royal game was confirmed to Dorington ; 
 but in the following year it passed to Sir William 
 Steward, who, however, held it only from July to 
 November, 1604, when it was assigned to Hens- 
 lowe and Alleyne. The following draft of the 
 patent shows the importance of the position which 
 they had at last achieved, after six years of schem- 
 ing and waiting : 
 
 ' Patent from James I. to Philip Henslowe and Edw. Alleyn, 
 of the " office of Cheefe Master, overseer and ruler of our 
 beares, bulls and mastiife dogges," in as full and ample manner 
 as Sir William Steward, Sir John Darrington [Dorington], 
 and Ralph Bownes, with power, for reasonable prices, " to 
 take up and kepe for our service, pastyme and sporte any 
 mastife dogge or dogges and mastife bitches, beares, bulls, and 
 other meete and convenient for our said service and pastymes," 
 to stay all mastiff dogs and bitches going beyond the seas 
 
 * Alleyn Papers, ' Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 72. At a later 
 date (1638) Taylor the Water-Poet gives a list of 'Names of 
 the Bulls and Bears at the Beare Garden ' — four bulls and 
 nineteen bears. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 213 
 
 without special warrant, and to bait in any place at their dis- 
 cretion, no other being permitted to do the same without 
 their license and appointment, the fee for the said office to 
 be lod. a day and 4d. for their deputy ; Westminster, 24 Nov., 
 a" 2 [1604]. Endorsed by Edw. AUeyn, "A draft off y= 
 pattent." '* 
 
 The patent was not assigned without the pay- 
 ment of a good round sum of money : 
 
 'Acquittance from Sir William Steward, knt., to Phil. 
 Henslowe and Edw. Alleyn, esquires, for 450/., for the assign- 
 ment of a patent of " the Mastership of his Maiesties games 
 of Beeres, Bulls, and Dogges, and the ffees, proffites and 
 appurtenaunce whatsoeuer to the same place or office be- 
 longinge"; 28 Nov., 2 Jas. I. [1604]. Signed " WilHame 
 Steuarte." 't 
 
 A fresh patent was executed in their favour in 
 1 608. J As masters of the royal game, they had 
 their office or headquarters in Paris Garden, where 
 dogs were received and kept in readiness for the 
 royal commands ; the public exhibitions at the 
 Bear Garden in the Clink Liberty being their own 
 separate concern and speculation.^ 
 
 * Collier, ' Memoirs of Edward Alleyn,' p. 72 ; and ' Dul- 
 vyich Catalogue,' p. 68. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 \ Date, November 24, 1608. See 'Dulwich Catalogue,' 
 mun. 46, p. 239. 
 
 See a letter from Henslowe and Alleyne to Christopher 
 Goffe, their deputy (' Dulwich Catalogue,' pp. 69, 70), in 
 which they direct that dogs requisitioned in the country for 
 the king's service should be sent ' up to our offic at pallass 
 garden.' 
 
214 London Theatres. 
 
 We have seen that the history of the Rose 
 closed with the year 1603 ; but Henslowe and 
 AUeyn do not appear to have passively submitted 
 to the success of the Globe. If it had snuffed out 
 the Rose, there was no reason why the Bear-Garden 
 should suffer. Accordingly, we find them in 1606 
 rebuilding the Bear-Garden. 
 
 ' Contract of Peter Streete of London, carpenter, with 
 Phil. Henslowe and Edw. Alleyn, of the parish of St. Saviour, 
 Southwark, esquires, for 65/., to pull down " so much of the 
 tymber or carpenters worke of the foreside of the messuage 
 or tenemente called the beare garden, next the river of 
 Thames, in the parishe of St. Savior's aforesaide, as con- 
 teyneth in lengthe from outside to outside fyftye and sixe 
 foote of assize and in bredth from outside to outside sixeteene 
 foote of assize," and to rebuild the same with " good new 
 sufficient and sounde tymber of oke "; 2 June, 4 Jas. I., 1606. 
 Signed by a mark. On the back is an acquittance for 10/., 
 dat. 3 June, 1606 ; and notes of subsequent payments amount- 
 ing to 40/. 11/. id., dat. 17 Sept., 1606 — 9 Jan., 1606 [7].'* 
 
 In the following year, 1607, there is a petition 
 from Henslowe and Alleyn to James I., complain- 
 ing of the high rate at which they were forced to 
 buy their office from Sir William Steward, of the 
 withdrawal of the license to bait ' one the Sondayes 
 in the afternone after divine service, which was the 
 cheffest meanes and benyfite to the place,' and of 
 their loss of bears in baiting before himself and the 
 King of Denmark, and praying for full liberty of 
 
 * ' Memoirs of Edward Alleyn,' p. 78 ; 'Dulwich Cata- 
 logue,' p. 69. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 215 
 
 baiting, as in the time of Queen Elizabeth, with 
 an addition of 2s. 8d. to their daily fee of is. 4d., 
 and license to apprehend all vagrants travelling, 
 contrary to the laws, with bulls and bears.* 
 
 The following notice of the baiting, from 
 Dekker's ' Work for Armourers,' 1609, shows how 
 wanton the sport had become : 
 
 ' At length a blind bear was tied to a stake, and instead of 
 baiting him with dogs, a company of creatures that had the 
 shapes of men and faces of Christians (being either colliers, 
 carters, or watermen), took the office of beadles upon them, 
 and whipped Monsieur Hunks till the blood ran down his 
 old shoulders.' 
 
 The keepers appear to have had power to 
 demand bears and dogs from their owners in all 
 parts of the country for the purpose of the king's 
 games. Among notices showing this is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 ' Warrant from Philip Henslowe " one of the sewers of his 
 highnes [the King's] chamber," and Edward All eyn, "seruant 
 to the high and mightie prince of Wales," joint masters of the 
 King's game of beares, bulls, &c., by patent dated 24 Nov., 
 1608, commissioning Thomas Radford to act as their deputy 
 to take up mastiff dogs, bears, and bulls for the King's service, 
 and to bait in any place within his dominions. Dated 
 II May, 9 Jas. I., i6ii.'t 
 
 We now approach the time when the Bear- 
 Garden became the Hope playhouse. In 161 3 the 
 
 * ' Memoirs of Edward AUeyn,' p. 75 ; 'Dulwich Cata- 
 logue,' p. 70. 
 
 ■f ' Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 239. 
 
2t6 London Theatres. 
 
 Globe Theatre was burned down, and Henslowe 
 proceeded to convert the Bear Garden (which he 
 had purchased of Edward Alleyne in 1610) into 
 a regular playhouse, doubtless with the object 
 of profiting by the misfortune of his rivals. He 
 associated himself with Jacob Meade, a waterman, 
 and the two entered into an agreement with Gilbert 
 
 THE BEAR-GARDEN AND HOPE THEATRE. 
 {From Visschet's View of London, 1616.) 
 
 Katherens, carpenter, on August 20, 161 3, by which 
 Katherens engaged to convert the Bear-Garden 
 * game-place, or house where bulls and bears have 
 been usually baited,' into a •^ game-place or play- 
 house,' by pulling down the old building and 
 erecting a new one, ' convenient in all things both 
 for players to play in, and for the game of bears 
 and bulls to be baited in same.' The form, width, 
 height, staircases, etc., were to be the same as the 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 217 
 
 Swan Theatre, on the Bankside : it was to have a 
 tire house, and the stage was to be made in a 
 frame and placed upon tressels, so that it could be 
 removed when ' the game of bears and bulls ' was 
 to be exhibited. The heavens, or covering over 
 the stage, was not to have any supports upon the 
 stage, and on the lowermost story there were to be 
 two boxes ' fit and decent for gentlemen to sit in.' 
 The columns were to be turned, no fir was to be 
 used in the lowest story, and the foundation was 
 to be of brick, and to rise at least twelve inches 
 from the ground. The bull-house and stable (tiled 
 and lighted by a louvre or sky-light) were to be 
 capable of holding six bulls and three horses.* 
 
 The following is a subsequent notice of this 
 transaction:"!" 
 
 'Articles between Gilbert Katherens and John Browne, of 
 St. Saviour's, Southwark, bricklayer, whereby the latter, for 
 80/., covenants to make the brickwork of " one Game place 
 or plaie house, a bull house and a stable neere or vppon the 
 place whereon the Game place of the Be are garden now or 
 latlie stoode," which the said Gilbert Katherens was under 
 contract of zgth August to build for Philip Henslowe and 
 Jacob Maide [Meade], the same to be " of as large a compasse 
 and height as the plaie house called the Swan, in the libertie 
 of Parris Garden, in the said parishe of St. Saviour, now ys." 
 Dated 8th Sept., 1613. Signed by J. Browne. Witnesses, 
 Philip Henslowe, Jacob Mede.' 
 
 * Collier, ' Hist. Dram. Poet.,' iii. 99 ; printed in externa 
 by Malone, 'Shakespeare by Boswell,' iii. 343. 
 + ' Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 241. 
 
21 8 London Theatres. 
 
 The Globe was burnt, and before it could be 
 rebuilt there was an excellent chance of gaining the 
 public favour. The prospects of the Hope were 
 bright, and a strong company came to perform at 
 the theatre, under the joint management of Hens- 
 lowe and Meade. The following is a reference to 
 the agreement entered into : 
 
 'Articles on the parte and behalfe of Phillipp Henlowe's 
 Esquier, and Jacob Meade, waterman, to be performed 
 touchinge and concerninge the company of players which 
 they have lately raised, the said company being represented 
 by Nathan Feilde. No date [circ. 1613].'* 
 
 This Field was a manful fellow, who stood up for 
 his profession when it was traduced, as may be 
 seen in a letter among the State Papers.f 
 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps printed fhis address 
 from a contemporary transcript, inscribed ' Feild 
 the Player's Letter to Mr. Sutton, Preacher att St. 
 Mary Overs., 16 16.' In the course of this Re- 
 monstrance Field wrote : 
 
 ' I beseech you to understand that yow have bene of late 
 pleased, and that many tymes from the Holy Hill of Sion, 
 the pulpitt, a place sanctified and dedicated for the winning 
 not discouraging of soules, have sent forth bitter breathinges 
 against that poore calling it hath pleased the Lord to place 
 me in, that my spirit is moved, the fire is kindled, and I must 
 speake.'l 
 
 * 'Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 241. 
 f 'Cal. S. P., Dom.,' 1611-1618, p. 419. 
 X Halliwell's ' Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare,' 
 1874, Ft. i., App. xxiii., p. 115. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 219 
 
 The company was styled the Princess Elizabeth's 
 Servants, and one of the plays acted by them was 
 Ben Jonson's ' Bartholomew Fair,' which they 
 performed at the Hope Theatre in 16 14. The 
 prologue of this pky, entitled ' The Induction on 
 the Stage,' is full of allusions to the new playhouse. 
 It is spoken by the Stage-keeper, the Book-holder 
 and a Scrivener. In the course of the stage- 
 keeper's opening speech, he says : ' But for the 
 whole play, will you ha' the truth on't? (I am 
 looking, lest the poet hear me, or his man, master 
 Broom, behind the arras) it is like to be a very 
 conceited scurvy one in plain English.' And 
 again, referring to the poet : ' He has (sir 
 reverence) kjck'd me three or four times about the 
 tiring-house, I thank him, but for offering to put 
 in with my experience. I'll be judg'd by you, 
 gentlemen, now, but for one conceit of mine ! 
 would not a fine pump upon the stage ha' done 
 well, for a property now ? and a punk set under 
 upon her head, with her stern upward, and ha' 
 been sous'd by my witty young masters o' the Inns 
 o' Court.? What think you o' this for a shew, 
 now .? he will not hear o' this ! I am an ass ! I ! 
 and yet I kept the stage in master Tarleton'5 time, 
 I thank my stars ! Ho ! an' that man had liv'd 
 to have play'd in Bartholomew Fair, you should 
 ha' seen him ha' come in, and ha' been cozened i' 
 the cloth-quarter, so finely! And Adams, the 
 
220 London Theatres. 
 
 rogue, ha' leap'd and caper'd upon him, and ha' 
 dealt his vermin about, as though they had cost 
 him nothing. And then a substantial watch to 
 ha' stol'n in upon 'em, and taken 'em away, with 
 mistaking words, as the fashion is in the stage- 
 practice.' 
 
 The whole of this speech is full of contemporary 
 allusion, and in the portion quoted the allusions 
 are of theatrical interest. The audience would 
 understand the point of Tarlton's being cozened 
 in the cloth-quarter of the fair, one of the famous 
 Tariton jests being ' How fiddlers fiddled away 
 Tarlton's apparel.'* This jest relates how a ' cony- 
 catcher' stole Tarlton's apparel while he was 
 entertaining with muskadine two musicians who 
 serenaded him at the Saba Tavern, in Gracious 
 [i.e., Gracechurch) Street. ' The next day this 
 was noised abroad and one in mockage threw him 
 in this theame, he playinge then at the Curtaine.' 
 The theme is cast in doggerel verse, to which 
 Tariton replies in kind. 
 
 Another allusion is an obvious one to Shake- 
 speare's ' Much Ado about Nothing ' — ' I am an 
 ass! I!' referring to Dogberry, Act iv., Scene 2: 
 ' O that he were here to write me down an ass ! 
 But, masters, remember that I am an ass : though 
 it be not written down, yet forget not that I am 
 an ass.' The last sentence, about the ' watch 
 * 'Tarlton's Jests,' ed. Halliwell, p. 15. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 221 
 
 taking 'em away with mistaking words,' puts the 
 object of the allusions beyond doubt. 
 
 The Book-holder {i.e., prompter) and the 
 Scrivener enter, and the former says to the Stage- 
 keeper : ' How now ? What rare discourse are 
 you fal'n upon? ha? ha' you found any familiars 
 here, that you are so free? What's the business?' 
 The Stage-keeper replies : ' Nothing, but the 
 understanding gentlemen o' the ground here ask'd 
 my judgment.' 
 
 This punning allusion to the people who stood 
 in the yard or pit — the cheapest places — is one of 
 many similar to be found in the theatrical litera- 
 ture of the time. Shakespeare's Hamlet, in his 
 incomparable discourse to the players, exclaims^^ 
 ' O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious 
 periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to 
 very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings !' 
 
 The Book-holder replies: 'Your judgment, 
 rascal ? for what ? sweeping the stage ? or gather- 
 ing up the broken apples for the bears within ?' 
 This is so vivid that it almost takes us inside the 
 playhouse. The speaker proceeds : ' Away, rogue ! 
 it's come to a fine degree in these spectacles, when 
 such a youth ' [he was probably an old man, as 
 he kept the stage in Tarlton's time] as you pretend 
 to a judgment. And yet he may, i' the most o' 
 this matter, i' faith ; for the author has writ it just 
 to this meridian, and the scale of the grounded 
 
222 London Theatres. 
 
 judgments here, his playfellows in wit ' [grounded 
 judgments = groundlings]. 'Gentlemen, not for 
 want of a prologue, but by way of a new one, I 
 am sent out here, with a scrivener, and certain 
 articles drawn out in haste between our author and 
 you.' 
 
 The object in view in the composition of ' Bar- 
 tholomew Fair' was clearly to suit the popular 
 taste of the ordinary frequenters of the Bear- 
 Garden. It is written in a satirical vein through- 
 out. The subject of satire in the ' Induction ' is 
 the playhouse, playgoers and players ; in the play 
 itself the satire is mainly directed against the 
 Puritans ; and if offence were given in the ' Induc- 
 tion,' the playwright secured the sympathy of 
 players and audience alike by the satire in the 
 play. The Book-holder calls upon the Scrivener, 
 who reads the articles of agreement, as follows : 
 
 ' Articles of agreement indented between the spectators or 
 Hearers at the Hope on the Bankside in the county of Surrey 
 on the one party ; and the author of " Bartholomew Fair," 
 in the said place and county on the other party : the one 
 and thirtieth day of October 1614, . . . 
 
 ' Imprimis, It is covenanted and agreed, by and between 
 the parties abovesaid, and the said spectators and hearers, as 
 well the curious and envious as the favourable and judicious, 
 as also the grounded judgments and understandings, do for 
 themselves severally covenant and agree to remain in the 
 places their money or friends have put them in, with patience, 
 for the space of two hours and a half, and somewhat more. 
 In which time the author promiseth to present them by us. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 223 
 
 with a new sufficient play, called " Bartholomew Fair," merry, 
 and as full of noise as sport [an allusion to the bear-baiting] : 
 made to delight all and to offend none ; provided they have 
 either the wit or the honesty to think well of themselves. 
 
