CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ENGLISH COLLECTION THK GIFT OF JAMES MORGAN HART PROFESSOR OF ENGUSH CorneU University Ubrarv PN 2590.B6\M18 ^ Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026121479 PUBLICATIONS BY CHARLES WILLIAM WALLACE NEWU DISCOVERED SHAKESPEARE DOCUMENTS (1905), $.30, prepaid. THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS (1908), $2.50 net. Carriage extra. SHAKESPEAREAN RESEARCH, containinf Dr. Wal- lace's latest discoveries on Shakespeare and the Globe and Blackfriars theatres, as noticed in the present work, besides the above records of 1905 on the Poet's Blackfriars property, and valuable documents on '*The Theatre," etc. Accom- panied by narrative and facsimiles. In prepa- ration. THE CHILDREN OF THE REVELS, their Origin, Course, and Influences. A history based upon original records, documents, and plays, being a contribution to knowledge of the stage and drama of Shakespeare's time. In three volumes. Volume one, Theatres and Companies. Volume two, Plays and Players. Volume three, Original Documents. In preparation. THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 1597-1603 INTEODUCTOBY TO THE CHILDREN OF THE REVELS THEIR ORIGIN OOURSK ^ND INFLTJENOES A HISTORY BASED UPON ORIGINAL RECORDS DOCUMENTS AND PLAYS BEING A CONTRIBOTION TO KNOWLEDGE OP THE STAGE AND DRAMA OP SHAKfiSPB ARE' S TIME ::::::::::. By CHARLES WILLIAM^ WALLACE PhD Associate Profesbok of English Language and litbbattibb in the university of nebraska "But there is Sir an ayrie of Chil- dren, littleYaies, that crye out on the top of quef- tion; and are moft tyrannical- ly clap't for't: thefe are now the Falhion."— Hamlet, II, ii. ORIGINAUiY PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OP NEBRASKA IN UNIVERSITY STUDIES AND REPRINTED THEREFROM FOR THE AUTHOR 1908 OV THIS THOUSAND ONLY 150 COPIES BOUND AT $2.50 NET J1 P\^^5o8S copyright, 1908, By CHARLES WILLIAM WALLACE. fflompanlnn anil SMam in SFaforit) CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction. — A General View of the Field . i I The Blackfriars Theatre Building ... 17 II The Blackfriars Stage. Its Structure, Arrange- ment, and Furnishings 55 III Establishment of the Blackfriars under Offi- cial Grants 56 IV Actors and Singers. — The Two Functional Di- visions OF THE Children .... 73 V Star Chamber Proceedings against the Use of THE Children of the Chapel as Actors . TJ VI Dating Events, and Establishment of New Man- agement 84 VII Queen Elizabeth at the Blackfriars . . 95 VIII The Queen's Maintenance of the Children at Blackfriars 98 IX Status of the Blackfriars Children. The QuEEN^s Requirements 105 X Summary of Evidences on the Official Sanction OF Blackfriars 126 XI The Custom of Sitting on the Stage Originating AT Blackfriars 130 XII The Queen's Purposes. — Opposing Theatrical AND Official Conditions, i 597-1603 . . 148 vi CONTENTS XIII Relations of Blackfriars to Other Theatres, Poets, and Players 163 XIV The Hamle7 Passage on the Blackfriars Chil- dren 173 Index ... 187 PREFACE Some years ago I undertook to edit an old play of one of the children-companies, prefaced by a historical introduction. I found I could not do it conscientiously without finding out the truth about the company that played the piece. An examination of the published works of Europe and America touching the chil- dren-actors showed a woeful jumble of variegated error as a re- sult of the romantic or unfaithful treatment of the meager facts. Manifestly the truth was not known, and the facts were in chaos. So the two or three paragraphs into which I had intended to con- dense the matter for my introduction, I saw vanish into vapor. This condition of affairs threw me back on the unpromising data, and I began searching archives for new data and investi- gating the sources and relations of both old and new. The ad- vance has been steady since the first day. I soon found the children's company in question was related to other children-com>- panies, and these in turn to the men-companies, and all of them to the nature and place of acting, and especially to the spirit and form of the drama. My contemplated two or three paragraphs now expanded into a chapter, then a section, then a volume, and finally I am trying, by excluding the bulkiest and least related documents, to confine results within the limits of three volumes. Meanwhile the contemplated edition of the old play is biding its time. So are certain other editions, all of which can consci- entiously and scientifically be undertaken only when this work as a proper historical basis is complete. The following introductory chapters constitute the first section of volume I. Many of the documents for volume III were as- sembled and the MS. for volume I and partly for volume II was prepared for the press in 1904-6, during my two-years absence from the University of Nebraska, with residence and research in Europe, particularly in Germany, France, and England. This first section was accepted for the doctorate by the Philosophical viii PREFACE Faculty of Albert-Ludwig University, Freiburg i/Br., where I acquired the degree of Ph.D. in the summer semester of 1906. With a larger courtesy than I could have hoped, — a courtesy characteristic of the true lover of learning in the German uni- versities, — that Faculty voted to grant me the privilege of adding results of contemplated further research at a future time. By virtue of this grace, the present publication is delayed two years. I have accordingly reworked and expanded most of the chapters, incorporating such results of my more recent researches as prop- erly fall within the scope of this section. Fortunately my latest finds have, with but rare and minor exceptions, been mainly in the nature of documentary and final substantiation of conclusions reached from the more slender evidences first used. In coming to the study of the children-companies, their widely ramifying influences on stage and drama, and the characteristics of their repertoire in its entirety, every one finds himself, I sup- pose, pretty much in the condition I was in when I set about the work. We are hindered by lack of knowledge, and conditioned by our preconceptions derived from the mass of past error and from false perspectives of sectional studies, as the treatment of isolated dramas, or isolating topics ruiming through a series of dramas, and by special treatises that strain facts to maintain a theme. As for myself, I have been forced to give up one con- ception and one supposed fact after another, until now I find nearly every essential detail in this history is different from what I had supposed from these books and special studies to be the truth. In the preparation of this work, I have had no theme to main- tain, no theory to defend, and none to propose. My sole guide has been the simple desire to find the truth. I have told it as I found it, in plain and simple fashion, so that others may read it. In order that they may judge for themselves, I have given also the evidences, usually in foot-notes. These are therefore the most valuable part of the work. The foot-notes, constituting more than half of the whole work, may seem sometimes burdensome. But, intended for the scholar, they are in fact the only part in which I take special pride, for it has been my desire to assemble materials and references that