 ' It is further agreed that every person here have his or 
 their free-will of censure, to like or dislike at their own 
 charge, the author having now departed with his right : it 
 shall be lawful for any man to judge his six pen'worth, his 
 twelve-pen' worth, so to his eighteen pence, two shillings, half 
 a crown, to the value of his place ; provided always his 
 place get not above his wit. And if he pay for half a dozen, 
 he may censure for all them too, so that he will undertake 
 that they shall be silent. He shall put in for censures here as 
 they do for lots at the lottery : marry, if he drop but six-pence 
 at the door, and will censure a crownsworth, it is thought 
 there is no conscience or justice in that. 
 
 ' It is also agreed, that every man here exercise his own 
 judgment, and not censure by contagion, or upon trust, from 
 another's voice, or face, that sits by him, be he never so first 
 in the commission of wit ; as also, that he be fixt and settled 
 in his censure, that what he approves or not approves today, 
 he will do the same tomorrow ; and if tomorrow, the next 
 day, and so the next week (if need be :) and not to be brought 
 about by any that sits on the bench with him, though they 
 indite and arraign plays daily. . . .' 
 
 After referring to the characters that figure in 
 the new play, the ' Induction ' proceeds to glance at 
 two other of Shakespeare's plays— the 'Winter's 
 Tale ' and the ' Tempest '—thus : ' If there be 
 never a servant-monster i' the fair, . . . nor a nest 
 of antiques, he is loth to make nature afraid in his 
 plays, like those that beget tales, tempests, and such 
 like drolleries, to mix his head with other men's 
 
224 London Theatres. 
 
 heels.' These plays of course belonged to the 
 company at the Globe. There may have been 
 some feeling of rivalry in the air, and the thought 
 that the Hope might be the inheritor of the 
 Globe's fame may have vaguely haunted the Lady 
 Elizabeth's servants. This emulation is apparent 
 in the scene of the puppet-play. There is some 
 pleasantry directed at the ' Children,' the boy 
 players, after the manner of Hamlet's allusions to 
 the eyry of children : 
 
 ' Cokes. In good tinle, sir, I would fain see 'em, I would 
 be glad to drink with the young company ; which is the 
 tiring-house ? 
 
 ' Lantern. Troth, sir, our tiring-house is somewhat little ; 
 we are but beginners yet, pray pardon us ; you cannot go 
 upright in it. 
 
 ' Cukes. No, not now my hat is off.? what would you hav,e 
 done with me, if you had had me feather and all, as I was 
 once to-day ? ha' you none of your pretty impudent boys now, 
 to bring stools, fill tobacco, fetch ale, and beg money, as they 
 have at other houses ? let me see some o' your actors. 
 
 'Little-wit. Shew him 'em, shew him 'em. Master 
 Lantern, this is a gentleman that is a favourer of the quality. 
 
 ' "Justice Overdo. I, the favouring of this licentious quality 
 is the consumption of many a young gentleman ; a pernicious 
 enormity. 
 
 ' Cokes. What, do they live in baskets ? 
 
 \He brings them out in a basket. 
 
 ' Lantern. They do lie in a basket, sir, they are o' the 
 small players. 
 
 ' Cokes. These be players minors indeed. Do you call 
 these players ? 
 
 ' Lantern, They are actors, sir, and as good as any, none 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 225 
 
 disprais'd, for dumb shows : indeed, I am the mouth of 
 'em all. 
 
 ' Cokes. Thy mouth will hold 'em all. I think one taylor 
 would go near to beat all this company with a hand bound 
 behind him. 
 
 ' Little-wit. I, and eat 'em all too, an they were in cake- 
 bread. 
 
 ' Cokes. I thank you for that, master Little-wit, a good 
 jest ! which is your Burbage now? 
 
 ' Lantern. What mean you by that, sir ? 
 
 ' Cokes. Your best actor, your Field.' 
 
 What Burbage had been at the Globe perhaps 
 Field might be at the Hope. The references to 
 the small tiring-house are noteworthy, and may be 
 compared with the Stage-keeper's words in the 
 * Induction,' to the effect that the poet had kicked 
 him three or four times about the tiring-house. 
 •These satiric allusions may point to a deficiency in 
 the green-room accommodation in the new theatre. 
 The conclusion of the ' Induction ' contains a direct 
 reference to the Hope Theatre : ' The play shall 
 presently begin. And though the Fair be not 
 kept in the same region, that some here, perhaps, 
 would have it ; yet think, that therein the author 
 hath observ'd a special decorum, the place being as 
 dirty as Smithfield, and as stinking, every whit.' 
 
 The allusion above to ' one taylor who would 
 go near to beat all this company' (of players) 
 'with a hand bound behind him,' refers to John 
 Taylor the Water-Poet, who shortly before had 
 sustained the fiasco of his wit-combat with Fennor 
 
 15 
 
226 London Theatres. 
 
 at the Hope. The story of this absurd affair 
 passed through the printing-presses of the time,* 
 and it reveals an extraordinary scene at this theatre. 
 The particulars are set forth in the preface to 
 ' Taylor's Revenge, or the Rimer William Fennor, 
 firkt, ferrited, and finely fetcht over the coales.' 
 
 ' Bee it therefore knowne unto all men that I, lohn Taylor 
 Waterman did agree with William Fennor (who arrogantly 
 and falsely entitles himselfe the Kings Majesties Riming 
 Poet) to answer me at a triall of Wit, on the seuenth of 
 October last 1 614 on the Hope Stage on the Bankside, and 
 the said Fennor receiued of mee ten shillings in earnest of his 
 comming to meet me, whereupon I caused 1000 bills to be 
 Printed, and diuulg'd my name 1000 wayes and more, giuing 
 my Friends and diuers of my acquaintance notice of this Bear 
 Garden banquet of dainty conceits ; and when the day came 
 that the Play should have been performed, the house being 
 fill'd with a great Audience, who had all spent their monies 
 extraordinarily : then this Companion for an Asse, ran away 
 >nd left me for a Foole, amongst thousands of critical Cen- 
 surers, where I was ill thought of by my friends, scorned by 
 my foes, and in conclusion, in a greater puzzell then the 
 blinde Beare in the midst of all her whip-broth : Besides the 
 summe of twenty pounds in money I lost my reputation 
 amongst many and gain'd disgrace in stead of my better ex- 
 pectations,' etc. 
 
 Does the sum of ,^20 represent the money 
 returned at the doors, or does it include the 
 printing? In his verses Taylor rhymes all the 
 particulars, and indulges in unmeasured abuse of 
 
 * It also appears in the collected works of John Taylor 
 the Water-Poet, folio, 1630, p. 142 et seq. 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope 'Iheatre. 227 
 
 Fennor. He then describes the scene of the 
 fiasco : 
 
 ' The house was fil'd with Newters, Foes & Friends 
 And euery one their money frankly spends. 
 But when I saw the day away did fade. 
 And thy look'd-for appearance was not made, 
 I then stept out, their angers to appease,' 
 But they all raging, like tempestuous seas : 
 Cry'd out, their expectations were defeated, 
 And how they all were cony-catched and cheated : 
 Some laught, some swore, some star'd and stamped and curst 
 And in confused humors all out-burst. 
 I (as I could) did stand the desp'rate shock. 
 And bid the brunt of many dang'rous knock. 
 For now the stinkards, in their ircfull wraths 
 Bepelted me with Lome, with Stones, and Laths, 
 One madly sits like bottle-Ale, 'and hisses, 
 Another throwes a stone and 'cause he misses, 
 He yawnes and bawles, and cryes Away, away : 
 Another cryes out, lohn, begin the Play. 
 
 ***** 
 
 One sweares and stormes, another laughs & smiles, 
 
 Another madly would pluck oiF the tiles. 
 
 Some runne to th' doore to get againe their coyne. 
 
 And some doe shift and some againe purloine. 
 
 One valiantly stept upon the Stage, 
 
 And would teare downe the hangings jn his rage. 
 
 ***** 
 
 But I (to give the Audience some content) 
 Began to act what I before had meant : 
 And first I plaid a maundering Roguish creature, 
 (A part thou couldst have acted well by nature) 
 Which act did passe, and please, and fild their jawes 
 With wrinkled laughter, and with good applause. 
 
 15—2 
 
228 London Theatres. 
 
 Then came the players, and they play'd an act, 
 Which greatly from my action did detract. 
 For 'tis not possible for any one 
 To play against a company alone. 
 And such a company (I'll boldly say) 
 That better (nor the like) e'er play'd a Play. 
 In briefe, the Play my action did eclips. 
 And in a manner seal'd up both my lips. 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 Eu'n so seem'd I, amidst the guarded troope 
 Of gold-lac'd Actors. . . . 
 
 Twere lesser labour to blow downe Pauls-steeole 
 Than to appease, or please the raging people. 
 The play made me as sweet in their opinions 
 As Tripes well fry'd in Tarr, or Egges with Onions. 
 I like a beare unto the stake was tide 
 And what they said or did, I must abide. 
 A pox upon him for Rogue, sayes one. 
 And with that word he throwes at me a stone. 
 A second my estate dbthe seeme to pitty 
 And saies my action's good, my speeches witty. 
 A third doth screw his chaps awry and mew. 
 His self conceited wisdome so to shew.' 
 
 Fennor wrote a reply to this attack, entitled 
 ' Fennor's Defence, or I am your First Man. 
 Wherein the Waterman John Taylor is dasht 
 sowst and finally fallen into the Thames,'* in the 
 course of which he narrates the following theatrical 
 episode : 
 
 ' And let me tell thee this to calme thy rage : 
 I challeng'd Kendall on the Fortune stage ; 
 
 * Duly included in the collected edition of Taylor's 
 works 1 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 229 
 
 And he did promise 'fore an Audience, 
 
 For to oppose me, note the accidence : 
 
 I set up Bills, the people throng'd apace. 
 
 With full intention to disgrace, or grace ; 
 
 The house was full, the trumpets twice had sounded, 
 
 And though he came not, I was not confounded. 
 
 But stept upon the Stage, and told them this. 
 
 My adverse would not come : not one did hisse. 
 
 But flung me Theames : I then extempore 
 
 Did blot his name from out their memorie. 
 
 And pleas'd them all, in spight of one to braue me, 
 
 Witnesse the ringing Plaudits that they gave me.' 
 
 Fennor includes in his rhymes a mock epitaph 
 on his antagonist, in which he says : 
 
 ' O, had he still kept on the water 
 And never came upon Theater, 
 He might have lived full merrily 
 And not have died so lowsily. 
 O 'twas that foolish, scurvie play, 
 At Hope that took his sence away.' 
 
 And Taylor, in his ' A Cast over Water,' et •., 
 161 5, refers to Fennor's performance thus: 
 
 ' Thou writst a hotch-potch of some forty lines 
 About my Flay at Hope, and my designes,' etc. 
 
 Philip Henslowe died on or about January 9, 
 1615 [1616], and a fresh agf-eement was executed 
 between the Hope company and Alleyn, as the 
 surviving partner of Henslowe in his theatrical 
 concerns. It is an interesting document, even in 
 the following abridged form : 
 
 'Articles of Agreement between Edw. Alleyn, esr., and 
 
230 London Theatres. 
 
 Jacob Meade, on the one part, and William Rowley, Robert 
 Pallant, Joseph Taylor, Robert Hamlett [Hamlen ?], John 
 Newton, Hugh Ottewell, William Backsted, Thomas Hobbes, 
 Antony Smyth, and William Penn, on the other part, whereby, 
 in discharge of a debt of 400/. due by the latter parties to 
 Philip Henslowe, deceased, the said Edward Alleyn covenants 
 to accept the sum of zoo/., the same to be paid by daily instal- 
 ments of a fourth part of the receipts of the whole galleryes 
 of the playe-howse comonly called the Hope . . .or in anye 
 other howse private or publique wherein they shall playe, 
 with the proviso that the said William Rowley and the rest 
 shall be bound to observe all their former articles of agree- 
 ment with Philip Henshlowe and Jacob Meade ; zo Mar., 
 i6l5[6]-. Signed by William Rowley, Robert Pallant, etc., 
 the names " Ottewell " and " Backsted " in the body of the 
 document being written "Attwell" and " Barksted," Wit- 
 nesses, Rob. Daborne, Thos. Foster, Edw. Knight.* 
 
 But the prospect of a successful management was 
 destroyed by the stormy and headstrong Meade : 
 
 ' The players of Phil. Henslowe's company to their 
 " worthy and much respected ffrend Mr. Allen," explaining 
 that they have been driven away from [the Hope on] "the 
 bankes side " by Meade, and requesting an advance of 
 40/. on the security of " a great summe of monie," which 
 they are to receive from the Court [1616.?]. Signed by 
 William Rowley, Robert Pallant, Joseph Taylor, John Newton, 
 Robert Hamlen, Hugh Attwell, and Anthony Smyth, the signa- 
 tures being in this order, except that Pallant's name is on a 
 level with that of Rowley, to the left.'t 
 
 Not only did Meade quarrel with the company 
 of players at. the Hope, but he fell into a dispute 
 
 * ' Mem. ofEdw. Alleyn,' p. 127; 'Dulwich Catalogue,' p. jo. 
 t Collier, 'Alleyn Papers,'p. 86; 'Dulwich Catalogue.'p.; I. 
 
The Bear-Gar den and Hope Theatre. 231 
 
 with AUeyn also, the story of which may be 
 gathered froni the AUeyn Papers in Dulwich 
 College. There are petitions and counter-petitions 
 to the lord chamberlain, and a statement in the 
 hand of Edward AUeyn of matters in dispute 
 between himself and Jacob Meade relative to the 
 leases of the Bear Garden, and ' Ye stock of bears, 
 bulls, doggs, and other things apertayning to ye 
 personeU estate of Philip Henslowe nott by hym 
 bequeathed.' The dispute was not finaUy settled 
 till September 22, 1619.^- 
 
 It is easily comprehensible why Meade the 
 waterman should have felt moved to join Hens- 
 lowe in the Hope enterprise. It was to the interest 
 of the watermen generally to increase the attrac- 
 tions of the Bankside ; and Meade may have 
 had a profitable understanding with the fellows of 
 his craft on this score. The Company of Water- 
 men, in 16 1 3, when the Globe was destroyed, 
 fearful lest their business should suiFer, petitioned 
 his majesty ' that the players might not be per- 
 mitted to have a playhouse in London or in 
 Middlesex, within four miles of the city on that 
 side of the Thames.' Subsequently Taylor the 
 Water-Poet published a pamphlet justifying this 
 petition, under the title, 'True Cause of the 
 Watermen's Suit concerning Players, and the 
 Reasons that their playing on London Side is 
 * ' Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 81. 
 
232 London Theatres. 
 
 their [i.e.. Watermen's] extreme Hindrance,' in 
 which he states that the theatres on the Bankside 
 in Southwark were once so numerous, and the 
 custom of going thither by water so general, that 
 many thousand watermen were supported by it. 
 
 ' Afterwards (says Taylor), the players began to play on the 
 Bankside, and to leave playing in London and Middlesex for 
 the most part. Then there went such great concourse of 
 people by water that the small number of watermen remain- 
 ing at home (the majority being employed in the Spanish 
 war) were not able to carry them, by reason of the court, the 
 tearms, the players, and other employments. So that we 
 were inforced and encouraged, hopeing that this golden 
 stirring would have lasted ever, to take and entertaine men 
 and boyes, which boyes are grown men, and keepers of 
 houses ; so that the number of watermen, and those that live 
 and are maintained by them, and by the only labour of the 
 oare and scull, betwixt the bridge of Windsor and Gravesend, 
 cannot be fewer than forty thousand : the cause of the greater 
 halfe of which multitude hath bene the players playing on 
 the Bank-side ; for I have known three companies, besides 
 the bear-baiting, at once there ; to wit, the Globe, the Rose, 
 and the Swan. . . . 
 
 ' And now it hath pleased God in this peaceful time that 
 there is no employment at the sea, as it hath bene accustomed, 
 so that all those great numbers of men remaines at home : and 
 the players have all (except the king's men) left their usual 
 residency on the Bankside, and doe play in Middlesex far 
 remote from the Thames ; so that every day in the weeke 
 they do draw unto them three or four thousand people, that 
 were used to spend their monies by water. . . . 
 
 ' His majesties players did exhibit a petition against us, in 
 which ihey said that our suit was unreasonable, and that we 
 might as justly remove the Exchange, the walkes in Paules, or 
 Moorfields, to the Bankside, for our profits, as to confine them.' 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 233 
 
 Taylor shows in his pamphlet that he ener- 
 getically followed up his- suit in behalf of his 
 fellow-watermen, the utmost satisfaction obtainable 
 being an oracle from Sir Francis Bacon, ' that so 
 far forth as the public weal was to be regarded 
 before pastimes, or a serviceable decaying multi- 
 tude before a handful of particular men, or profit 
 before pleasure, so far was our suit to be preferred 
 before theirs,' On this the players appealed to the 
 lord chamberlain. A day was appointed for 
 hearing the case before commissioners, but before 
 the day arrived the chief commissioner. Sir Julius 
 Cassar, was made Master of the Rolls, and the 
 commission was dissolved. The affair appears 
 never to have been decided. 
 
 'Some (says Taylor) have reported that I took bribes of 
 the players to let the suit fall, and to that purpose I had a 
 supper of them, at the Cardinal's Hat on the Bankside.'* 
 
 The amount of hire for the Thames boats was 
 regulated : 
 
 ' " Prices of Fares and Passages to be paide to Watermen," 
 
 printed by John Cawood, " Prynter to the Quene's Majestie :" 
 
 ' Item, that no whyrymanne with a pare of ores take for 
 
 his fare from Paules wharfe, Quene hithe, Parishe 
 
 Garden, or the Blacke Fryers to Westminster or 
 
 White hal or lyke distaunce to and fro above iij^.' 
 
 * 'Works of Taylor the Water-Poet,' p. 171, ed. 1633. 
 Malone, ' Shakespeare by Boswell,' iii. 149. See also ' Early 
 Prose and Poetical Works of Taylor the Water-Poet,' 
 London, 1888, p. 203, et seq. 
 
234 London Theatres. 
 
 In his pamphlet, Taylor confesses that there 
 were many rude, uncivil fellows among the com- 
 pany of watermen, but quaintly argues, ' that all 
 men being vicious, by consequence most vice must 
 be in the greatest companies, but watermen are the 
 greatest company, therefore most abuses must 
 reign among watermen.' He defines the water- 
 man's duty thus : ' To carry the King's liege 
 people carefully and to land them safely, to take 
 his due thankfully without murmuring or doing 
 injury,' which if he do, that waterman may feed 
 upon his labours with a better conscience, and 
 sleep with a quieter spirit, ' than many of our fur- 
 gowned money-mongers that are accounted good 
 commonwealths men.' Taylor makes large ad- 
 missions, however, and it may be permitted to 
 doubt whether the London cabmen of to-day be 
 not on the whole preferable. ' If a railing knave,' 
 says he, 'do chance to abuse his fare, either in 
 words or deeds, as indeed we have too many 
 such,' why should the whole company be ' scan- 
 dalized for it '.''* 
 
 * The watermen are freely satirized in ' Bartholomew 
 Fair' in the puppet-play. 'Tell us, sculler, are you paid?' 
 — 'Yes, Goodman Hogrubber o' Pickthatch.' — 'How, Hog- 
 rubber o' Pickthatch ?' — ■' I, Hogrubber o' Pickthatch. Take 
 you that.' [The Puppet strikes him over 'the pate.l .... ' You 
 are knavishly loaden, sculler, take heed where you go.' — 
 ' Knave i' your face, goodman rogue.' — ' He said knave i' 
 your face, friend.' — ' J, sir, I heard him. But there's no 
 talking to these watermen, they will ha' the last word.' 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 235 
 
 It has frequently been a subject for marvel how 
 Shakespeare obtained that knowledge of sea-life 
 which he displays in « The Tempest,' and which 
 comes out in such passages as Henry IV.'s invoca- 
 tion to Sleep. 
 
 The majority, if not all, of these watermen 
 had been sailors. In his Petitions to the Council, 
 Taylor refers to their services abroad 'in Queen 
 Elizabeth's reign of famous memory'; in the 
 expedition to .Portugal with the ' never-to-be-for- 
 gotten Earl of Essex '; in the Armada invasion ; 
 in the voyages of Sir Francis Drake, Sir John 
 Hawkins, Sir Martin Frobisher, and others ; in 
 Cadiz action, the Island voyage, in Ireland, in the 
 Low Countries, and in the narrow seas. These 
 were the men who from Whitehall to the Placentia 
 at Greenwich plied their trade as watermen, mixing 
 freely with the sailors at the mouth of the Thames; 
 and their conversations, anecdotes, and experiences 
 passed through the alembic of Shakespeare's imagin- 
 ation. We owe much to these old boatmen. 
 
 The Globe was rebuilt in 1614, and his 
 Majesty's players resumed their career of dramatic 
 success in the new playhouse, while the theatrical 
 aspirations at the Hope died away, till the theatre 
 became once more altogether a bear-garden. So 
 it is styled in Visscher's map of 16 16, and CoUier 
 furnishes a reference to it from Swetnam's 'Arraign- 
 ment of Women,' 1 6 1 7 : 'If you meane to see the 
 
236 London Theatres. 
 
 beare-baiting of women, then trudge to this Bear- 
 Garden apace and get in betimes and view every 
 room where thou mayst best sit for thy own 
 pleasure.' Owing to its having been built as a 
 playhouse, the place offered accommodation for 
 visitors of the superior class, and the Bear-Garden 
 became quite a fashionable resort. 
 
 Among the Alleyn Papers there is a curious 
 advertisement of the Bear-Garden, temp. James I., 
 written in a large, coarse hand, being probably the 
 original placard exhibited at the entrance of the 
 building. It is as follows : 
 
 ' Tomorrowe beinge Thursdaie shalbe seen at the Bear- 
 gardin on the banckside a greate mach plaid by the gamsters 
 of Essex, who hath chalenged all comers whatsoever to plaie 
 V dogges at the single beare for v pounds, and also to wearie 
 a bull dead at the stake ; and for your better content shall 
 have plasent sport with the horse and ape and whiping of 
 the blind beare. Vivat Rex !'* 
 
 In Richard Brome's comedy 'The Antipodes' 
 (1638) there is a reference to dancing at the 
 Bear-Garden : 
 
 ' No, nor you, Sir, in 
 That action of the legs, I told you of. 
 Your singles and your doubles — look you — thus — 
 Like one of the Dancing Masters o' the Bear Garden.' 
 
 In the same play an old woman reads out an 
 advertisement similar to the original quoted above, 
 
 * 'Dulwich Catalogue,' p. 83; Lysons, 'Environs of 
 London,' i. 91. 
 
The Bear-Gar den and Hope Theatre. 237 
 
 whereupon a maid says to her : ' Let me entreat 
 you. Forbear such beastly pastimes : they're 
 satanical ;' and the woman rephes : ' Take heed, 
 child, what you say : 'tis the King's game.' 
 
 Visitations of the plague continued to harass 
 the players. On September 11, 1640, the Council 
 issued an order to the efFect that the infection 
 having so much increased in and about London, 
 it is very dangerous to permit any concourse of 
 people to assemble at playhouses or in Paris 
 Garden. It was therefore ordered that the 
 players, both their Majesty's servants and others, 
 as also the keepers of Paris Garden, be com- 
 manded to shut up their playhouses, and not to 
 play in them, or any other place within the city or 
 suburbs of London, till the infection cease, and 
 further order be given by the Board.* 
 
 In 1 642 the impending doom of the Bear-Garden 
 appeared in a Petition presented to the House of 
 Commons against the baiting, and it was ordered 
 that ' the masters of the Bear-Garden, and all other 
 persons who have interest there, be enjoined and 
 required by this House, that for the fiiture they 
 do not permit to be used the game of bear-baiting 
 in these times of great destraction, until this House 
 do give further order therein.'f 
 
 The building was figured by Hollar in his 
 
 * Cal. S. P., Dom., 1640-41, p. 46. 
 t Collier, 'Hist. Dram. Poet.,' iii. loo. 
 
238 London Theatres. 
 
 view of London in 1647, and a comparison with 
 the representation in Visscher's view of 16 16 
 suggests that it may have undergone reconstruc- 
 tion meanwhile. But Hollar's delineation of the 
 Globe shows a similar variatibn from Visscher, 
 and we have no record of a third building of 
 the Globe. In Hollar's view there is no sign 
 of anything like these buildings westward in 
 Paris Garden proper, but the perspective makes 
 the buildings crowded there. Ben Jonson, in his 
 ' Execration upon Vulcan,' has a reference to the 
 burning' of the Globe in 16 13, which supports 
 the view here taken, viz., that the ground in 
 which the Bear Garden stood was colloquially 
 known as Paris Garden : 
 
 ' But others fell, with that conceit, by the ears. 
 And cried it was a threat'ning' to the bears 
 And that accursed ground, the Paris Garden.'* 
 
 In John Taylor's ' Bull, Beare, and Horse,' etc, 
 (1638), occurs the line :t 'At Beare Garden, a 
 sweet Rotuntious CoUedge ;' and it will be 
 observed that Hollar shows a round building. 
 Elsewhere, in the same rhyming performance, 
 Taylor has the following: 
 
 ' And that we have obtained againe the game 
 Our Paris Garden Flag proclaimes the same.' 
 
 * ' Underwoods ' : Miscell. Poems, Ixi., Gifford's edition of 
 "Works, p. 708. 
 
 t Sec his works, Spenser Society, in 5 vols., 1870. 
 
240 London Theatres. 
 
 This seems to be conclusive : ' Paris Garden ' 
 
 here clearly referred to the Hope. The four 
 
 succeeding lines may be quoted for the sake of 
 
 what they indicate : 
 
 'Our Bears and Bulls and Dogs in former state 
 The Streets of London do perambulate, 
 And honest sport and lawfull merriment 
 Shall thrice a week be shew'd to give content.' 
 
 The end of the Hope is thus described in 
 
 Howes' MS. continuation of Stow's ' Survey,' 
 
 quoted by Cunningham in his ' Handbook of 
 
 London' (1850): 
 
 ' The Hope on the Bankside, in Southwarke, commonly 
 called the Beare Garden, a playhouse for stage-playes on 
 Mondayes, Wednesdayes, Fridayes, and Saterdayes ; and for 
 the Baiting of the Beares on Tuesdayes and Thursdayes, the 
 stage being made to take up and downe when they please. 
 It was built in the year 1610, and now pulled downe to 
 make tennementes by Thomas Walker, a petticoate maker 
 in Cannon Streete, on Tuesday, the 25 day of March, 1656. 
 Seven of Mr. Godfries beares, by the command of Thomas 
 Pride, then hie Sheriefe of Surry, were then shot to death, 
 on Saterday, the 9 day of February, 1655, by a Company of 
 Souldiers.' 
 
 In Newcourt's map of London, 1658, the 
 Bear Garden is shown, but no other building of 
 the kind is visible. The Globe is gone, the Swan 
 is gone, and there is no sign of a circus in Paris 
 Garden. At the Restoration the royal game, was 
 revived, and in the Diaries of Pepys and Evelyn 
 there are several allusions to it, notably those of 
 
The Bear-Garden and Hope Theatre. 241 
 
 Pepys under the following dates : August 14, 
 1666; May 27, 1667; September 9, 1667; 
 April 12, 1669. 
 
 Among the corporation records there is a letter, 
 under date September 29, 1664, from the Earl of 
 Manchester to the lord mayor and court of 
 aldermen, directing that the ancient' provision for 
 feeding the dogs and bears should be revived : 
 
 ' He had been informed by the master of His Majesty's 
 Game of Bears and Bulls and others, that the Butchers' 
 Company had formerly caused all their offal in Eastcheap 
 and Newgate Market to be conveyed by the beadle of that 
 Company unto two barrow houses, conveniently placed on 
 the river side, for the provision and feeding of the King's 
 Game of Bears, which custom had been interrupted in the 
 late troubles when the Bears were killed. His Majesty's 
 game being now removed to the usual place on the Bankside, 
 by Order of the Council, he recommended the Court of 
 Aldermen to direct the master and wardens of the Butchers' 
 Company to have their offal conveyed as formerly for the 
 feeding of the bears, etc.'* 
 
 Cunningham, in his 'Handbook' (1850), says: 
 'Among the Additional MSS. in the British 
 Museum [No. 5,750] is a warrant of Lord 
 Arlington's, dated March 28, 1676, for payment 
 of 10/. "to James Davies Esq. master of his 
 Majesty's Bears, Bulls, and Dogs, for making 
 ready the roomes at the Bear Garden and Bayte- 
 ing of the Beares before the Spanish Ambassador 
 the 7 January last 1675." ' 
 
 * ■ ' Remembrancia,' p. 478. 
 
 16 
 
242 London Theatres. 
 
 In his 'Annals' Stow speaks of 'the Bear 
 Garden commonly called Paris Garden'; and as 
 late as 1681 we find the following reference: 
 ' Paris Garden is the place on the Thames Bank-side 
 at London where the Bears are kept and baited ; 
 and was anciently so called from Robert de Paris,' 
 etc.* Whence we see that the inexactitude of 
 nomenclature in Stow's time had resulted in actual 
 confusion before the end of the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 Mr. Rendle quotes an advertisement from the 
 Loyal Protestant, 1682, 'at the Hope on the 
 Bankside being his Majesty's Bear Garden,' etc. 
 But unless the king had purchased the property, 
 this description would not be correct. Perhaps 
 the king esteemed himself rightful owner of the 
 Clink, as we have seen his grandfather disputed 
 with the bishop as to the title of property within 
 the liberty. 
 
 The last reference to the Hope shows that it 
 had declined to the point of extinction : 
 
 ' There is now made at the Bear Garden glass-house, on 
 the Bankside, crown window-glass, much exceeding French 
 glass in all its qualifications, which may be squared into all 
 sizes of sashes for windows and other uses, and may be had 
 at most glaziers in London.'t 
 
 * ' Glossographia,' by T. Blount, 5th edition, 1681, p. 473. 
 t Advertisement from the Gazette, June 18, 1691, quoted 
 in Ge.itleman's Magazine for March, 1818. 
 
THE SURREY SIDE, I743-SO- 
 
244 London Theatres. 
 
 Owing to the late survival of the Bear-Garden 
 on the Bankside, the name has flourished in the 
 nomenclature of the district. Not far ofF was the 
 Dancing Bear's Inn,'^- where the Commissioners sat 
 in reference to the case of disputed title in the 
 time of James I. ; and where Taylor made those 
 depositions which have proved so helpful in clearing 
 up the mystery as to the amphitheatres and bear- 
 gardens. Another inn was the Blue Beare, 
 abutting on the Thames not far off ; and at a 
 later date Mr. Rendle notes ' Bear-Garden Square,' 
 ' Bear-Garden Foundry,' ' Bear-Garden Stairs,' and 
 ' Bear-Garden Wharf — places that Dr. Johnson 
 could have heard of when he went on his visits to 
 the Thrales in the neighbourhood. In Rocque's 
 map {see section above) the Bear-Garden is marked 
 — a lane running from the Bankside into Maiden 
 Lane, with two bulgings, where stood the two bear- 
 gardens, the old and the new, attested by Taylor, 
 the Water-Poet, in 1621. The spot remains 
 almost the same at the present day. Maiden Lane 
 has become New Park Street, but the old lane still 
 leads from the Bankside ; it is called Bear Gardens, 
 and in it the more southerly of the spaces shown 
 by Rocque still exists, with a public-house in it 
 called the White Bear. In John Taylor's list of 
 the animals at the Bear Garden in 1638 two white 
 bears are included. 
 
 * Rendle, in Walford's Antiquarian, vol. viii., p. 58. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PARIS GARDEN AND THE SWAN. 
 
 ' But now (to make an end) must be explain'd 
 How it the name of Paris Garden gain'd : 
 The name it was from a Royall Boy 
 (Brave Illions fire-brand, wracke and sacke of Troy). 
 Paris (King Priam's son), a sucking child. 
 Was throwne away into the woods so wilde — 
 There that young Prince was cast to live or perish. 
 And there a Bear with sucke the babe did cherish ; 
 And as a rare memoriall of the same 
 From Paris, Paris Garden hath the name.' 
 
 John Taylor, the Water-Poet, ' Bull, Beare 
 and Horse,' etc., London, 1638. 
 