may hereafter be cited as reliable. PREFACE ix I recognize also that this repository, as all such, must be referred to again and again in working out themes but lightly or not at all touched upon here. Some may find uses for the materials not now anticipated. My narrative, which I hope may never be read separately from the notes, is not intended to be simply a pleasing tale, but is mainly a series of inevitable conclusions thrust up into clear view by the records, data, and events in their own self-es- tablished relations. No page in this work has any other cause or excuse for exist- ence than the presentation of some new fact or conclusion. Among the items of new knowledge some rise into prominence above the others. The clear differences between the private and the public the- atres are sharpened in many details. The influence of the chil- dren-theatres, the boy-actors, and their poets on the form and spirit of the drama is presented only in part, the fuller view neces- sarily awaiting the assembled materials of the complete work. Blackfriars, the model of the modern theatre, is for the first time presented unromantically, on the basis of fresh historical data, with exact dimensions and other details of construction. The location and general structure of the stage is also shown. A comparative view of all the theatres furnishes new items of fact. The accompanying suggestive plats of the Blackfriars and the Fortune, the first attempts of the kind yet made, are in a measure contributive to the same end. While in large part they are merely "suggestive" rather than final, they are at the same time corrective of certain popular impressions, especially as regards the relative positions of stage and audience in theatres of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period. Certain new data are given from documents concerning Shake- speare, the Globe, and Blackfriars. These documents are there- fore now for the first time publicly announced, although they came into my hands long ago. They are vastly more valuable than the three newly discovered Shakespeare documents which I made public in 1905. On the personal side of Shakespeare, they are the most important records brought to light since the dis- covery of the poet's will a century and a half ago ( 1747) . On the side of the Globe and Blackfriars, the origin of London theatre X PREFACE "shares" there, and the ownership of them from the first, par- ticularly in reference to Shakespeare's relations to these two the- atres, they are more important than the famous Globe-Black- friars share-papers of 1635, announced by J. O. Halliwell in The Athenaeum, August 13, 1870, p. 212, and published by him four years later in A Fragment of Mr. J. 0. Halliwell' s "Illustrations of the Life of Shakespea/re."^ Concerning the counter-petition of the Burbages in the Halliwell discoveries, the reviewer of the above publication, in The Athenaeum, February 21, 1874, in the course of a two-page article, gives the judgment (p. 250), which has ever since rightly prevailed, that "It is not too much to say that this is one of the most important passages regarding Shake- speare that has yet been discovered. As to his connexion with the stage it is the most important." But the discoveries now an- nounced very greatly surpass the former ones in these regards. They also give, besides many other items, for the first time the exact location of the Globe, with complete boundaries, as de- scribed in several legal indentures. The length and nature of these documents require that I give them out later in a separate publication, with adequate accompanying treatment of the mat- ter involved. They constitute also an essential part of the present work in its complete form. The commissions to Edwards, Hunnis, and Gyles are new, and the use of Gyles's commission as authority in establishing the Blackfriars in accord with the Queen's will is peculiarly note- worthy. Queen Elizabeth's connection with the establishment of Blackfriars, the maintenance of the Children of the Chapel there at royal expense, and her own attendance at that theatre are not only new, but of special value in understanding much of the theatrical history of the times. The whole course of stage- history from 1597 to 1603, involving Theatre, City, and Crown, made particularly alluring by several drastic orders, notably of 1600-1, and hitherto baffling to scholars, has been cleared up by evidence that seems final. The stage-quarrel between Jonson on the one side and Marston and Dekker on the other, debated vari- ously by scholars for two centuries, likewise finds for the first time its proper place and perspective in history as merely a minor ^Privately printed. Fifty copies only. Feb. 1874. PREFACE xi affair subordinate to conditions arising out of the establishment and maintenance of Blackfriars. The long-mooted custom of sitting on the stage has been traced from its origin in the Black- friars to its termination in France and Germany, — reported last by Goethe, — in 1759. The Queen's requirements for the training of the Blackfriars Boys in not only grammar-school subjects but in all arts, par- ticularly singing, instrumental music, dancing, and play-acting, gave rise to the masque within the play, exerting wide influence on Shakespeare as well as his contemporaries and successors. The right chronology of the plays, in some cases differing widely from the varied guesses and ratiocinative datings of the past, is established, the date of each play being fixed either exactly or within the narrow limits of one to two months. Unfortunately the full evidences must await a later volume. Incidentally the date of composition of Hamlet as in the latter fialf of 1601 and of its first acting as late 1601 to early 1602, probably at the Christ- mas season of 1601-2, also establishes itself by final evidences, — which has hitherto been impossible. The significance of certain known documents is made clear by assembling all evidences. Among these the Hamlet passage on the Children perhaps will claim chief interest. Every slightest detail of that much-debated passage now becomes clear and historically contributive, as pre- sented in a special chapter. Certain long-mooted Hamlet prob- lems not dealt with here must ultimately take account of data presented before they can be finally put beyond speculative de- ductions in the field of debate and established on the simple and final basis of pure history. In no instance is the reader asked to take my conclusion as his own, but in every case he is given the evidence from which the inevitable conclusion forces itself upon the judicial mind. If my own interpretations, therefore, agree with the reader's, I shall merely have anticipated him by having had the first chance at the evidences offered. The materials for this work, as already indicated, were gath- ered with the primary desire to find the truth in the history of the children-companies. But they have led me far beyond. When I got my materials together and found the relations of facts to xii PREFACE each other, I was surprised to discover that they explained finally matters outside the direct line of the history of the children. For example, the chronology of plays having been established, chiefly on external evidences, I found the surprising feature, already mentioned, of the masque within the play