 THERE can be little doubt that research has 
 placed at our disposal more exact par- 
 ticulars as to the ownership and legal position of 
 Paris Garden than were generally known to the 
 frequenters of that resort of sport and pastime in 
 the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Among the city- 
 records and elsewhere the pleasure-ground on the 
 south side of the river is vaguely spoken of as 
 
246 London Theatres. 
 
 ' Paris Gardens.' We find, too, ' Parish Garden ' , 
 almost as frequently as ' Paris Garden' or 'Gardens'; 
 and the fantastic origin of the name given in the 
 above lines by John Taylor, the Water-Poet, may 
 have been a playful allusion to what was acknow- 
 ledged to be a mystery in his time. If this is the 
 case, it is evident that the exactitude arrived at by 
 latter-day research might easily mislead us as to 
 what was connoted by allusions to the locality in 
 the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 
 
 The origin of the hame Paris Garden, as fur- 
 nished in Blount's ' Glossographia,' 1685, has been 
 given {ante, pp. 128, 242). A plan of the manor of 
 Old Paris Garden, from a survey made in 1627, was 
 communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by the 
 late W. H. Overall, F.S. A., along with some notes 
 on the manor, which are concise and to the point.* 
 ' I find it enjoyed,' he says, ' all manorial rights at 
 a very early period. Courts Baron and Leet being 
 held. In 1 1 1 3 Robert Marmion gave to the 
 Abbey of Bermondsey an hide of land, called 
 Withiflete, or Widflete, with a mill and other 
 appurtenances in Southwark, Lambeth, Kenning- 
 ton, and Newington. This estate included Paris 
 Gardens, for we find that the Knights Templars 
 held of the Abbey [of Bermondsey] the mills of 
 Widflete, with a certain garden called Paris 
 Garden.' 
 
 * Proceedings, See. Antiq., znd series, vol. iv., p. 195. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 247 
 
 Mr. Rendle states* that the Templars con- 
 stituted part of Paris Garden as a chapelry, the 
 people crossing the Thames in a barge to worship 
 at the Temple Church until ' the barge was 
 drowned.' It may be remarked on this that 
 Chapel Hall (or Copt Hall) formed part of the 
 manor of Paris Garden. Does this furnish us 
 with the meaning of Parish Garden ? Probably 
 it does, for elsewhere Mr. Rendle remarks : ' In 
 all the earlier notices I have seen it is Parish 
 Garden ; afterwards it is indifferently Parish 
 Garden and Paris Garden. 't 
 
 Mr. Overall's next note is that the property 
 was taken, from the Knights Templars by 
 Edward II. in 1313, who then granted it to 
 William de Montacute by the name of the manor 
 of Wychyflet, with the mills, etc. 
 
 Next in date comes the ordinance by Richard II., 
 in 1392, that the butchers of London are to erect 
 a house on the other side of the river, near the 
 house of Robert de Paris, for the disposal of the 
 city's ofFal and garbage, which we may conclude 
 was the origin of baiting sports on the Bankside. 
 But it is important to note that Blount, in his 
 citation of this ordinance from the Close Rolls, 
 was pleased to render ' Domum Roberti de Parys ' 
 in the sense of house and garden, although no 
 
 * Notes and Queries, 7th series, iii., p. 241 (March 26, 1887). 
 
 t Ibid.,-^. 443 (June 4, 1887). 
 
248 London Theatres, 
 
 mention is made of a garden in the roll he quoted. 
 Thus we see that this oft-quoted authority does 
 not, after all, give us the origin of the name Paris 
 Garden, although it does furnish the origin of the 
 baiting. 
 
 The manor was named Withiflete, or Widflete, 
 spelt also Wychyflet, as we have seen above ; and 
 in 1625 it was called in the official survey the 
 manor of Old Paris Garden. Let us glance at 
 the intervening period, and see if the few facts 
 suggest anything as to the change in name. Mr. 
 Rendle notes as follows: 'In 1433 John Duke 
 of Bedford became " firmarius " of a certain privi- 
 leged place, " vocatum Parish Gardyn," for which 
 privileged place he made statutes and ordinances, 
 set out more particularly in Dugdale (vol. vi., ed. 
 1830). In 1434 it is " molendina de Wideflete 
 cum Gardino vocato Parish-Gardin." '* In a pre- 
 vious note,t Mr. Rendle, after stating that the 
 Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem 
 succeeded the Knights Templars as owners of the 
 manor, remarks that under the Duke of Bedford 
 as ' firmarius ' the district became a sort of sanctuary 
 or privileged place for any, even debtors, felons, 
 and misdemeanants, so long as they kept the 
 ordinances made by the Duke of Bedford. 
 
 Hence we see that, in the reign of Henry VI., 
 
 * Notes and Queries, 7th series, iii., p. 443. 
 t Ibid., p. 241 (March 26, 1887). 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 249 
 
 Paris Garden, or the western portion of Bankside, 
 was a privileged liberty under the government of 
 the famous Duke of Bedford, as the eastern portion, 
 or the Clink, was a privileged liberty under the 
 government of the Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 Another concise note from Mr. Overall's com- 
 munication brings us into the era of the playhouses. 
 Under Henry VIII. the Knights Hospitallers were 
 deprived, and the king settled the manor as a 
 dower upon Queen Jane Seymour. ' It remained 
 in the crown until July 10, 1578, when Queen 
 Elizabeth exchanged it with Lord Hunsdon, who 
 then granted it to Thomas Cure, the queen's 
 saddler.'* The lordship is thus described : ' The 
 manor-hoiise within the mote, the gate-house, four 
 pastures, one of which is called the Chapel Hall 
 (or Copt Ha;ll), with the rent of the free and 
 copyhold tenants, amounting annually to ^8 7s. 8d.' 
 Cure conveyed it to Francis Langley, citizen and 
 draper, October i, 1589. 
 
 Mr. Rendle was of opinion that the name was 
 properly Parish Garden, however it may have 
 become confused into Paris Garden, and I agree 
 with him.t But it also seems to me that the name 
 
 * Founder of the almshouses, and the subject of the 
 epitaph in. St. Saviour's Church. 
 
 t It is called Parish Garden in Robert Crowley's 'Vn- 
 lawfull Practises of Prelates,' etc., ab. 1584. See Crowley's 
 select works, ed. J. M. Cowper, Early English Text Society, 
 1872. ^ 
 
250 London Theatres. 
 
 lost all particular significancCj and was used to 
 describe the locality generally ; that the line of 
 demarcation between the Winchester liberty and 
 Parish Garden was lost sight of ; and that the open 
 ground, made up of gardens and trees, visible in 
 the maps, at the back of the houses fringing the 
 south side of the Thames, became colloquially 
 known as Parish or Paris Garden or Gardens. 
 This, it seems to me, is the true explanation of the 
 alternative phrasing 'Bear Garden, commonly called 
 Paris Garden,' which we meet in Stow, and John 
 Taylor, and others, and of the absence from all the 
 maps of any amphitheatre in Paris Garden proper. 
 Mr. Wheatley, in that splendid monument of 
 combined industry, ' London Past and Present,' 
 1 89 1, founded on Peter Cunningham's 'Hand- 
 book,' reproduces Cunningham's section with its 
 heading, ' Paris Garden Theatre,' described as ' a 
 circus in the manor of Paris Garden, in South- 
 wark, erected for bull and bear baiting as early 
 as 17 Henry VIII.,' etc., on the authority of 
 the Northumberland Household Book (which we 
 examined and found wanting in our chapter on the 
 Amphitheatres), and giving various particulars 
 which our examination of the evidence has re- 
 sulted in bestowing upon the Bear-Garden or 
 Hope in the Winchester Liberty. Without an 
 exhaustive analysis of the evidence, it was certainly 
 wise to leave the point as Cunningham left it, 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 251 
 
 especially as the various communications by Mr. 
 Rendle were in agreement with this. But in a 
 future edition of his valuable work, which I hope 
 may be called for while Mr. Wheatley is yet in 
 the flesh, it is probable that this detail may receive 
 some modification at his hands, for it seems to be 
 pretty clear that the amphitheatre in Paris Garden, 
 not shown in any of the maps, not clearly testified 
 by any evidence, is a ' Mrs. Harris ' ; and in the 
 words of the immortal Betsy, 'I don't believe 
 there's no sich ' thing. Mr. Rendle says : ' Bear 
 Lane, Bear Court, not far from Blackfriars Bridge, 
 would be the old site of circles dedicated to 
 sports in Paris Garden.' But these names may 
 have come from the houses for provisioning the 
 royal beasts, and the headquarters of the master of 
 the royal game, which Henslowe and Alleyn 
 referred to as their ofiice in Pallas (? = Paris) 
 Garden (see ante, p. 2 1 3).* I feel persuaded that we 
 may trust the unanimity of the maps, and conclude 
 that there was no amphitheatre in Paris Garden 
 after 1550. There may have been some exhibi- 
 tions of baiting ; indeed, in the manor map of 
 1627 there is a slight indication of a round forma- 
 tion, which is probably meant for flower-beds or a 
 garden laid out, but possibly might point to some 
 
 * If not a mis-spelling, there is another possible explana- 
 tion of the word 'Pallas,' viz., that it was derived from the 
 palace of the Bishops of Winchester on the Bankside. 
 
252 London Theatres. 
 
 arrangement for baiting sports. But the Bear- 
 Garden was in the Clink, where it had a continuous 
 existence from the time of Aggas till after the 
 Restoration. 
 
 If we may suppose the original meaning of 
 Parish Garden to have had reference to the religious 
 establishment of the Knights Templars across the 
 river, that it was the garden which served the 
 domestic needs of the establishment, and the parish 
 or cure of the Templars, we can understand that 
 after the Reformation the name might lose its sense 
 in sympathy with the pleasure-making associations 
 of -the neighbourhood, and by dropping the final 
 letter attain a fine suggestion of adventure and 
 frolic as Paris Gardens. Again, after the Refor- 
 mation the manor became included in the parish of 
 St. Saviour's ; and before this modification in the 
 name could take place, it is likely that the name 
 Parish Garden became extended generally to the 
 open ground eastward, in the liberty of the Bishop 
 of Winchester, where the amphitheatres and play- 
 houses subsequently grew up. It is perhaps note- 
 worthy in this connection that, in the survey of the 
 manor of Paris Garden, 1625-27, it is called 'the 
 manor of Old Paris Garden.' 
 
 We have seen above that the manor became the 
 property of Francis Langley in 1589. A piquant 
 interest in this man is suggested by the fact that, 
 although he was an eminent citizen, holding office 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 253 
 
 under the corporation, he became the third builder 
 of Elizabethan playhouses known to us. We 
 discover in the city archives that he was well 
 introduced at court. In 1582 the lords of the 
 council wrote to the lord mayor and aldermen 
 recommending him to the office of one of the 
 alnagers and searchers of cloth ; and a {Q.\<r days 
 later Sir Francis Walsingham — to whom the players 
 were much indebted for frequent acts of kindness, 
 encouragement, and support — backed up the 
 general recommendation of my lords by a special 
 and personal recommendation from himself* This 
 favour, although it helped Langley to acquire the 
 coveted office, did not avail him a few years later, 
 when, having become possessed of Parish Garden 
 manor, he set about building a playhouse on his 
 property. On November 3, 1594, the lord 
 mayor addressed a letter to the lord treasurer, 
 informing Jiim that Francis Langley, one of the 
 alnagers for the sealing of cloth, intended to erect 
 a new stage or theatre on the Bankside, and praying 
 that the same might be prevented on account , of 
 the evils arising therefrom, t The project may 
 have been delayed somewhat, but it was carried 
 out. This new theatre was the Swan. We do 
 not know definitely when it was completed and 
 opened to the public. 
 
 The prospects of the speculation were un- 
 * ' Remembrancia,' p. 277. \ Ibid., pp. 353, 354. 
 
254 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 doubtedly good. The numerous landing-stages or 
 stairs all along the river-bank, from old Barge- 
 house Stairs, at the western limit of Paris Garden 
 manor, to the dock near St. Mary Overy's, towards 
 the bridge, attest the fondness of the Elizabethans 
 for the diversions of the gardens on the Bankside. 
 In summer especially, on fine days, 
 the succession of boats coming 
 across the water fi-om all points of 
 the town, the bustle of the landing- 
 stairs, the gaiety of parties of 
 pleasure-seekers mingled with loud 
 disputes with the scullers, afforded 
 an animated scene in the life . of 
 by-gone days, which it is ex- 
 tremely pleasant to recall. On 
 the bank of Paris Garden manor 
 itself there were landing-stairs at 
 distances of about every fifty yards 
 — Bargehouse Stairs, Bull Stairs, 
 Marigold Stairs, Parish Garden 
 Stairs, at the end of Parish Garden 
 Lane, and Falcon Stairs, near the 
 famous Falcon Inn. The visitors 
 Manor Map, 1627. were not always bound for the 
 pleasures of the Bankside ; sometimes their errand 
 was some business in the villages or towns within 
 walking distance in Surrey ; and if on pleasure 
 bent, they would frequently, especially in the long 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 255 
 
 summer days, leave the attractions of Paris Gardens 
 behind them, and pass on into St. George's Fields, 
 where they could hear the larks singing, see the 
 cattle browsing, buy fruit and milk, at farmhouses 
 near, and picnic on the grass. There must often 
 have been quite a stream of pleasure-makers 
 passing up Paris Garden Lane from the stairs and 
 onward by the road, near which Langley built his 
 Swan Theatre, into the fields beyond. If the pole 
 with its flag were hoisted to show that a play was 
 toward at the theatre, many would turn aside to 
 witness it ; or so, at least, Langley might reason- 
 ably have anticipated. As the western end of the 
 bank was so popular as a landing-place, he may 
 also have calculated that many would visit his 
 playhouse instead of turning eastward to look at 
 the pike in their ponds, or to see the baiting at the 
 Bear-house, or to visit the Rose Theatre. All 
 that we know of the Bankside in Elizabeth's time 
 tends to show that it became ever increasingly 
 popular as a pleasure-resort ; and as its star waxed, 
 that of the northern playground at Finsbury waned. 
 The little trip across the water — so dear to the 
 English nature — with the little spice of adventure 
 and added excitement, was probably at the bottom 
 of this development of popular favour. Humanly 
 speaking, there can be no doubt Langley was wise 
 in his generation, and showed judgment in his 
 
256 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 venture ; but that uncertain element which we call 
 chance, or luck, or the caprice of fate — the demon 
 of the incalculable — mocked his anticipations and 
 jeered his worldly wisdom. The prize that at- 
 tracted him attracted others also, and brought him 
 as rivals the finest of all the acting companies, 
 
 The Swan Theatre. 
 From Visscher's View of London, i6i5. 
 
 who eclipsed him as well as Henslowe and Alleyn, 
 and became ' the Glory of the Bank.' 
 
 It is possible to reconstruct the old Swan 
 Theatre from the particulars we obtain in the 
 contract for building the Hope, which was to be 
 made in all respects like the Swan, aided by the 
 details supplied in the account in Henslowe's 
 Diary for the building of his ' play-howsse,' the 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 257 
 
 Rose, and another contract for building the 
 Fortune. Taking the Hope contract of 16 13,* 
 and divesting it of all the legal verbiage, the 
 following features of construction, common to the 
 Hope and the Swan, are revealed : 
 
 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 ig 
 to be provided a tyre-house, ' and a frame to . be 
 carryed or taken away, and to stande upon tressels ' 
 sufficient to bear such a stage. It is agreed ' to 
 builde the same of ^uche large compasse, forme, 
 wideness, and height as the plaie-house called, the 
 Swan in the libertie of Paris Garden.' Particulars 
 of the building are then enumerated, concluding 
 with the reiterated stipulation, ' And the saide 
 playe house or game place to be made in all thinges 
 and in suche forme and fashion as the said playr 
 house called the Swan, the scantling of the tymbers, 
 tyles, and foundations as is aforesaide, without 
 fraud or covin.' The particulars are : 
 
 1. Two staircases without and adjoining the playhouse, 
 • of such largenes and height as the staircases of the said 
 playhouse called the Swan.' 
 
 2. Heavens over the stage, to be borne or carried without 
 any posts or supporters to be fixed or set upon the stage ; 
 gutters of lead needful for carriage of water that shall fall 
 upon the same. 
 
 * Malone, ' Variorum Shakspeare,' iii. 343. 
 
 17 
 
258 London Theatres. 
 
 3. Two boxes in the lowermost story, ' fitt and decent for 
 gentlemen to sitt in ; and shall make the partitions betweene 
 the roomes as they are at the saide playhouse called the Swan.' 
 
 4. Turned columns upon and over the stage. 
 
 5. Principals and forefront of the playhouse to be of oak; 
 no fir to be used in the lowermost or under stories, except 
 the upright posts on the back part of the said stories ; all 
 binding joists to be of oak. 
 
 6. Inner principal posts of first story to be iz feet high 
 and 10 inches square ; ditto, of middle story, to be 8 inches 
 square ; innermost posts in upper story to be 7 inches square. 
 Other posts in first story to be 8 inches square ; in second, 
 7 inches square ; in upper, 6 inches square. 
 