originating in and run- ning through the Elizabethan regime at Blackfriars, stopping short with the Queen's death in 1603. Not more than two Black- friars plays prior to her death lack this feature, while under James all lack it but two. Similarly, historical evidence served to fix the succession of incidents in the quarrel between Jonson and the so-called poetasters. The Queen's relations to Blackfriars led to an examination of all ofificial orders and other external his- torical data, clearing up finally, as just said, the unique muddle of opposing royal, municipal, and theatrical conditions of 1597- 1603. The same relations led to the collection of all evidences touching the custom of sitting on the stage, with surprising re- sults. Indeed, the whole course of theatrical and dramatic his- tory of the Elizabethan- Jacobean period turns out to be related as either cause or effect, and no feature consequently can be treated as quite isolated. I have found it necessary to take into account every theatre, company, and drama of the period, for the children-theatres are related to all. As the present work is based wholly upon original sources, the chief weight of reference is given to archives and documents, rather than to interpretative and critical publications. In the course of investigation it has been within my purpose to consult the contributive publications of Europe and America touching upon the field of Elizabethan-Jacobean dramatic literature, crit- icism, and history, — a library of considerable proportions in itself. Yet I have doubtless overlooked some. Few have yielded mate- rials for this work. Books and articles merely reworking old knowledge or old conclusions, — ^the main bulk, unfortunately, in this field, — have not been taken account of. Such works as I have had occasion to refer to are sufficiently indicated in the foot- notes. They are mainly publications containing original docu- ments. To collect these into a list would in this modern day of special bibliographies be a gratuity by no means complimentary to that select circle for which the work is prepared, and would PREFACE xiii at the same time be but a fractional representation, chiefly a mis- representation, of my labors in research. I had at first intended to cite some of the most important errors passed down to us and repeated steadily in current publications as true. But except in probably a half dozen cases this has not been done. A complete collection would be voluminous, and a mere citation, while calling attention to curious antiquities or their followers, would have been long and of no other than crit- ical-historical service. When the reader comes upon different conclusions in my predecessors, he will find, I am sure, as I have, that the most important differences arise from the fact that the latest materials were not then available and could not then, as now, be assembled and put into order. Indeed, it may be edifying to lay these earlier works by the side of the present matter in judging this history. Malone, Chalmers, Collier,'^ Halliwell- Phillips, Greenstreet, and an occasional other devotee of the true as opposed to romance in stage-history, collected some materials that fancy and time will not change. Their conclusions are often wide of the mark. Aside from these, the scholarship of the past herein has been mainly the scholarship of opinion, or of hypoth- esis, or of unsupported oracular declaration. But 'opinions or hypotheses or conclusions without basis of fact are worthless. So new are the views given by the present materials that not a single opinion or conclusion of my predecessors has served as a basis for restatement. I have gone to contemporary sources and questioned them in every instance where such sources were avail- able. This work must stand, consequently, not upon the author- ity of predecessors, but upon the merits of its materials and the justness of the conclusions they have called forth. Most of all therefore I commend the judicial perusal of every document, fact, and occurrence offered, in judging the truth of what this history represents. The examination of printed books, mainly for the contempo- rary documents they might hold, has been the smallest part of my labors. Most of all have I searched the original records in 'Had he been but content with the truth! His work is marred by colossal forgeries. Yet no one can disregard the vast service of Collier in furnishing us with document after document of genuine worth. xiv PREFACE European archives. Considerably more than half a million orig- inal MS. records of the period of Elizabeth and James, most of them not yet catalogued, have been examined, and the indexes to some million more have been sifted. The resulting discov- eries, some of wrhich appear in these introductory chapters, may seem disproportionately few. On the contrary, I am surprised and gratified to find so old a field even thus rich, and am encour- aged to complete the work I have been gradually drawn into. It is hoped that the following introductory account may be in some measure gratifying also to those readers who hail every item of new knowledge with an open mind. The question they will weigh is not so much whether the discoveries are greater or less than former ones, but first of all whether they add to the store of information, then how much. Looking at results with the grudging eye of a third person, — for they belong not to me but to historical truth, — I recognize that they are at least sufficient to advance knowledge in this field beyond previous bounds, and clear away some difficulties that have troubled scholars more than a single century. Yet this history is by no means final. I regard it as little more than pioneer work in the field. No more can be claimed for my part in it than fidelity and loving-care in stating and interpreting the facts in the light of the evidences collected. For the docu- ments themselves, no more can be claimed than partial assem- blage, and authoritativeness only so far as they speak. The vast body of documents lie yet undiscovered. From definite evidences gathered in the course of research, I know where many of these are to be found. But it requires time, money, and organization, all of which I shall secure, to complete the work. Not only cer- tain discoveries of especial worth, but the numerous minor ones as a result of definite, persistent tracing give confidence of large results in future research. No one can be more keenly conscious of the lacks of the present work than I am. Great gaps in the materials have been tempo- rarily bridged as well as possible, but the gaps remain. There are consequently more statements unimpregnably fortified than is pleasing to one who loves research for the sake of truth. The excuse if not palliation for their being, is that they seem to be in PREFACE XV accord with the known facts. They may not be. Future re- search, and discovery of the facts, not your judgment nor mine, will settle that. I have at least aimed, here as well as throughout the work, to follow whither the evidences lead. In doing this I have spent a due portion of some years in the study of the docu- ments and plays. Every document has been searched many times. The weightier ones have been studied line by line, and every fact or statement compared through a system of copious index notes with other