 7. ' Brest summers ' in lowermost story to be 9 inches 
 deep and 7 inches thick, and in middle story to be 8 inches 
 deep and 6 inches thick. Size of the binding joists also given. 
 
 8. Foundation of bricks : to be at least 12 inches above 
 ground. Also a louvre or storie over the said house. 
 
 , 9. To ' new tyle with Englishe tyles all the upper roofe 
 of the saide playe house.' 
 
 10. Katherens to supply all lime, lears, sand, bricks, tiles, 
 laths, nails. 
 
 Although it is not definitely known when the 
 new theatre was first opened, we know that the 
 building was recently completed in 1598. On 
 July 19 of that year the vestry of St. Saviour's, 
 South wark, ordered :* 
 
 ' That a petition shall be made to the bodye of the Councel 
 concerning the playhouses in this parish ; wherein the enor- 
 mities shall be showed that come thereby to the parish, and 
 that in respect thereof they may be dismissed and put down 
 from playing ; and that four or two of the Churchwardens, 
 
 * Chalmers (George), ' Farther Account of the Early 
 English Stage,' in 'Variorum Shakspeare,' iii., 452. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 259 
 
 &c., shall present the cause with a collector of the Borough- 
 side, and another of the Bankside.' 
 
 And Mr. Rendle noted the following from the 
 vestry minutes of St. Saviour's, 1598: 'It is 
 ordered by the vestry 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 playhouses and for tithes.''^* The ' others ' 
 referred to were Henslowe and AUeyn and Meade. 
 At this date, 1598, the existing theatres 'in the 
 fields ' were The Theatre and the Curtain to the 
 north, and on the Surrey side, besides Newington 
 Butts, the Rose and the Beare-house, shown in 
 Norden's map of 1593, and the recently opened 
 Swan. These were the theatres described in the 
 'Itinerary' of Paul Hentzner in 1598 :t 
 
 ' Without the city are some theatres, where English actors 
 represent, almost every day, tragedies and comedies to very 
 numerous audiences ; these are concluded with excellent 
 music, variety of dances, and the excessive applause of those 
 that are present. 
 
 ' Not far from one of these theatres, which are all built of 
 wood, lies the royal barge, close to the river ; it has two 
 splendid cabins, beautifully ornamented with glass windows, 
 painting and gilding ; it' is kept upon dry ground, and 
 sheltered from the weather. 
 
 'There is still another place, built in the form of a 
 
 * Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer, vol. vii., p. 210. 
 
 t The original is an 'Itinerary through Germany, England, 
 France and Italy,' by Hentzner, a travelling tutor to a young 
 German nobleman. 
 
26o London Theatres. 
 
 theatre, which serves for the baiting of bulls and bears ; 
 they are fastened behind, and then worried by great English 
 bull-dogs, but not without great risque to the dogs, from the 
 horns of the one, and the teeth of the other; and it sometimes 
 happens they are killed upon the spot ; fresh ones are imme- 
 diately supplied in the places of those that are wounded or 
 tired. To this entertainment there often follows that of 
 whipping a blinded bear, which is performed by five or six 
 men, standing circularly with whips, which they exercise 
 upon him without any mercy, as he cannot escape from them 
 because of his chain ; he defends himself with all his force and 
 skill, throwing down all who come within his reach, and are 
 not active enough to get out of it, and tearing the whips out of 
 their hands and breaking them. At these spectacles and every- 
 where else the English are constantly smoaking tobacco. ... In 
 these theatres, fruit, such as apples, pears and nuts, according to 
 season, are carried about to be sold, as well as ale and wine.'* 
 
 Travelling became very fashionable in the six- 
 teenth and seventeenth centuries. The literature 
 of European travel at this period is considerable, 
 especially in German and English. The travels of 
 Englishmen recorded by Hakluyt and by Purchas, 
 the personal narratives of Fynes Moryson and 
 Thomas Coryat, afford an excellent panorama of 
 the world and its inhabitants in Shakespeare's time 
 and earlier. One of the essays of Bacon is an 
 instructive homily ' Of Trauaile.' A ie'^tr years 
 ago, in the pages of the Antiquary, the present 
 writer called attention to some entertaining records 
 
 * Paul Hentzner's ' Travels in England during the Reign 
 of Queen Elizabeth,' translated by Horace, late Earl of 
 Orford, etc., London, 1797, p. 30. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 261 
 
 of the tour performed by young Thomas Cecil, 
 the eldest son of Lord Treasurer Burghley. But it 
 is the recorded impressions of foreigners who visited 
 our shores at that period which are perhaps of chief 
 interest to us, and they afford many a glimpse which 
 helps us to fill up our mental picture of the time. 
 To the studious Germans we are especially indebted 
 in this respect. In 1585, Samuel Kiechel, a mer- 
 chant of Ulm, in Suabia, in the course of travels 
 which extended over four years, visited England, 
 and in his journal he includes a very interesting 
 account of his sojourn here. Mr. Rye furnishes an 
 account of some published extracts from Kiechel's 
 journal, from which the following is quoted : 
 
 ' When speaking of the London stage, Kiechel says that 
 there are some peculiar (sonderbare, i.e., besondere) houses, 
 which are so constructed that they have about three galleries 
 one above the other. As in all his travels he only mentions 
 the theatres in London, it is probable that there were no 
 regular playhouses elsewhere, or it may be that the rows of 
 seats one above the other appeared remarkable in the eyes of 
 our traveller. It may indeed happen, he continues, that 
 the players take from fifty to sixty dollars \£,\o to £,\z\ at a 
 tiine, particularly if they act anything new, when people 
 have to pay double. And that they perform nearly every 
 day in the week ; notwithstanding plays are forbidden on 
 Friday and Saturday, this prohibition is not observed.'* 
 
 If Mr. Rye's surmise that there were no play- 
 houses elsewhere than in England represents what 
 was actually the case, there is no doubt that these 
 
 * W. B. Rye, 'England as seen by Foreigners,' p. 88. 
 
262 London Theatres. 
 
 buildings would attract the curiosity of foreign 
 visitors. The fame of the London theatres pro- 
 bably spread over the Continent, and Mr. Rye 
 notes that when Charles undertook his romantic 
 journey to Spain, the conterhporary account of the 
 royal entry into Madrid on March 23, 1623, 
 informs us that ' in the streets of the passage, divers 
 representations were made of the best comedians, 
 dancers, and men of musicke, to give contentment 
 to the royal paire [Charles and Philip IV.] as they 
 passed by.' The scene is presented in a rare 
 German print in the Grenville Library, which Mr. 
 Rye reproduced in his volume.* This attempt to 
 entertain the prince from the land of playhouses was 
 made on a platform on tressels or supports, with 
 arras or hangings at the back, behind which the 
 performers awaited their turns for entry. It is 
 hardly so ambitious an attempt at stage repre- 
 sentation as the pageant vehicles of England at an 
 earlier date. 
 
 There is another source from which we may 
 hope that some day further light may be thrown 
 upon the Elizabethan playhouses. Mr. Rye 
 remarksf upon the custom of German travellers 
 carrying with them an album or ' Stammbuch.' 
 The German, writes Mr. Rye, ' producing his little 
 
 * W. B. Rye, ' England as seen by Foreigners,' Introduc- 
 tion, p. ex. 
 
 t Ibid., pp. XXX., xxxi. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 263 
 
 book whenever he came into 'contact with friends 
 or persons of more or less note, would solicit them 
 to favour him by inscribing on its leaves an auto- 
 graph or a motto, or by inserting an emblazoned 
 shield of arms, or a sketch.' Mr. Rye adds : 
 ' Many of these interesting volumes — which are 
 usually, of an oblong shape and have costly bind- 
 ings — enshrine autographs of very distinguished 
 persons. The quondam owner of one, Christopher 
 Arnold, professor of history at Nuremberg, 
 visited England in the middle of the seventeenth 
 century, and being in London on November 19, 
 1 65 1, obtained the autograph of the author of 
 " Paradise Lost " — " Joannes Miltonius." ' It 
 would be interesting if the autograph of William 
 Shakespeare were to turn up in a German ' Stamm- 
 buch' — but it is dangerous to make these sug- 
 gestions. Mr. Rye also tells us that ' an album, 
 which belonged to a traveller, Fred, de Botnia, 
 contains beautifully-coloured drawings of James I. 
 and his queen, the Lord Mayor of London and 
 his brethren on horseback, and also the lady 
 mayoress for the time being.' What delight it 
 would cause if a drawing of the famous maker of 
 English plays, by a contemporary German hand, 
 should be discovered in some such record, a 
 portrait that should be an improvement upon the 
 Droeshout engraving, and approximate to those 
 ideals which are reflected in the numerous and 
 
264 London 'Theatres. 
 
 dissimilar portraits of him, so eloquent of all things, 
 so silent about himself! But perhaps it is not 
 wise to suggest these hopes. 
 
 By directing attention to this field of possible 
 discovery, Mr. Rye is entitled to some merit as 
 well as responsibility in connection with the im- 
 portant find of a drawing of the Swan Theatre in 
 the University Library of Utrecht. This drawing 
 was reproduced and published in a pamphlet by 
 Dr. Gaedertz in 1888, and attracted considerable 
 notice.* The original MS. volume in which the 
 sketch was found was sent to this country at the 
 instigation of Dr. Furnivall, and deposited in the 
 British Museum under the care of Dr. Garnett, 
 where it was inspected by students of the drama, 
 the present writer sharing in this great privilege. 
 The picture, as given in Dr. Gaedertz's publica- 
 tion, according to my recollection, is larger than 
 the original. The reproduction of it here given 
 is reduced, but the features are perfectly distinct. 
 
 As remarked above, our information as to the 
 construction of the Swan has for many years been 
 so complete that it is not difficult to derive a 
 picture in the mind's eye from that material, and 
 this interesting sketch generally agrees with the 
 particulars. Here we see the three galleries 
 
 * ' Zur Kenntnis der altenglischen Buhne, etc., Von Karl 
 Theodor Gaedertz. Mit der ersten authentischen innern 
 Ansicht der Schwan-Theaters in London, etc' Bremen, 1 888. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 
 
 265 
 
 described by Kiechel {ante, p. 261), the turned 
 columns, and the removable stage, but the 
 ' heavens over the stage ' are not shown (^ante, 
 p. 257). There are minor points in which the 
 
 
 picture is not in agreement with recorded refer- 
 ences to the interior arrangements of Elizabethan 
 playhouses. But we must not exact too much 
 of a sketch of this kind. It is not an original 
 
266 London Theatres. 
 
 drawing made in the theatre. It seems to have 
 been copied into Arend van Buchell's common- 
 place book, perhaps from a letter of his corre- 
 spondent, John de Witt, or possibly from oral 
 description. The drawing is without date, but 
 Dr. Gaedertz argues that De Witt's visit to 
 London took place in the summer of 1596. Dr. 
 Gaedertz is at pains to account for the traveller's 
 silence as to Shakespeare. He argues that it is 
 impossible that the great dramatist could have been 
 in London, or De Witt would assuredly have 
 mentioned him, and he accounts for Shakespeare's 
 absence by asserting that he was in Stratford. 
 
 The death of Shakespeare's son, Hamnet, which 
 occurred in August, 1596, seemed to favour this 
 supposition, and I mentioned this point to the 
 late Halliwell-Phillipps. He, however, after con- 
 sulting his wonderfully systematized records, said, 
 ' There is not an atom of evidence that Shakespeare 
 was at Stratford in 1596.'* 
 
 But how narrowly we must have missed a most 
 interesting notice of Shakespeare ! For this was 
 the time, in the. summer of 1596, when his fame 
 became vastly increased owing to the production 
 of ' Romeo and Juliet ' at the Curtain Theatre. 
 The play bounded into extraordinary popularity ; 
 
 * It is not necessary to point out the conditions of the 
 period which would account for Shakespeare's absence at the 
 time of his son's death. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 267 
 
 and had De Witt been curious to make the 
 famous playwright's acquaintance, he could have 
 found Shakespeare at his lodgings near the Bear 
 Garden on the Bankside. 
 
 Dr. Gaedertz mentions that he could not 
 succeed in discovering the diary of De Witt's 
 journey in the original ; the Dutch libraries do 
 not possess it. 'It may be that De Witt took it 
 with him to Rome, where he died, and probably 
 it is still in existence.' If this MS. should ever be 
 discovered, it is possible that further particulars 
 than those recorded by De Witt's friend and cor- 
 respondent may be made known, and - perhaps in 
 that case it may prove that De Witt was not 
 silent about Shakespeare after all. In the mean- 
 time, the following is the passage copied by Arend 
 van Buchell, with the sketch of the Swan : 
 
 ' Amphiteatra Londinij sunt IV visendje pulcritudinis qus 
 a diuersis intersignijs diuersa nomina fortiuntur : in ijs varia 
 quotidie scsna populo exhibetur. Horum duo excellentiora 
 vltra Tamisim ad meridiem sita sunt, a suspensis signis Rosa 
 et Cygnus nominata : Alia duo extra vrbem ad septentrionem 
 sunt, via qua itur per Episcopalem portam 'vulgariter Bis- 
 copgat nuncupatam. ,Est etiam quintum sed dispari et [sic!] 
 structura, bestiarum concertationi destinatum, in quo multi 
 vrsi, Tauri, et stupends magnitudinis canes, discretis caueis 
 et septis aluntur, qui ad pugnam adseruantur, iucundissimum 
 hominibus spectaculum praebentes. Theatrorum autem 
 omnium prestantissimum dst et amplissimum id cuius inter- 
 signium est cygnus (vulgo te theatre off te cijn) quippe quod 
 tres mille homines in sedilibus admittat, constructum ex 
 
268 London Theatres. 
 
 coaceruato lapide pyrritide (quorum ingens in Brittannia copia 
 est) ligneis suffultum columnis quae ob illitum marmoreum 
 colorem, nasutissimos quoque fallere posse[n]t. Cuius quidem 
 forma[m] quod Romani operis vmbram videatur exprimere 
 supra adpinxi).' 
 
 The passage would not have presented much 
 difficulty even to Ben Jonson's greater contem- 
 porary, who had ' small Latin and less Greek ' ; 
 but the following readable version* may be use- 
 fully appended : 
 
 ' There are in London four theatres [amphitheatra] of 
 noteworthy beauty, which bear diverse names according to 
 their diverse signs. In them a different action [varia scaena] 
 is daily presented to the people. The two finest of these are 
 situated to the southward beyond the Thames, named, from 
 the signs they display, the Rose and the Swan. Two others 
 are outside the city towards the north, and are approached 
 "per Episcopalem portem "; in the vernacular, " Biscopgate." 
 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 most delightful [juncun- 
 dissimum] 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 
 stones (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 [nasu- 
 
 * Published in a very interesting notice of Dr. Gaedertz's 
 pamphlet by Mr. William Archer in the Universal Review for 
 June, 1888. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 269 
 
 tissimos]. Since its form seems to approach that of a Roman 
 structure, I have depicted it above.' 
 
 In reference to this characterization of the Swan 
 as the largest and most distinguished of the play- 
 houses, it should be remarked that the Globe was 
 not yet in existence. The estimation of its size 
 in terms of accommodation for 3,000 persons is 
 difficult of acceptance ; 300 would probably be 
 nearer the mark. But perhaps undue importance 
 should not be attached to a traveller's statement of 
 that kind, or possibly it was a slip of Van Buchell's 
 in recording his friend's remarks. Another dif- 
 ficult point is the statement that the building was 
 constructed of a concrete of flints. It will have 
 been gathered in the foregoing pages that all the 
 other London playhouses in the fields were made 
 of timber ; Hentzner, writing in 1598, expressly 
 says that the theatres ' are all built of wood ' 
 {ante, p. 259), and the particulars in the contract 
 {ante, pp. 257-258) concern a wooden structure on 
 a brick foundation. However, against this dis- 
 crepancy we should, perhaps, set the fact that 
 Langley, the builder of the Swan, was a man of 
 superior means and position compared with the 
 other builders and proprietors of playhouses, and, 
 as owner of the Paris Garden Manor, he would 
 .perhaps feel interested in having a handsome 
 structure on his estate. 
 
 At any rate, these are points scarcely of primary 
 
270 London Theatres. 
 
 interest, although they could be put to much 
 critical use if the object were to impugn the 
 record which has been recovered at Utrecht. But 
 the excerpt and the sketch generally agree with 
 our previous knowledge, if they add nothing to 
 it, and perhaps may now be permitted to take 
 their modest place in the history of the stage.* 
 
 A more appropriate sign than the Swan for a 
 Thames-sidp house at that period could hardly be 
 imagined. The secretary of the Duke of Najera, 
 Spanish Ambassador to this country in 1 544, who 
 wrote a narrative of the Duke's visit, speaks in 
 raptures of the Thames, its fine bridge, with the 
 houses on it, and the multitude of swans in the 
 river. ' It is not possible,' he wrote, ' in my 
 opinion, that a more beautiful river should exist 
 in the world ; for the city stands on each side of 
 it, and innumerable boats, vessels and other craft 
 are seen moving on the stream. . . . Never did I 
 
 * It has been by no intentional omission that I have not 
 referred to Mr. Wheatley's paper on this subject read before 
 the New Shakspere Society. In his 'London Past and 
 Present,' sub voce Swan Theatre, he gives a reference to it thus : 
 'Transactionsof the New Shakspere Society, 1887-91, p. ZI5.' 
 My endeavours to obtain access to this at the British Museum 
 have been, vain. The date of my last application was 
 December z, 1893. Probably before this book is issued the 
 Transactions will have been published. I had not the privilege 
 of hearing Mr. Wheatley's paper ; but should the reader desire 
 to pursue inquiry into the subject, I imagine he would find it 
 treated at greater length in Mr. Wheatley's communication. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 271 
 
 see a river so thickly covered with swans as 
 this.'* 
 
 But although, apparently, its inception was 
 ambitious, the theatrical history of this playhouse 
 is singularly meagre, and suggests disappointed 
 expectations. So far as investigation has recovered 
 them, the events are few, and the account may be 
 briefly rendered. 
 
 In emulation of celebrated jesters like Tarleton, 
 the playhouse became employed for wit combats, 
 or trials of extempore versification, as in the case 
 of the Hope Theatre already related. The Swan 
 became used for this purpose by Robert Wilson, 
 who gave a challenge there in 1598, and came 
 off victorious : 
 
 ' As Jntipater Sidonius was famous for extemporall verse in 
 Greeke, and Quid for his' Quicquid conabar dicere versus erat : 
 so was our Tarleton, of whome Doctour Case, that learned 
 physitian, thus speaketh in the seuenth Booke, & seuenteenth 
 chapter of his Politikes : Aristoteles suum Theodoretum laudauit 
 quendam peritum Tragcediarum actorem ; Cicero suum Roscium : 
 nos Angli Tarletonum, in cuius voce & vultu omnes tocosiaffectus, in 
 cuius cerebroso capite lepida facetia habitant. And so is now our 
 wittie Wilson, who, for learning and extemporall witte in this 
 facultie, is without compare or compeere, as to his great and 
 eternall commendations he manifested in his chalenge at the 
 Swanne on the Banke-side.'t 
 
 * ' Archaeologia,' xxiii. 355. 
 
 t Francis Meres,. ' Palladis Tamia,' London, 1598, 8vo., 
 fol., 285-286 ; .f^^ also New Shakspere Society Allusion Books, 
 part i., ed. Ingleby, 1874, p. 164. 
 
272 London Theatres. 
 
 The house was used, apparently, from the first 
 more for sports of the ring than for stage-plays. 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps communicated the follow- 
 ing note to Mr. Rendle : ' In a letter to the Justices 
 of Surrey in 1600, Peter Bromville is recom- 
 mended from the Court to their favour ; he is 
 known to the French King for his great skill in 
 feats of activities ; he has exhibited the same before 
 the Queen, and wishing to appear in some public 
 place, " has chosen the Swann, in Old Paris Garden, 
 being the house of Francis Langley." ' 
 
 In Dekker's ' Satiromastix,' 1602, the follow- 
 ing reference shows that Ben Jonson played at 
 the Swan, the character of Horace being intended 
 for Jonson, as already referred to in a previous 
 chapter : 
 
 ' Tucca. Thou hast been at the Paris Garden, hast not ? 
 Horace. Yes, captain ; I ha' played Zulziman there.' 
 
 William Fennor, whose failure to meet Taylor 
 for the trial of wit at the Hope has been described 
 in the chapter on that theatre, produced a spec- 
 tacular play at the Swan, 1603, entitled 'Eng- 
 land's Joy,' and designed to illustrate the glories 
 of Elizabeth's reign. John Taylor, the water- 
 poet, when at issue with Fennor after the Hope 
 fiasco, refers to his antagonist's former perform- 
 ance in some lines headed ' My Defence against 
 thy Offence,' in his ' A Cast over Water,' etc., 1 6 1 5 : 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 273 
 
 ' Thou bragst what fame thou got'st upon the stage. 
 Indeed, thou set'st the people in a rage 
 In playing England's Joy, that euery man 
 Did iudge it worse then that was done at Swan. 
 
 To all your costs he will his wits employ 
 To play the second part of England's Joy. 
 
 Vpon S. Georges day last, sir, you gaue 
 To eight Knights of the Garter (like a knaue^ 
 Eight manuscripts (or Books) all fairelie writ, 
 Informing them, they were your mother wit : 
 And you compil'd them ; then were you regarded. 
 And for another's wit was well rewarded. , 
 All this is true, and this I dare maintaine. 
 The matter came from out a learned braine : 
 And poore old Fennor, that plaine dealing man. 
 Who acted England's Joy first at the Swan, 
 Paid eight crowns for the writing of these things, 
 Beside;s the couers, and the silken strings,' etc. 
 Besides the production of Middleton's play, 
 'A Chaste Maid in Cheapside,' at this theatre, 
 Mr. Rendle noted that in 1604, at a contest for 
 a prize at the Swan, one Turner was thrust in 
 the eye and killed. In 161 1 Moll, the Roaring 
 Drab, is told how a knight, seeing the last new play 
 at the Swan, lost his purse with seven angels in it, 
 Malone, on the authority of Sir H. Herbert's 
 office-book, states that aft^r 1620 both the Rose 
 and the Swan were only employed occasionally 
 for fencers and' gladiators. The wide disparity 
 of taste in that period is well illustrated in the 
 history of the playhouses. It was natural to the 
 
 18 
 
274 London Theatres. 
 
 age, and not to be quarrelled with ; but it must 
 
 have been trying to dramatic artists working for 
 
 their livelihood. In ' The Tempest,' when Trin- 
 
 culo encounters Caliban, he exclaims : 
 
 ' What have we here ? a man or a fish ? dead or alive ? 
 A fish : he smells like a fish ; a very ancient and fish-like 
 smell : a kind of not of the newest Poor-John. A strange 
 fish ! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but 
 this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a 
 piece of silver : there would this monster make a man ; any 
 strange beast there makes a man ; when they will not give 
 a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see 
 a dead Indian.' 
 
 Yet those who sought other objects included 
 the stage among the beguilers of cash, as in 
 Farley's complaint when he could not raise 
 sufficient to carry out his designs upon St. Paul's : 
 
 ' To see a strange out-landish Fowle, 
 
 A quaint Baboon, an Ape, an Owle, 
 
 A dancing Beare, a Gyants bone, 
 
 A foolish Injin move alone, 
 
 A Morris-dance, a Puppit play, 
 
 Mad Tom to sing a Roundelay, 
 
 A woman dancing on a Rope, 
 
 Bull-baiting also at the Hope ; 
 
 A Rimers Jests, a Juglers Cheats, 
 
 A Tumbler shewing cunning feats. 
 
 Or Players acting on the Stage, 
 
 There goes the bounty of our Age ; 
 But unto any pious motion 
 There's little coine, and less devotion.'* 
 
 * Henry Farley, ' St. Paules Church : her bill for the 
 Parliament,' 162 1, 4to. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 275 
 
 The last reference to the Swan is in a pamphlet 
 by Shakerly Marmyon, published in 1632, called 
 ' Holland's Leaguer,' in which the following 
 recommendation of ' Holland's Leaguer ' (a dis- 
 reputable house) occurs : ' There are pleasant 
 walks and a concourse of strangers. Three 
 famous amphitheatres can be seen from the turret ; 
 one, the continent of the world {i.e., the Globe], 
 to which half the year [i.e., in summer] a world . 
 of beauties and of brave spirits resort — a building 
 of excellent Hope for players, wild beasts and 
 gladiators — and one other, that the lady of the 
 leaguer, or fortress, could almost shake hands 
 with, now fallen to decay, and, like a dying 
 swanne \i.e., the Swan playhouse], hangs her head 
 and sings her own dirge.' The pamphlet has an 
 amusing illustration, in which perspective is so far 
 subordinated that the beholder sees not only the 
 elevation of the building, but also the garden at 
 the back, where the lady of the Leaguer is 
 receiving a seventeenth -century gallant, who is 
 making her a very proper bow. 
 
 The Surrey side was a favourite place of resi- 
 dence with the players and playwrights of that 
 great period. On the Bankside dwelt famous 
 Ned Alleyn and shrewd Philip Henslowe, and 
 several of the actors in the plays they produced; 
 near the Bear Garden dwelt Shakespeare ; in Paris 
 Garden some of the actors for whom Shakespeare 
 
 18—2 
 
276 London Theatres. 
 
 wrote plays.* Landing at the favourite landing- 
 stage, Paris Garden Stairs, and passing up Paris 
 Garden Lane, there, on the left, was the famous 
 Falcon Inn, where these men of the playhouse 
 assembled, 'the abstract and brief chronicles of 
 the time,' and wit passed with the cup, and jest, 
 and ' flashes of merriment set the table in a roar. 
 The traditions of this vivid life, and the scenes 
 where it ' was enacted, had not become effaced 
 from the neighbourhood when Samuel Johnson 
 made the acquaintance of the Thrales in South- 
 wark in 1765, and composed in the same year 
 his famous preface to the Shakespeare plays. In 
 attempting to recall the past, it may assist us if • 
 we fix our eyes on the mid-distance. We can 
 imagine Dr. Johnson taking a pensive stroll . 
 
 * Mr. Rendle noted the following from the Token-books 
 of St. Saviour's : ' " 1596. Mayster Pope has four new built 
 houses in Mayster Langley's ground [Thomas Pope is in the 
 list of principal actors in Shakespeare's plays, folio edition, 
 1623]. — 1 602. Mr. Langley's New Rents near the Play- 
 house [many such entries]. — 162 1. Near the Playhouse, 
 Paris Garden, John Lowen et Ux., Joane Lowen, servants 
 [Lowen also appears among the actors in the Shakespeare 
 Folio]. — 1623. Near the Playhouse, Mr. Doctor Gilbournc, 
 Mistres Leake, John Lowen [Leake is of the great brewer 
 family. A Samuel Gilburne is in the Shakespeare list of 
 players. In the margin by these names is 'Mill-bridge, 
 close to the Swan']. — 1627. Near the Playhouse, Robert 
 Nashe, Peter Hemynges, Mr. John Lowen, Widowe Phillipps, 
 Mr. Leake." ' 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 277 
 
 through the neighbourhood while it was yet a 
 suburb, as shown in Rocque's map a few pages 
 back ; the names of lanes and alleys and living 
 tradition could have guided him to the sites of 
 the playhouses ; he could have taken his ease in 
 the Falcon Inn, and meditated upon its departed 
 glories. But if he did this, he told us nothing 
 about it. He may have mused the majestic 
 periods of his preface amid these associations, 
 but his quest was not the same as ours. He was 
 concerned in the resuscitation of a literary interest 
 in Shakespeare. We in our turn — perhaps in 
 unconscious sympathy with the spirit of scientific 
 curiosity which marks our era — seek to under- 
 stand the conditions amid which our glorious 
 dramatic literature came into being. 
 
 The Falcon had probably altered considerably 
 in Jtfhnson's time, but in 1666 it may have 
 remained unchanged. The house next door to 
 the inn, Mr. Meymott states, in his book on 
 Paris Garden Manor, privately printed for the 
 copyholders, ' was for some time the residence of 
 Sir Christopher Wren, so that while he was super- 
 intending the erection of St. Paul's Cathedral, he 
 could view at a distance across the river the pro- 
 gress of his work.' Another note from the same 
 source probably describes the Falcon as it was 
 when .Dr. Johnson may have seen it: 'The front 
 of it projected quite out of the line of the other 
 
278 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 houses thereabouts, and faced towards Gravel 
 Lane. It had two large gateways, and was a 
 place of considerable business, and from it coaches 
 left (in tolerably modern days, I mean) for various 
 parts of Surrey, Kent, and Sussex.' A view of it 
 
 THE FALCON INN AS IT APPEARED ABOUT THE YEAR 1819. 
 
 as it appeared in 1 8 1 9 is here reproduced ; but 
 as only one gateway is visible, we must suppose 
 that some modification had taken place, or that 
 the other gateway was at the side or at the rear 
 of the building. Unfortunately it has long ceased 
 to exist. 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 279 
 
 If to-day we take a walk up Shoreditch High 
 Street and, a few steps beyond the Standard 
 Theatre, turn leftward into Holywell Lane, it is 
 strange to reflect that in this unlovely neigh- 
 bourhood stood once the ancient priory, and near 
 by the playhouses ' in the fields.' Not a vestige 
 of the old order remains ; but there are the names. 
 We pass up Holywell Lane and under a railway 
 bridge ; on our right is King John's Court, where 
 remains of Holywell Priory were yet standing 
 when Chassereau made his plan (see ante, p. 40). 
 Within a few paces of us, somewhere in the 
 labyrinth of bricks and mortar, is the site of The 
 Theatre, the first English playhouse.* We return 
 into Holywell Lane, and pass on till we enter 
 the Curtain Road. Before us is Scrutton Street, 
 iand the Curtain Road runs right and left of us. 
 Turning to the left, we pass nine doors, and arrive 
 at Hewett Street, formerly Gloucester Street ; in 
 Chassereau's time it was Curtain Court, and here 
 stood the Curtain playhouse, where Romeo and 
 
 * My inquiries repeatedly made on the spot have not 
 enabled me to locate Deane's Mews, which, according to 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, covered the site of the playhouse. 
 The Great Eastern Railway has sliced ofF the right-hand 
 portion of the precinct shown by Chassereau. Along by 
 the railway is a road leading into a street named New Inn 
 Yard, numbered 87 in Chassereau's plan, and stiir existing. 
 To the left of this way are passages and spaces which corre- 
 spond pretty nearly to the configuration shown by Chassereau 
 in 1745. 
 
28o London Theatres. 
 
 Juliet burst out of the heaven of invention upon the 
 Elizabethan consciousness.* Hereabout lived and 
 worked those generations of players whose last 
 record exists in the parish church of St. Leonard 
 hard by, as we saw in a former chapter. Here- 
 about, where the earth is covered with buildings 
 and the streets echo with traffic, were the fields in 
 which Shakespeare's contemporary, the botanist 
 Gerard, culled specimens which he described in his 
 ' Herbal.' Here it was he discovered a new kind 
 of crowfoot, similar to the ordinary plant, ' saving 
 that his leaves are fatter, thicker, and greener, and 
 his small twiggie stalkes stand upright, otherwise 
 it is like ; of which kinde it chanced that, walking 
 in the fielde next unto the Theater by London, in 
 company of a worshipful marchant named master 
 Nicholas Lete, I found one of this kind there 
 with double flowers, which before that time I had 
 not scene' ('Herbal,' 1597, p. 804). The play- 
 houses and the fields are no more, but the names, 
 
 * The street remains a cul de sac. On the left-hand side is 
 a block of artisans' dwellings called Mackaye's Buildings, and 
 just beyond a palatial pile called Great Eastern Street Build- 
 ings, with railings and a gate separating these dwellings and 
 the forecourt from the street. It is, of course, impossible to 
 locate the site of the playhouse with certainty, but most 
 likely it was at the end of the court, and it pleases me to 
 believe, as I look through 'the iron railings at the end of the 
 public way, that I am looking upon the ground where the 
 Curtain stood ' in the fields.' 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 281 
 
 some of them, survive, and in the church of St. 
 James, opposite what was once known as Curtain 
 Court, there is a memorial of the genius loci in the 
 shape of a coloured glass window with a repre- 
 sentation of Shakespeare.* Leading out of 
 Curtain Road is Motley Street, which, what- 
 ever its origin, is appropriate to these associa- 
 tions ; and at the farther end of Curtain Road 
 we come upon Hoxton Street, recalling ' Hogges- 
 don Feildes,' where Shakespeare's friend, Ben 
 Jonson, slew Gabriel Spenser, the player. 
 