items of possible bearing. That there are errors is to be expected. Many items have doubtless escaped me. Many more, I know, lie yet buried in unrevealed records. Some of these I shall secure before final publication, while some, be- cause of their bulk, I reserve for later presentation, — such as cer- tain signed depositions by George Chapman, Thomas Dekker, Edward Pierce, Thomas Woodford, Gervase Markham, and others, and the voluminous sources of hitherto unknown plays by Chapman, Dekker, Webster, Ford, Rowley, and others. The fragments of the new dramas of course shall be published, with a proper account of them. I purpose that this work when completed shall, by virtue of the materials presented, be authoritative and permanently useful in its own field. I shall therefore be first to hail the comer with new light from any source. It remains to acknowledge my obligations for privileges of research. The institutions to which I am peculiarly indebted for use of books, manuscripts, or documents are the Konigliche Bibliothek, Berlin; Hof- und Stadts-Bibliothek, Miinchen; Universitats-Bib- liothek, Heidelberg; Land- und Stadts-Bibliothek, Strassburg; Universitats-Bibliothek, Freiburg i/Br. ; Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris ; Bodleian Library, Oxford ; University Library, Cambridge ; British Museum, Public Record Office, Library of the House of Lords, Privy Council Office, and the Guildhall Record Office, London. I am particularly grateful to Dean L. A. Sherman, Chancellor E. B. Andrews, and the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska for allowing me the extended leave of absence of 1904-6. This gave me time to cross to Europe and find means xvi PREFACE to reach original records. Of persons there, I am indebted first of all to former Ambassador Joseph Choate for official courtesies, and to our present Ambassador at the Court of St. James, Mr. Whitelaw Reid, for additional aid in securing me privileges of research. Superintendent G. F. Warner of the MS. department and Superintendent Barrett of the Reading Room of the British MuseUm and their staffs have, in the course of years, afforded me larger opportunities, I think, than they themselves are aware of. Dr. Sharp, Superintendent of the Guildhall Record Office, has given me unreservedly the benefit of his accurate knowledge as well as his personal help in researches that I could not other- wise have carried out. Superintendent E. Salisbury, of the lit- erary search department of the Public Record Office, to whose unfailing courtesy and generous consideration and help I am most deeply indebted, has placed at my disposal every facility for searching the national records. The officials of the Legal Room and of the Round Room have also been generous with as- sistance at all times. The Chief Qerk of the Privy Council Office has likewise been most courteous in producing the ancient records of the King's Council for my use. To Professors Dr. Wilhelm Wetz, Dr. Roman Woerner, and Dr. Friedrich Kluge, of Albert-Ludwig University, Freiburg i/Br., I owe special thanks for privileges of study with them dur- ing the years of 1904-6. Of all persons concerned, the one to whom I owe most is she to whom alone this work can properly be inscribed, my wife, who since 1906 has been my constant companion and equal fellow in research, and whose vision and judgment have ever been my help. Lincoln, Aprh., 1908. INTRODUCTION A GENERAL VIEW OF THE FIELD There were two regularly constituted companies of children- actors under Elizabeth and four under James I. Those whose history this work aims chiefly^ to present were, The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, 1597-1603;^ The Children of the Revels to the Queen at Blackfriars, 1604-8 ; The Children of the King's Revels at Whitefriars, ca. 1603-9; The Children of the Revels to the Queen at Whitefriars, i6io-i6i3-[i5].* The last three may be spoken of in a general way under the common title. Children of the Revels. These three royally patronized Jacobean children-companies and their various imitations and ramifying influences ranging^ down to the period of the Restoration are traceable directly to their source in Queen Elizabeth's establishment of the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, 1597-1603. The source of that establishment was the Queen's will. But the precedent enabling her by a wide stretch to use the Children of the Chapel in carry- ing out her final theatrical purposes is to be found in the long- standing custom of using them for the divertisement of Royalty and the Court. Practically throughout Elizabeth's reign they had been incidentally employed now and then for this purpose in presenting stage-plays and interludes. Their secular use in acting, singing on festival occasions, and at royal entertainments, precedes the reign of Elizabeth and doubtless antedates our first records of such. The primary function of the Children of the Chapel Royal was to minister to his or her Majesty's spiritual well-being by trained choral singing at times of devotional service. They formed a 'The Paul's Boys of late Eliza- companies, befn and up to their termination V. e., to the death of Elizabeth, early in the reign of James are the March 24, 1603. subject of treatment only in their "Practically, 1613; nommally, contributive relations to the history 1615. of these royally patronized children- 2 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS part of the choral body which takes its name from the place of worship, namely, the Chapel Royal. As Rimbault points out in his Introduction to The Old Cheque- Book,^ the Chapel Royal is the most ancient choral body of which there is any authentic record. The first account of it I have found is in the Liber Niger Domus Regis' of Edward the Fourth's reign, near the middle of the fifteenth century.^ It was then constituted of one "Deane," twenty-four "Chaplenes and clerkes," two "yeomen" or "Pisteleres," eight "children," one "Master of songe" to teach the Chapel Boys music, and one "Mas- ter of y" Gramere" to provide for these children and others con- nected with the Court somewhat of a liberal education. At the period with which the present work deals, the last six years of Elizabeth and the first half of the reign of James I, the official constitution was,* Dean, Sub-Dean, Confessor of his Majesty's household, six chaplains, a Master of the Children, Clerk of the Cheque, first and second Organist, twenty-four Choristers, called Gentlemen in ordinary" (and the same or greater number of substitutes called Gentlemen extraordinary, who served without pay but were in line of succession to a va- cancy in the ranks of the ordinary), twelve Children, two Epis- tlers, two Gospelers, besides the officers of the vestry and common servants. The Chapel Royal, thus constituted, attended the sovereign wherever resident, according to ancient custom, and as a whole or in part accompanied him during progresses through the coun- '^The Old Cheque-Book, or Book "Dec. 15, 1604, as appears from of Remembrance, of the Chapel a warrant, there were thirty-eight Royal from 1561 to 1744 (ed. E. F. Gentlemen of the Chapel. But this Rimbault for The Camden Society, seems to count not only the choris- 1872.) " ters but also the chief officers. See 'Liber Niger Domus Regis (Brit. State Papers, Domestic, James I, Mus., /foW. iW5'. No. 393, fol. 11-13; xxxvi, No. 69, Public Record Of- No. 610, fol. 34-27; No. 643, fol. fice. Also noted in the Calendar of 71-74, and fol. 132&. — New pagina- State Papers, Domestic, Addenda tion of 1893). _ 1580-1625, 450. John Stowe (ed. 