 Now, if we retrace our steps, and, turning 
 
 ' On the occasion of my first visit to the spot, a local 
 inhabitant, who had lived there man and boy for twenty-six 
 years, had never heard of Deane's Mews, but spontaneously 
 pointed to the trees which overhang the pavement in front 
 of St. James' Church (the only trees in the neighbourhood) 
 as marking the site of ' Shakespeare's first theatre.' The 
 church is about fifty years old. It stands on an old burial 
 ground, and some of the old grave-stones line the way to the 
 church door ; the oldest inscription decipherable is dated 
 1785. The Shakespeare window is over the west door. It 
 is very handsome, and represents the bard sitting, with 
 various lines from the moralizings of Jacques interweaved 
 with the ornamental design around the figure. Underneath 
 is a tablet thus inscribed : 
 
 This memorial window, 
 the gift of Stanley Cooper, F.R. Hist.S., 
 
 was unveiled by 
 
 The Right Hon. John Staples, F.S.A., 
 
 Lord Mayor of London, May 14th, ^1886, 
 
 Being the tercentenary of the Poet s 
 
 arrival in London. 
 
 Alfred Buss, B.A., Vicar. 
 
2 82 London Theatres. 
 
 southward along Bishopsgate Street and Grace- 
 church Street (in Shakespeare's time it was 
 ' Gracious Street,' and here was the Saba tavern 
 where the ' fiddlers fiddled away Tarlton's 
 apparel '), and cross London Bridge, there, on- 
 our right hand, between us and Blackfriars Bridge, 
 we see a mass of wharves and warehouses and 
 dwellings. Yet that is Bankside, still so called ; 
 and there it was, amid foliage and garden-walks, 
 that the playhouses ' in the fields ' on the Surrey 
 side, the Rose, the Globe, the Hope, once raised 
 their flags, and yonder by Blackfriars Bridge was 
 Paris Garden and the Swan Theatre. Not a 
 vestige left, except the names, and they nearly 
 all survive. . 
 
 We descend some steps by St. Saviour's Church, 
 which itself takes us back to the time of the 
 Bankside playhouses, and beyond them to the 
 era of monasteries and priories. In this church 
 many theatrical worthies were laid to rest. On 
 Thursday, December 31, 1607, Edmund Shake- 
 speare, aged. 28, i. player, brother of the great 
 poet, was buried in the church of St. Saviour, 
 ' with a forenoone knell of the great bell.' In the 
 same year the burial of Laurence Fletcher was 
 registered ; about seven years later, in 16 15, Mr. 
 Philip Henslowe is buried ' in the chancell, with 
 an afternoon knell of the great bell.' Ten years 
 later John Fletcher,, and thirteen years afterwards 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 283 
 
 Philip Massinger, also found sepulture in these 
 precincts. Recalling these memories, we pass 
 under the railway bridge, and walk through 
 Borough Market and emerge upon a thorough- 
 fare. In front of us is Park Street, a survival from 
 the Park of the Bishops of Winchester, in whose 
 liberty the playhouses were ; this street takes a 
 northward bend towards the river, and on our left 
 is Barclay's Brewery, covering the site of the Globe. 
 Beyond the brewery we come upon New Park 
 Street, stretching westward at right angles from 
 Park Street. From this point Park Street be- 
 comes Bank End and leads us to a riverside road 
 called Bankside, the corner house being an ancient 
 inn called the Blue Anchor. Now, connecting 
 New Park Street and Bankside as we pass west- 
 ward, we find a series of alleys ; first there is 
 Horse-Shoe Alley, with the Windmill tavern at 
 the corner in New Park Street, and on Bankside, 
 opposite the alley, on the river-bank, a board thus 
 
 inscribed : 
 
 Horse-Shoe Alley Stairs. 
 
 This ancient landing-place 
 
 Closed by order of the 
 
 St. Saviour's District Board of Works. 
 
 A little further west is Rose Alley, marking 
 the site of Henslowe's theatre, and just a little 
 further on Bear Gardens. So near together are 
 these alleys, that we recall Dekker's caustic allusion 
 
284 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 in his Satiromastix, ' Thou hast a breath sweet 
 as the Rose that grows by the Bear Garden.' We 
 see in Rose Alley, at , the corner of New Park 
 Strbet, a definition of Henslowe's estate in the 
 following inscription : 
 
 ' Fifteen feet six inches from the face of this stone and 
 from thence one hundred and fifty-five feet three inches 
 northward is the property of the parish of St. Mildred, Bread 
 Street, in the City of London.'* 
 
 In Bear Gardens we find something which looks 
 like a palpable vestige of the Hope Theatre. 
 This the printer may enable us to show more 
 or less approximately, with a series of lines : 
 
 River 
 
 Bankside 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 New 1 
 
 '>ark 
 
 Street 
 
 * The will of Thomasyn Symonds, who bequeathed the 
 property to St. Mildred's parish in 1 5 5 3, describes it as ' the 
 little Roose with two gardeyns in the Parishe of Seyntt Mar- 
 garett's in Southwark, now Seynt Savy"".' In 1574 the 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 285 
 
 The rectangular formation in Bear Gardens 
 may very possibly indicate the exact site of the 
 Hope. At the corner marked with a X there 
 is a public-house called the White Bear. Return- 
 ing to Bankside, and continuing westward, we 
 pass Emerson Street, Cardinal Cap Alley, a very 
 small opening and narrow way, nearly opposite 
 St. Paul's (it was at the ' Cardinal's Hat ' that 
 John Taylor was said to have supped with the 
 King's players, ante, p. 233), Moss Alley, Pike 
 Gardens (the Pike Garden and its ponds are 
 shown in the section from Aggas's map, ante, p. 
 126), then Love Lane (possibly a sarcastic allu- 
 sion to the Stews, which were near this spot), 
 then at the end of Bankside we emerge upon 
 Holland Street, which recalls Holland's Leaguer 
 and the Swan Theatre, so near that the lady of 
 the Leaguer could almost shake hands with it. 
 
 From this point it is possible to locate the 
 
 trustees let the property to William Griffen for thirty-one 
 years at £7 per annum. This lease in 1 579 was assigned to 
 Robert Withens, who in 1584 assigned it to Henslowe. In 
 some way, apparently, another person named Pope was con- 
 cerned in the holding (see ante, p. 199). This is a detail 
 which has puzzled me ; but it seems most probable that Pope 
 had secured an agreement with the trustees or vestry of St. 
 Mildred's in view of the pending expiry of the lease, and 
 that the transaction recorded by Henslowe in his Diary did 
 not concern the vestry of St. Saviour's as suggested [ante, 
 p. 200). 
 
2 86 London Theatres. 
 
 ancient landmarks. Holland Street extends before 
 us as far as Blackfriars railway bridge — this we 
 will call the north base of the street ; it also 
 gives off two branches or forks on our left : the 
 first or more eastward branch leading, by Sumner 
 Street, into Southwark Street, the second leading 
 into the same thoroughfare further west. Now, 
 in the north base of the street, opposite the 
 eastward branch, is Falcon Draw Dock, in the 
 occupation of Messrs. James Newton and Sons. 
 The Falcon Inn stood on the other side of the 
 way between the two forks of Holland Street 
 on the ground now covered by Epps's Cocoa 
 Works. A few steps further west than Falcon 
 Dock we come to Messrs. Rennie's Albion Iron- 
 works, nearly opposite the westward fork of 
 Holland Street. These works extend to the 
 railway bridge, and Messrs. Rennie's wharf 
 probably covers the site of the ancient Paris 
 Garden Stairs. Under our feet, in the form of a 
 sewer, is perhaps the last vestige of the ancient 
 time. The manor of Paris Garden was almost, if 
 not quite, completely circumscribed by a stream ; 
 this has been partly diverted, and is now in- 
 corporated in the drainage of the district. But in 
 the old time this part of the stream, close adjoin- 
 ing Paris Garden Lane, was known as the ' Pudding 
 Mill Stream,' so called from a mill which stood 
 hereabout, and was used for draining the marshy 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 2^j 
 
 ground in the way you may see at work in the 
 fen country to-day. Mr. Meymott thought that 
 Pudding Mill Stream may have been of some 
 importance. ' I have heard mention,' he wrote in 
 1881, 'of salmon being at one time angled for 
 and caught in it,' and he cites a lease in the copy- 
 holders' archives, wherein 'the reservation of 
 " fishing," " fishing-places," and so on is included.' 
 The sewer which now represents the stream runs 
 underground, and the ■ outflow into the river is 
 between Messrs. Rennie's wharf and Falcon Dock.* 
 The ancient landing-stage appertaining to the 
 Falcon Inn, and known as Falcon Stairs, survives 
 in the Falcon Dock or wharf. 
 
 We can readily make our way from the north 
 base of Holland Street into Blackfriars Road by a 
 subway which goes under the railway bridge ; or 
 we can describe the circuit of Holland Street and 
 reach that thoroughfare by Southwark Street. 
 The only interesting landmark in the eastward 
 
 * This may be verified in a way which I have found a 
 pleasant task, viz., by taking a boat from the boat-house on 
 the west side of Blackfriars Bridge, and rowing along Bank- 
 side after ebb-tide. With the old maps to help us it is easy 
 to recall the aspect of the river as it was when John Taylor, 
 the water-poet,- and his fellows earned their livelihood by 
 carrying the sovereign's lieges to and from the various land- 
 ing-stages. Identifying the sites by landmarks as we row 
 along, we can tell exactly where the playhouses elevated 
 their poles and flags. 
 
288 London Theatres. 
 
 fork is visible from where we are in the north 
 base of Holland Street. There it is, opposite 
 Falcon Dock — a public-house, the Castle, which 
 Mr. Meymott identified as occupying the site of 
 an ancient inn, contemporary with the famous 
 Falcon. 
 
 If we find our way into Southwark Street by 
 the east fork of Holland Street, we see before 
 us, across the road. Gravel Lane, which existed 
 in Elizabethan times, and is figured in Rocque's 
 map. The Falcon Inn faced towards this lane, 
 and must have backed towards Holland Street ; 
 the picture of it (p. 278) indicates that the inn 
 covered a large space. But the westward fork 
 of Holland Street is the more interesting: it 
 leads us past Christchurch Parochial Schools, 
 next to which stands a delightfully old-world 
 cottage, and just beyond are Hopton's alms-=- 
 houses, quaint and picturesque, with grass and 
 trees in the quadrangle around which the houses 
 stand. A few steps bring us into Southwark 
 Street, and across the way we see Bear Lane, 
 a name that probably survives from the time 
 when the Royal Game had its headquarters 
 and office in Paris Garden. We pass under the 
 railway bridge, and enter Blackfriars Road and 
 look around for the site of the Swan Theatre. 
 The ancient way south, into St. George's Fields, 
 has been diverted westward a few yards, and the 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 289 
 
 road now runs over the site of the old playhouse. 
 A glance at the manor map {ante, p. 254) will 
 enable us to estimate the distance from the river, 
 a few feet south of Southwark Street and Stam- 
 ford Street, and the same map also suggests that 
 the railway covers the ancient Paris Garden lane. 
 
 Opposite the Castle in Holland Street were two 
 other hostelries — The Next Boat and The Beggars' 
 Bush. The 'next boat' to Blackfriars and the 
 Middlesex shore : a choice of stairs for taking 
 ship — Falcon Stairs, Paris Garden Stairs, and, 
 further west a few yards. Bull Stairs and Old 
 Barge House Stairs. Of these names all exist 
 to-day, except Paris Garden Stairs ; and if we cross 
 the river homewards, by Blackfriars Bridge, we 
 are traversing, within a few feet, the line of the 
 ancient ferry, in the wake of Elizabethan play- 
 goers, at a distance of three centuries. 
 
 If, however, from this point we extend our 
 perambulation to Newington Butts, we shall find 
 at the end of Blackfriars Road, by St. George's 
 Circus, the Surrey Theatre. Turning leftward up 
 the London Road we arrive at Newington Butts, 
 and a few yards before us in New Kent Road is 
 the Elephant and Castle Theatre. Not in the 
 fields, these transpontine theatres, but they repre- 
 sent the dramatic traditions of St. George's Fields, 
 and the Butts, as the Standard Theatre in Shore- 
 ditch may be said to represent a continuity from 
 
 ^9 
 
290 London Theatres. 
 
 the ' early London theatres in the fields.' Nor is it 
 only in our time that polite playgoers have indulged 
 in satirical allusions to the suburban theatres. In 
 Field's 'A Woman is a Weathercock' (1612) Sir 
 Abraham repeats to himself some lines he had 
 addressed to his mistress, two of which run thus : 
 
 ' I die, I sigh, thou precious stony jewel ! 
 Wearing of silk, why art thou so cruel ?' 
 
 On which Pendant, who overhears him, ejaculates 
 aside : 
 
 ' Oh, Newington conceit ! and quieting eke.' 
 
 Elsewhere in this book reasons have been care- 
 fully stated for the belief that it was at Newington 
 Butts that Shakespeare's earliest dramatic efforts 
 were produced ; and perhaps the fact that ' Titus 
 and Andronicus' was written for this meridian 
 may help to explain those crude and coarse features 
 of the play which have exercised the patience of 
 critics who expect a universal excellence through- 
 out our great poet's work, overlooking the fact 
 that he was a working dramatist with a keeh 
 apprehension of the tastes and inclinations of his 
 audience. 
 
 Leaving Newington Butts by Newington Cause- 
 way, we can complete the circle of our perambula- 
 tion by passing up Borough High Street to 
 London Bridge. In the High Street on our left 
 we pass Great Suffolk Street, where stood the 
 
Paris Garden and the Swan. 291 
 
 palace of the Dukes of Suffolk {ante, p. 113). On 
 the right, near St. George's Church, we pass King 
 Street, a memorial of the time when Henry VIII. 
 was lord of the manor of Southwark {ant?, p. 121). 
 A few steps further and we come to the Tabard 
 Inn, a very modern erection, it is true, but the 
 ancient sign hangs over the pavement in the old- 
 time style, the Tabard coat painted on the one 
 side, and the words ' Rebuilt 1875 ' on the reverse. 
 A court by the side of the inn enables us to look 
 upon the site of the ancient hostelry, and ruefully 
 compare it with its former picturesque aspect 
 {ante, p. 1 1 9). 
 
 Just beyond the Tabard is the George, with 
 one side of the inn-yard happily intact, and here 
 the outside galleries call to mind the time when 
 inn-yards were' London theatres before the play- 
 houses. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ' Activities ' at The Theatre and 
 
 Curtain, 46 
 Admiral's (Lord) company, 178, 
 
 196 
 Al'.eyn (Edward), leading actor 
 
 at Henslowe's theatres, 158 
 
 a man of property, 184 
 
 — ^ obtains patent with 
 
 Henslowe as Masters of Royal 
 
 Baiting, 205, 212 
 purchases the Bear- 
 
 Garden, 206, 
 as manager of the Hope 
 
 Theatre, 229-233 
 Amphitheatre in Paris Garden, 
 
 supposed, 125, 129, 135, 138, 
 
 250-252 
 Amphitheatres, Roman, 12-14 
 
 Cornish, 15-23 
 
 on Bankside, 125 ei seq. 
 
 baiting exhibitions in, 
 
 134. I3S. 207-209 
 Archery, 35, 117 
 Artillery Company, 83 
 
 Baiting sports, 128, 132, 134, 140, 
 
 260 
 Baiting, royal, constitution of, 
 
 203-206, 212, 214 
 before Ambassadors, 
 
 etc., 207, 210, 214 
 Banbury, Roman amphitheatre at, 
 
 13 
 Bankside before the playhouses, 
 
 114, 122 
 
 Bankside, the Burbages remove 
 their theatre to, 74-76 
 
 players dwell in, 147, 275 
 
 at present day, 282 
 
 Bear-baiting places on Bankside, 
 202, 206 
 
 Bear-Garden, in Clink Liberty, an 
 amphitheatre, 139-141, 207-209 
 
 and Hope Theatre,' 
 
 201 et seq. 
 
 lesseeship and manager- 
 ship of, 204, 205 
 
 Alleyn becomes owner 
 
 of, 206 
 
 purchased by Hens- 
 lowe, 206, 207 
 
 Bear -house depicted 
 
 by Norden, 201, 204, 209 
 
 rebuilt by Henslowe 
 
 and Alleyn, 214 
 
 temp. James I., 236 
 
 dancing in, 236 
 
 closed on account of 
 
 plague, 237 
 
 suppression of, 237, 
 
 240 
 
 revival of, 241 
 
 later history, 242 
 
 survivals in place- 
 names, 244, 281 
 
 Bears, famous, 211 
 
 Bear- ward, royal, 130, 203 
 
 Boys, employment of, at the play- 
 houses, 181, 183, 197, 224 
 Braynes, John, 51, 54, 71 
 
294 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 Bull-baiting in Southwark, 109, 
 