'Its exact date is not more nearly E. Howes), Annals, or a general known than that it was written Chronicle of England . . to end sometime within the limits of Ed- of 1631 (1631), 1037, says there ward IV's reign, — 4 March, 1461, to were thirty-three Gentlemen of the 9 April, 1483. Chapel in the first year of James I. *Cf. Rimbault, op. cit., 60-62, 127- See also the King's grant of aug- 28 ; but see also 156. mentation, u. i., 3". INTRODUCTION 3 try. For example, James I took his English choristers, men and children, with him on his journey to Scotland in 1617, — greatly oflfending his countrymen thereby.^ A place of service was provided at the royal expense; likewise residence for members of the chapter, their keep, and also to all but the children^ a yearly salary. Since the Restoration, the King's Chapel occupied by the chap- ter has been the little oratory of St. James's Palace. But in James I's time it was the splendidly appointed chapel at White- hall, London.^ This was used, not only for the religious services of the royal household, but for the solemnization of treaties be- tween Spain and England, and France and England; royal and noble baptisms, churchings, and confirmations; marriages of nu- merous of the nobility in presence of the King; the marriage of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick Prince Elector Count Palatine of the Rhine in 1613 ; the funeral of James I in 1625 ; the corona- tion of Charles I, &c.^ On all these and such occasions the Gentlemen of the Chapel partook in the services and shared in the fees, — often 5 /. each." "A humorous bit of satire on the children were on this date al- Scottish manners and customs, evi- lowed an additional 4 d. daily, — ^not dently written by an Englishman in as salary, but "as an augmentation James I's retinue on this journey, of their board wages." This war- describes how the Scotch received rant was drawn in accordance with and entertained the King, how they the general grant of augmentation felt about his religious forms, and of salaries in the Chapel Royal se- especially about the "singing men" cured through the influence of sev- and the Children of the Chapel, eral persons, among whom was The document was printed in a Nathaniel Gyles, Master of the chil- pamphlet of twenty-one pages at dren. The grant was dated Dec. London, 1659, under title, A Perfect 5, 1604. It is printed in The Old Description of the People and Coun- Cheque-Book, op. cit., 60, and in try of Scotland, which is reprinted John Nichols, The Progresses, Pro- in Francis Osborne, Secret History cessions and Magnificent Festivities of the Court of James the First of King James the First (1838), I, (1811), II, 75-89. See appositely 466, from Sir John Hawkins, A 77, 79, 85. General History of the Science and The original MS. is preserved in Practice of Music (1776), IV, li- the British Museum. For the most 12. [Nichols errs in saying he takes pertinent part see Harl. MS. No. it from p. 15.] 444, fol. 276a. J. P. Collier, History 'See Rev. John Jebb, The Choral of English Dramatic Poetry and Serrjice of the United Church of Annals of the Stage (1879''), I, 391, England and Ireland (1843), 148. printed the paragraph on the chil- *See notices of these various uses dren only. of the Chapel Royal in The Old ^The warrant in State Papers, Cheque-Book («. s.), passim. Dec. 15, 3604 («. s., 2°) shows ^Idem. 4 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The Children never on any occasion received fees. Consequently the Clerk of the Cheque has left no record of any sort concerning them, since his official duty seems to have been largely to record such receipts by members of the chapter. Despite this omission, the Children certainly sang with the men-choristers at all solem- nities and festivals held in the Chapel, as they constituted an essential part of the chorus. During a part of the reign of Elizabeth the children occasion- ally presented plays in the Chapel, — even on Sundays, — before the Queen and her Court. As early as 1569 the first published record of feeling that has reached us concerning the Children as actors shows a bitter Puritanic opposition to this practice.^ The Queen, however, was passionately fond of the drama, and be- sides patronizing the men's companies and Paul's boys at Court, she continued throughout her reign occasionally to use her own Children of the Chapel to gratify her pleasure. In her closing years she extended their function of acting beyond occasional performances in the Chapel, and established them as a permanent company at the Blackfriars with requirements to act a play every week. With the increase of time, the spirit of Puritanism grew an important factor to be reckoned with in the government, and Elizabeth's theatrical predilections diminished none. In her Ma- jesty's fondness for the drama, however, and in her purpose to carry out certain theatrical plans rather than in Puritanic oppo- sition is to be sought the cause of her removing the performances of the Children permanently from the Chapel Royal and estab- lishing with them in 1597 the Blackfriars theatre. As we shall see later, she in effect divided the Children on the basis of func- tions, and maintained one body of them at the Chapel Royal as choristers, the other at Blackfriars to be taught in music, the ^"Plaies will neuer be supprest, The attack is continued in a later while her maiesties unfledged min- page of the same pamphlet thus : — ions flaunt it in silkes and sattens. "Even in her maiesties chappel do They had as well be at their Popish these pretty vpstart youthes profane service, in the deuils garments." — the Lordes Day by the lascivious The Children of the Chapel stript writhing of their tender limbs, and and whipt (1569), quoted in gorgeous decking of their apparell, Thomas Warton, History of Eng- in feigning bawdie fables gathered lish Poetry (ed. Hazlitt, 1871), IV, from the idolatrous heathen poets." 217. —Ihid. INTRODUCTION B drama, and other arts. These actor-children were kept at her ex- pense, and furnished with rich and abundant stage-apparel. Out of the original Court-service of the Children of the Chapel evolved the sort of performance, they later presented as actors. It was not a long step from religious worship, solemnizations, and festivities, for the Court to employ their excellent singing at other times simply as a rich musical entertainment. At what time plays were introduced along with the singing, or in addition to it, or in place of it, there are no known records by which we can determine. But as far back as the development can be traced, dialogue and acting seem to have dominated the singing. Near the close of Elizabeth's reign, the entertainment at Blackfriars takes the form of a delightful musicale followed by an acted play containing song and masque. The plays themselves in both earlier and later periods were in- terspersed with songs as specialties. During the Blackfriars period under Elizabeth, the Boys exhibited their training and skill in instrumental music, singing, and dancing, at intervals through the play. In most