 115, 124, 134 
 Burbage, James, 38, 50 
 
 femily and The Theatre, 
 
 52, 74-76 
 
 Cardinal's Hat, Bankside, 233, 285 
 Chamberlain's (Lord) company, 
 
 72, 98, loi, 103 
 at Newingtbn Butts, 
 
 143, 165, 168 
 Clerkenwell, plays at, 8, 23, 35, 
 
 37 
 Clink Liberty, 114, 122, 123 
 amphitheatres in, 125, 
 
 ■ 134. 141 
 
 Henslowe lives in, 147 
 
 at present day, 283 
 
 Clown at the Rose theatre, 182 
 Clowns at The Theatre and Cur- 
 tain, 68, 93 
 Companies, acting, 27-32, 81, 181, 
 
 205 
 
 Copper lace worn by players, 193 
 
 Cornwall, amphitheatres in, 15-23 
 
 Corporation, City, opposition to 
 
 stage, 30, 54, 57, 62, 70, 88, 89 
 
 their jurisdiction in 
 
 Southwark, no, 121 
 
 Council, Privy, favour players, 
 
 59. 62. 104 
 Curtain Court, 79, 279 
 Curtain playhouse, 77 
 
 origin of name, 78 
 
 site of, 78, 79, 107, 279 
 
 site identified, 79, 279 
 
 fencing at, 83 
 
 ' Henry V. ' produced at, 84 
 
 shape of,^ 85 
 
 prices of admission, 66 
 
 agitation for suppressing. 70, 
 
 73.88 
 
 attacked by divines, 92 
 
 jigs at, 93, 104 
 
 characteristics of, 94 
 
 pickpockets at, 94 
 
 ' Romeo and Juliet ' and 
 
 ' Every Man in his Humour ' 
 produced at, 97 
 
 Lord Chamberlain's Com- 
 pany at, 98, loi 
 
 Curtain, Queen's Company at, 103 
 
 Prince's Company at, 104 
 
 shares in, 105 
 
 extracts from parish registers 
 
 relating to, 105, 106 
 
 last notice of, 106 
 
 Deane's mews, 279, 281 
 Dorchester, Roman amphitheatre 
 
 at, 12 
 Drolls, 68, 89, 93, 104 
 Duel between Ben Jonson and 
 
 Spenser, 186, 281 
 
 Elizabeth, Princess, Company, 
 218, 229 
 
 Falcon Inn, 254, 277, 286 
 Feilde (or Field), NathaUj player, 
 
 2 1 8, 225 
 Fencing and sword-play at The 
 
 Theatre, 46, 66, 83 
 Fennor, William, 226, 228, 272 
 Fields around London, before the 
 
 playhouses, 5, 7, 25, 26 
 
 playhouses in, 30, 35, 41, 
 
 116, 278 
 
 Finsbury Fields, 25, 26, 35-43, 80, 
 
 83 
 Fortune theatre, 197 
 
 Gaedertz (Dr. Karl Theodor), 
 pamphlet on Swan theatre, 
 notice of, 264 
 
 Galleries at The Theatre, 66, 67 
 
 at Rose theatre, receipts of, 
 
 179 
 
 at Hope theatre, 230 
 
 at the Swan, 269 
 
 Gloucester Street, site of Curtain 
 
 in, 79. 279 
 Greene (Robert), his attack on 
 
 Shakespeare, 160 
 Greenwich Palace, plays at, 72 
 
 ' Henry V.' produced at Curtain 
 
 theatre, 84 
 Henslowe (Philip), his Diary, 
 
 142, 146, 148, 150, 152, 155, 
 
 166, 171, 181 
 residence in the Clink, 
 
 147 
 
Index. 
 
 295 
 
 Henslowe (Philip), acquires his 
 
 Rose estate on Bankside, 148 
 owner and manager 
 
 of Bear-Garden, 207 
 
 death of, 229, 282 
 
 Hensloweand AUeynobtain patent 
 
 of Masters of Royal Game of 
 
 Baiting, 205, 212 
 Hewett Street, site of Curtain in, 
 
 279 
 Hirelings at the playhouses, 182 
 Holland's Leaguer, 275, 285 
 Holywell, liberty of, 36 
 Holywell Lane, 40, 279 
 Holywell Priory, Shoreditch, 38, 
 
 39, 44, 78, 82, 107, 279 
 Hope theatre, buildmg of, 215 
 
 Princess Elizabeth's 
 
 Company at, 218, 219, 229 
 
 description of per- 
 formances in, 221-224, 226 
 
 arrangement between 
 
 players and manager, 218, 230 
 becomes a bear-garden, 
 
 235 
 
 suppression of, 240 
 
 revived as Bear-Gar-, 
 
 den, 241 
 
 later history, 242 
 
 site, 284 
 
 Hoxton fields, Ben Jonson's duel 
 
 in, 186, 281 
 Hyde (John), assignee of Bur- 
 
 bage's estate, 51, 71 
 
 Inn-yards, plays in, 27, 28, 30, 59, 
 
 no, 114, 144. 146. 149. 291 
 Inns, Southwark, 109, 119, 146. 
 288, 291 
 
 JeaiTreson (John Cordy), his com- 
 munications as to The Theatre, 
 54 ; as to Ben Jonson, 187 
 
 Jigs and Drolls, 68, 89, 93. '04 
 
 Johnson (Dr. Samuel) and Shake- 
 speare, 276 
 
 Jonson(Ben) works for Henslowe s 
 theatres, 174. 179. 183 
 
 his duel with Spenser, 
 
 186,281 . 
 production ot nis 
 
 ' Every Man in his Humour ' 
 at Curtain, 100, 187 
 Jonson (Ben), and Shakespeare, 
 100,' 192 
 
 Kempe (William), his Morris- 
 dance, 95 ' 
 at the Rose theatre, 199 
 
 Lace worn by players, 193, 228 
 Langley (Francis) acquires the 
 
 manor of Paris Garden, 249 
 builds the Swan theatre 
 
 on his property, 253 
 
 charged for tithes, 259 
 
 Liberties, London, as residential 
 
 quarters, 83 
 See 'Clink,' 'Holy- 
 well,' ' Paris Garden ' 
 Licenses of acting companies and 
 
 of keepers of Bear-Garden, 27, 
 
 28, 181, 205 
 London, pre- Reformation, 1-7, 25, 
 
 81 
 Lowen (John) at the Rose theatre, 
 
 199 
 
 Marlowe, Kit,68, 158, 160-163, 172 
 Master of the Revels, payments to, 
 
 157. 197 
 
 Master of the Royal Game, etc., 
 office of, 203, 205, 206,212-214 
 
 May-day games in Southwark, 115 
 
 Meade (Jacob), keeper of the Bear- 
 Garden, 205 
 
 joint manager of Hope 
 
 theatre, 218, 230, 231 
 
 Mermaid, a supper at the, 199 
 
 Middlesex justices and The 
 Theatre, 54, S8. 73 
 
 Miracle-plays, 8- 11, 18, 21 
 
 stage for acting, 24 
 
 at Clerkenwell, 8, 10, 23 
 
 and the evolution of the 
 
 playhouse, 26, 27 
 
 Monastic London, features of 2-7, 
 
 25 
 Morris-dance, Kempe's, 95 
 
 Newington Butts, 116, 142, 145, 
 149. 15s 
 
296 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 Newington Butts, plays at, 147, 
 
 158, 165, 168 
 Shakespeare at, 158, 164, 
 
 290 
 Northbrooke (John), his ' Treatise 
 
 against Plays, etc.,' 63 
 
 Pageants, 9-10 
 
 Paris Garden before the play- 
 houses, 109, 118, 245 
 
 '- supposed amphitheatre 
 
 in, 125, 129, 135, 138, 250 
 
 origin of name, 128, 
 
 246, 248 \ 
 
 baiting in, 128, 207 
 
 office of Royal Bear- 
 ward in, 203 
 
 ' Master of Parish 
 
 Garden,' 136 
 
 office of Master of 
 
 Royal Game in, 136, 203, 213, 
 257, 2S8 
 
 Manor, 246-249, 286 
 
 or Parish Garden, 136, 
 
 246, 249 
 
 Langley builds the 
 
 Swan theatre in, 253 
 
 players dwell in, 275 
 
 See Swan theatre 
 
 Pembroke's (Lord) company, 178 
 Phillipps (J. O. Halliwell), 266 
 Pickpockets at playhouses, 94-96, 
 
 273 
 Piran Round (amphitheatre), 20 
 Plague, 30, 56, 62, 163, 164, 237 
 Play, discussion as to word, 43 
 Players before the playhouses, 27- 
 
 32 
 ridicule City authorities, 70, 
 
 89- 91, 93 
 
 abuse of, 92 
 
 extracts from registers of St. 
 
 Leonard, Shoreditch, relating 
 to, io6 
 
 Southwark, no, 114, 121, 
 
 124 
 
 loans to, 174 
 
 — — life of Elizabethan, 174, 176 
 
 dwell on Bankside and Paris 
 
 Garden, 147, 275 
 
 Playhouse, derivation of, 43, 48 
 
 Playhouses, agitation for suppres- 
 sion of, 72, 88 
 
 made of timber, 65, 85, 155, 
 
 257. 259, 269 
 
 rival, 87, 102 
 
 method of management, 177 
 
 characteristics o^ 224 
 
 largely support the Thames 
 
 watermen, 232 
 
 described by travelling 
 
 foreigners, 259, 261, 267 
 
 Plays interdicted in the City, 30-32 
 Playwrights, payments to, 174, 
 
 176, 196 
 Pope (Morgan),keeper of the Bear- 
 
 Garden, 204 
 Prices at The Theatre, 66 
 
 at the Hope theatre, 223 
 
 Proclamation regulating plays, 28 
 Pudding Mill Stream, 286 
 
 ' Puppets ' at the Hope, 234 
 Puritan divines, attacks on stage 
 by, 63, 92 
 
 Queen's Company of players, 61, 
 
 70 
 Queen's (Anne's) Company, 103 
 
 Revels, Master of, 157, 197 
 Ring, bull-baiting, 109, 115, 124 
 ' Romeo and Juliet,' production of, 
 
 97 
 Rose estate, Henslowe's, 148, 149, 
 
 284 
 Rose theatre, 142, 148, 150, 152 
 
 building of, 154, 155 
 
 opening of, 164 
 
 closed on account of 
 
 plague, 164 
 wardrobe arrange- 
 ments, 172 et seq. 
 arrangements between 
 
 manager and players at, 173, 
 
 1 75. 177, 196 
 
 sharers in, 179 
 
 galleries, 179 
 
 later history of, 195 
 
 Earl of Worcester's 
 
 Company at, 198 
 
 — ' lease of, 199 
 
 site of, 200, 283 
 
Index. 
 
 297 
 
 Round theatres, 14-25, 49, 82 
 
 Saba Tavern, Gracious Street, 220, 
 
 282 
 St. George's Fields, 116, 146, 255, 
 
 289 
 St. James's Church, Curtain Road, 
 
 Shakespeare window in, 281 
 St. Just, amphitheatre at, 17-18 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditch, entries 
 
 in parish registers relating to 
 
 players, loj, 106, 280 
 St. Paul's Churchyard, books in, 65 
 St. Saviour's Church, 276, 282 
 Scaffolds for beholding plays, 24, 
 
 25. 67. 137 
 
 See Galleries. 
 
 Scenery and the playhouses, 85-87 
 Shakespeare (Edmund), 282 
 Shakespeare (W.) arrival in Lon- 
 don, 71, 281 
 
 at Newington Butts, 158, 
 
 164, 290 
 
 production of ' Henry VI. ,' 
 
 159. '69 
 
 publication of his 'Venus 
 
 and Adonis,' 163 
 
 production of ' Titus and 
 
 Andronicus,' 164, 170 
 
 leaves Henslowe's theatres, 
 
 169 
 
 performs at Greenwich before 
 
 the Queen, 72 
 
 production of his play of 
 
 'Henry v., '84 
 
 his influence upon contem- 
 poraries, 93 
 
 production of his 'Romeo 
 
 and Juliet,' 97 
 
 and Ben Jonson, 100, 192 
 
 not referred to by De Witt, 266 
 
 memorial window in St. 
 
 James's Church, 281 
 Shoreditch, playhouses in, 36, 279 
 Sites of the playhouses, 35, 40, 
 
 79, 200, 244, 279-288 
 Skinners' Well, plays at, 9 
 Southwark before the playhouses, 
 
 109, 114, 144 _ 
 
 King's power m, 114, no 
 
 plays in, no, IT4, 144. '47 
 
 Southwark, bull-baiting ring in, 
 
 "S 
 
 Spenser (Gabriel), a sharer in the 
 
 Rose theatre, 179, 183 
 his dealings with Hen- 
 
 slowe, 184 
 
 ■ slain by Jonson, 186 
 
 commits manslaughter, 
 
 194 
 Sports and pastimes, connection 
 
 with drama, 43, 80 
 Stage, English, history of, 80 
 of The Theatre, 35 
 
 of the Swan, 265 
 
 of the Hope, 217 
 
 of Rose theatre, 156 
 
 Stage-play, discussion of term, 9- 11 
 Stairs, riverside, 254, 283, 289 
 Stockwood (John), sermon against 
 
 playhouses, 64 
 Strange's (Lord) Company, 152, 
 
 163 
 Sun inn. New Fish Street, players 
 
 read a new play there, 176 
 Sundays, plays on, 56, 158 , 
 bear-baiting on, 132, 135, 
 
 137, 210, 214 
 Surrey Side, the, 108, 144 
 after the Reformation, 
 
 114 
 in eighteenth century, 
 
 242 
 
 at present day, 275, 289 
 
 Sussex (Earl of), his company of 
 
 players, 164 
 Swan theatre, built by Langley,2S3 
 particulars as to con- 
 struction of, 256-258 
 
 charged for tithes, 259 
 
 '- discovery of sketch of, 
 
 264 
 description by De Witt, 
 
 267 
 theatrical history of, 
 
 271-275 
 
 site of, 254, 289 
 
 Swans on river Thames, 270 
 Sword-play in playhouses, 46, 66, 
 
 83 
 Tabard Inn, 109, 1 19. 291 
 
298 
 
 London Theatres. 
 
 Tarlton (Richard), 68, 93 
 Tarlton (Richard), his Jigs and 
 
 Drolls, 69, 93 
 at the Saba tavern, 
 
 220, 282 
 Taylor (John), Water-Poet, at the 
 
 Hope theatre, 225 
 
 and the watermen, 231 
 
 Theatre, The, 33 
 
 discussion of name, 33-35, 44 
 
 site, 35, 40, 279, 280 
 
 ' Activities ' at, 46 
 
 fencing at, 46, 66, 83 
 
 companies performing at, 
 
 50, 60, 61, 71 
 
 shape of, 49 
 
 disorder at, 56 
 
 attacked by divines, 63, 64, 
 
 size and nature of, 65 
 
 scaffolds or galleries, 66, 67 
 
 prices of admission, 66 
 
 plays performed, at, 67 
 
 jigs and drolls at, 68 
 
 threatened suppression, 70, 
 
 72 
 
 removed by the Burbages, 
 
 74-76, 87 
 
 Theatres and sports, 12, 26, 35, 
 
 42, 43, 80, 210 
 
 See Playhouses 
 
 Theatres, London, before the 
 
 playhouses, 8, 23, 27, 30, 291 
 
 ■ See Inn-yards 
 
 Tire-house of Rose theatre, 1 56 
 
 of Hope theatre, 217, 225 
 
 Tireman of Rose theatre, 172 
 Tradition and drama, 82 
 Travelling, custom of, in seven- 
 teenth century, 260 
 
 Underwood (John), sharer in Cur- 
 tain playhouse, 105 
 
 Walsingham (Sir Francis) and the 
 
 players, 60 
 Wardrobe of Henslovire's theatres, 
 
 172, 176 
 Watermen, Thames, 231:235 
 Wells, dramatic associations of, 8, 
 
 37 
 Wilson (Robert) at the Swan, 271 
 Winchester Liberty. See Clink 
 Wirtemberg (Frederick, Duke of), 
 
 visit ito Bear-Garden, 209 
 Worcester (Earl of) Company, 198 
 
 THE END. 
 
 EUlOt Stock, Paternoster Row, London, 
 
£y THE SAME A UTHOR. 
 
 SHORTLY WILL BE PUBLISHED, 
 UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME, 
 
 LONDON THEATRES 
 IN THE TOWN. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE REMAINING' 
 THEATRES IN THE SAME PERIOD. 
 
f^^^f^S-i 
 
 
 /^