of their plays after 1600, and possibly in their lost repertoire of the three years before, they combined these arts into a single exhibition, by putting on the form and variegated dress of fairies, nymphs, or other creatures of fancy and mingling color, music, and dance into the pleasing harmony of the masque. During James I the elements of dainty device in music and pleasing show are less prominent. We have at any rate no record of the combined musical and dramatic entertainment such as the Duke of Stettin in 1602 reported was the custom at Blackfriars. Music between the acts, however, and songs throughout the play remained though a diminished yet a prominent feature. But the feet of the fairies and nymphs grew clogged with a varied clay, and except twice neither their poets found invention nor the grown-up boys practice in the care-free, lissome masque. In these heavier years, too, the tripping step of comedy gave way to the serious tread of tragedy. Chiefly out of the Court-performances of the Children in the Queen's Chapel and other royal halls^ evolved the private thea- *The other influence was the nobility is reflex rather than direct, church. The influence of school and A. Albrecht, Das EngUsche Kin- 8 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS trum. Farther contributive also was the practice of public re- hearsals by the Master of the Revels, leading even to such exhi- bitions by the Children as seen at Whitefriars in 1580 and at Blackfriars 1581-84. Nobility imitating royalty provided private plays at weddings, at the Christmas or "Revels" festival, at the entertainment of the Queen upon progresses through the country, and on other fes- tival occasions. Their theatnim likewise was a private apart- ment or hall of the house or castle; and the hearers, invited guests. When finally the private theatre found a permanent home the structure naturally took as its distinguishing feature the privacy of the noble and royal hall. The hearers could not be enter- tained as invited guests ; but the price of admission was placed so high, — from three to twelve times that of the public theatres, — that the audience was aristocratically select. The private theatre of first importance in origin and influence was the Blackfriars, established 1597 under patronage of the Queen. It was in fact what may be called an aristocratic public playhouse, with galleries, private boxes or "lords' rooms," arti- ficial lighting, select audiences, seats in the pit as well as in all dertheater (Diss. Halle, 1883), 1, and nobility are seen in such as traces the origin of the private the- Merchant Taylor's (Mulcaster's) atre to the Catholic church, and school, Westminster, Eton, Oxford, specifically to a cathedral school for &c., and in such ephemeral, often training boys to sing in the church elaborate, representations in noble service, established at Rome, 590. houses as historical records report But we should find ourselves on on special occasions, safer ground if we should trace it All these minor influences have back to man's creation, — to the Gar- practically nothing to do with the den of Eden. Or, seriously, the development in question, although source is not an institution, but man some have thought so. I am pre- as the maker of institutions. Man's senting of course the private the- nature is dramatic and craves rep- atre as a factor in the drama, and resentation, as exhibited from the the immediate conditions that led child, the ignorant, and the sage of to it, not the remote or the unre- today, back to the acts of primitive lated. The only period wlien the man. Church and sovereign became private theatre was such a factor first sources of influence because of is the period treated in the present their larger power to institution- work, 1597-1613. The preceding alize man's innate desire. But the years of Elizabeth were but pre- uninstitutionalized drama and stage paratory to it, and the succeeding is the home, the field, the street, years of James and the two wherever two or more people meet. Charleses but echoes of it. The reflex influences of school INTRODUCTION ' other parts of the house, and special privileges of sitting on the stage.. The only other private playhouse at the close of Elizabeth's reign was Paul's, where a theatre was maintained by the church under favor of the Queen. The Blackfriars, Paul's, and Whitefriars constitute the early Jacobean list of private theatres. All were occupied, as we shall see, by children-companies, — a fact of large significance in the- atrical and dramatic history. Blackfriars and Whitefriars were the "Great Halls" of the old monasteries of these names, refitted to new uses. That is, they were simply large monastic houses rearranged. Paul's was, as it seems, the church Singing School "back of the convocation house."^ There is no record of any galleries in either Paul's or Whitefriars. They seem to have had no larger seating capacity than that afforded by one floor. It appears that Whitefriars room, however, was larger than Blackfriars, while Paul's was smaller. The public theatre, of more plebeian origin and patronage, evolved out of the four-walled coach-court of the public inn. Like man's first temples, it was open to the sky and lighted by the heavens. The great yard where the groundlings made merry was not seated. But rows of galleries, after the manner of the inn-balconies, ran around three sides and were provided with seats. A thatched shed-like roof overhung the balconies and the tiring-house. A part or all of the stage was protected by a long sloping roof called "the heavens."^ 'Richard Flecknoe, A Short Dis- Gaedertz in Zur Kenntnis der Alt- course of the English Stage Cca. englischen Buhne (1888), and since 1660), in English Drama and Stage then has been generously repro- under the Tudor and Stuart duced in most of the publications Princes, 754^-1664 (ed. W. C. Haz- on the period, litt, Roxhurghe Library, 1869), 276. The next oldest picture of an in- ^In 1888 Dr. K. Th. Gaedertz terior is on the title-page of a Latin discovered in the library at Utrecht play, Roxana, 1632. The Roxana the only known view of the interior and the Messalina (1640) picture, of an Elizabethan theatre. It is a both with full title-page from the rough, inexact sketch of the inte- British Museum, are well repro- rior of the Swan, of probably 1596, duced by G. F. Reynolds, Some by Arend van Buchell after the de- Principles of Elizabethan Staging scription of his friend Johannes de (Modern Philology, 1904-5, II, 582- Witt, Priest of St. Mary's, Utrecht. 83). The Roxana picture is badly The sketch was published by Dr. reproduced by W. Keller in Shake- CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The advantages of the private theatre buildings of the chil- dren-companies recommended themselves to the theatrical public at once as an advance in playhouse evolution. The patronage of the Blackfriars is sufficient index in itself. Paul's reopened soon after, and Whitefriars began early in the reign of James. Even in the first half of the reign of James I, one more was added to the list of private theatres. This was the Cockpit/ built on the model of Blackfriars. The new Globe, built in 1 6 13-14, can hardly have failed to adopt some of the improved features of the Blackfriars, which was then occupied by the same company. At least its modern, up-to-date accommodations were such that it was reported at the time to be of all theatres "the fairest that ever was in England."* speare-Jahrhuch (1898), xxxiv, 324, and both are presented in miniature by G. P. Baker, The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist (1907), 370. The Roxana and the Messalina are pictures of university stages. The Red Bull picture from Kirk- man's Drolls (1672), certainly many years older however than the date indicates, has been often printed. A contract by Henslowe and Al- leyn with Peter Street, carpenter, Jan. 8, lo99-[1600], for building the Fortune on the style of the Globe gives detailed specifications. (In J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 9th ed., 1S90, I, .304 ; E. Malone, Shakespeare Variorum, ed. Boswell, 1821, III, 338-43.) Another contract by Henslowe and Meade with Gilbert Katherens, carpenter, Aug. 29, 1613, for the building of the Hope (Bear Gar- den) on the plan of the Swan is also helpful. (Malone, op. cit., Ill, 343-47; Baker, op. cit, 320-25). The Diary of Thomas Platter in the university library at Basel gives much information on the public the- atres of 1599, — Curtain, Bear Gar- den, and Globe. (Extracts by Prof. Gustav Binz, Londoner Theater und Schauspiele im lahre 1599, in An- glia (1899), xxii, 456-64. These sources agree in the most general features and furnish most of the knowledge we possess of such interiors. Some additional sources are pre- sented in the present work. Many references in the plays themselves and in other contempo- rary literature here and there give us the feel of what it would be to see a play there. Stage-directions and other evi- dences of acting furnish a source for scientific investigation that has never yet been satisfactorily worked out. The latest attempts are by Cecil Brodmeier, Die Shakespeare- Biihne nach den alien Biihnenan- weisungen (Diss. Jena, 1904), and G. F. RejTiolds, op. cit., who makes a tentative study with a promise of a complete treatise on the right line of considering the theatres individ- ually. ^The date of building is not sure. J. P. Collier, op. cit.. Ill, 136, takes it to be about 1636-17. F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage (1890), 399, 368, dates it 1617. There is some evi- dence of an earlier dating. But upon reconsideration it seems not sufficient for a final statement, though it may prove correct. 'Infra, 35\ INTRODUCTION 9 Even as the Blackfriars and the other private theatres^ were beginning to make their influence felt, the old public theatre- structures were beginning to pass out of existence into history.^ On the other hand, "public" performances soon took possession of the private theatres. Consequently, the invidious distinction of "public" and "private" theatres set up by Elizabeth in 1597 was lost sight of within the next generation. Salisbury Court theatre, built in 1629, was the last of the "private" sort. All the- atres of later date' were "public" but with the chief features of the original "private" house of the Blackfriars, while "private" theatres reverted to what they had previously been and what they still are today, — ^merely a temporary room or hall for occasional or amateur acting. The new Globe was built 1614, and the new Fortune, 1622. These were the last "public" theatres of the old architectiire. All theatres from that time to the present have been modeled on the general plan of the private theatres as first established at Blackfriars.* Likewise our modern orchestral praeludium, corresponding to the Chapel Children's introductory "musica instnimentalis" at Blackfriars, as also our present orchestral interludia between acts and scenes, corresponding to the intermezzos of various sorts of musical instruments by the same Boys, can be traced directly to them and not to the public theatres. The latter had at the close of Elizabeth and beginning of James almost no music. In the plays of all the children-companies music is a prominent part of the performance, — more at Blackfriars and Paul's under Eliza- beth, as noted before, than at the same or other theatres under James. Music was always one of the distinguishing features of the private houses of the children-companies. Their plays even as ^Blackfriars (1597— Aug. 6, beth — after 1663); Globe (1599— 1655); Paul's (1598—?); White- April 15, 1644); Fortune, (1600- friars (co. 1603 — ca. 1631); Cock- 49); Bear Garden (? — 1613); pit (? — March 24, 1649); Salis- Hope (1613—25 March, 1656). bury Court (1629 ; after the For certain terminal dates in this Restoration). and the preceding note, see docu- ''The Theatre (1576-98) ; Cur- ment communicated in a letter by tain (1577 — early James I) ; New- F. J. Fumivall, The End of Shake- ington Butts ( ? — early James I); speare's Theatres, in The Academy Rose (1592 — not used as playhouse (1883), xxii, 314-15. after 1603); Swan {ca. 1596 — early 'I.e., after the Restoration. James I) ; Red Bull {ca. late Eliza- *Cf. infra, 18', 37-54. 10 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS they have reached us brim with it. The songs are generally in- dicated and given in full. So prominent is this feature that a play of undeclared authorship containing many songs, — as His- triomastix, — can with practical certainty be assigned to a chil- dren's company. The instrumental music naturally could not so well be recorded. Yet numerous plays of the children give stage-directions for it. From the testimony of Gerschow, secretary to the Duke of Stet- tin, in 1602 the music program introductory to the play at Black- friars was an hour long. But this custom is recorded in no pub- lished drama; nor is the modern custom today that has grown out of it. The public theatres had not yet in 1604 adopted the music in- troductions and interspersions of the private house.^ But soon after the Burbage company took over the Blackfriars (1608),^ they began to develop this side of their performance on the lines followed by the former Boys there.^ The Blackfriars orchestra under their management became famous.* I have read that mu- sicians even paid for the privilege of playing in it, but know no proof of the statement. 'The Induction to The Malcon- style and hand. But the handwrit- tent as played by the King's Men ing did not differ widely enough at the Globe in 1604 has the fol- between 1599 and ten years later, lowing: — when music became more general, "Sly. What are your additions? for this evidence to amount to any- Burbage. Sooth, not greatly thing. And if only one direction needful; only as your salad to your is even probably that old the evi- feast, to entertain a little more time, dence is valueless, and to abridge the not-received cus- J. P. Collier, op. cit.. Ill, 253, tom of music in our theatre. I while not declaring himself square- must leave you, sir." ly, seems to hold with Malone. Yet Malone, op. cit. Ill, 111, "Infra, 44". judges from a cited isolated exam- "Certain of the Boys were taken pie from Gammer Gurton's Needle into the Burbage company at this (acted ca. 1566; printed 1575) that time. Shakespeare's The Tempest music between acts characterized is probably his first play written the theatre from its infancy. He for the Blackfriars. See infra, 167. adds, "In a copy of Romeo and *The fame of the Blackfriars or- Juliet, 1599, now before me, which chestra long endured as the fore- certairdy belonged to the playhouse, most music organization of Lon- the endings of the acts are marked don. Lord Commissioner Bulstrode in the margin; and directions are Whitelocke (160i5^'5), writing an given for musick to be played be- elaborate and clear account of the tween each act." He believes these masque, with antimasques, of The directions are of "very old date" Triumph of Peace by James Shirley because one of them is in ancient (played at Whitehall, 7 Charles I INTRODUCTION 11 At what time the other public companies fell in line with this progress of the stage is not known. It may not have been long after. Certain it is that by the time of the Restoration music was regarded by the stage monopoly of D'Avenant and Killigrew as an elaborate essential. — But that has a history of its own. Both public and private theatres opened with three bugle-blasts, blown some minutes apart.^ This was not, as sometimes under- stood,^ any part of the music, but an announcement of "ready," — like the modern signal bell of the German theatre calling the audience in from the refreshment rooms when an act is ready to begin; — a signal reduced in American theatres to the winking of the lights. So much in a general and introductory way on the historical relation and function of the Children of the Chapel Royal as choristers, their occasional function of play-acting at Court, the (1633) by the members of the four Inns of Court, with the elaborate music in charge of Whitelocke) gives incidentally a word on the fame of Blackfriars music thus : — "I was so conversant with the musitians, and so willing to gaine their favour, especially at this time, that I composed an Aier myselfe, with the assistance of Mr. Ives, and called it Whitelocke's Coranto: which being cried up, was first played publiquely, by the Blacke- fryar's Musicke, who were then es- teemed the best of common mu- sitians in London. Whenever I came to that house (as I did some- times in those dayes), though not often, to see a play, the rnusitians would presently play Whitelocke's Coranto, and it was so often called for, that they would have it played twice or thrice in an afternoon. ... It grew to that request, that all the common musitians in this towne and all over the kirigdome, gott the composition of it, and played it publiquely in all places, for above thirtie years after." — Dr. Charles Burney, A General History of Music (1789), III, 377, from Whitelocke's MS. then owned by Dr. C. Morton of the British Mu- seum. The last part of this docu- ment containing the payment to the musicians, preparation of the mu- sic, and the above passage, is omitted from Whitelocke's Memo- rials of English Affairs &c. (1709^; 1853"), I, 68, which modernizes spellings, and gives the general air of unfaithful editing. The excellence of the music at the private theatres of Blackfriars, Cockpit, and Salisbury Court is spe- cially mentioned in the well-known little tract of which the only extant copy of the original edition is in the British Museum, entitled, The Actors' Remonstrance (1643), 6-7. Reprinted in The British Stage (1833), VI; The English Drama and Stage (ed. W. C. Hazlitt, The Roxburghe Library, 1869) ; and Hindley's Miscellanea Antigua An- glicana (1871), III. ^A large number of instances might be cited. But for examples, see Inductions to Cynthia's Revels and Poetaster at Blackfriars ; and Dekker's Address to the Reader in Satiromastix, — ^first played at the Globe, later at Paul's. ''See for example Nathan Drake, Shakespeare and his Times (1817), II, 317. 12 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS consequent rise of the private theatre of 1597-1613 through them, the differentiation of the private and the public theatres, the na- ture of the entertainments in each, and some of the general re- sults and influences. Yet a farther introductory word. The chief influences of the children-companies are less tangible and concern the drama proper. Here it is not possible to state facts with that gross objectiveness, ease, and precision with which boys plump marbles. Nor have I in the following pages attempted to study this field exhaustively by citations and inter- pretations, — a separate work in itself. The period of supreme dramatic achievement of the world's history is practically the same as the period of growth, develojv- ment, and end of the children-companies in the field of competi- tion, — 1 597-1613. Is this merely a coincidence, or is there some relation existing between the two? It would be a view too in- judicial to require evidence in disproof to say the children "car- ried it away" in this development. They were simply one of the factors. The passionless glass and forthright scalpel, however, show them as a large factor. It strikes us as somewhat astounding when we look over the list of extant plays written and acted within this period of dra- matic splendor and see that fully one-half were produced for and enacted by these children-companies. In the reign of James I up to 1613, the ratio is greater than one-half. If we take the period from 1604 to 1608, we find the balance even more con- siderable on the side of the children. This is significant. It is further significant that every great dramatist of the period except Shakespeare wrote for the children. Jonson, who by common agreement stands next to Shakespeare as contemporary poet and dramatist, did much more than apprentice work for them. He began his career with the children in 1597, and thir- teen years later made his highest achievement before their public in Epicoene. Qiapman ranks at farthest close after Jonson. After his apprenticeship for the public theatres under Henslowe, ending in 1599, he wrote for no other players than the children, so long as their companies existed. Beaumont and Fletcher, who INTRODUCTION 13 vie with Jonson and Chapman for place, demonstrated their dra- matic power through the same means of appeal to the public until King James terminated the Blackfriars Children in 1608. Still five more of their chief plays were presented by the Boys at Whitefriars from 1610 to 1612. Only with the beginning of the period of dissolution of the children did these poets give their plays to the King's men at Blackfriars and the Globe. All these are great names. Between these and the numerous minor playwrights stand Marston, Middleton, Webster, Dekker, and Day, all connected, in their best work, with the private- playhouse children. It would not be true to say that the children's theatre, with Blackfriars as chief representative, was a sort of primary school for bringing up play-wrights and developing actors, as the "Nurs- ery" of 1664 aimed chiefly to be. Nevertheless, it gave to genius an opportunity to express itself in both fields. No men's com- pany except Shakespeare's invited or afforded such freedom. The men's plays, with that illustrious exception, were mainly hack-work, many of them collaborations. As a result, they have little originality, inspiration, or individuality. Their jejuneness, staleness of invention and expression, and general paucity was the butt of Jonson's ridicule, — and justly. Such conditions could not inspire great acting. Consequently, not one of these unex- cepted men's companies produced a single renowned actor. Quite different were the conditions in the Burbage-Shake- speare company and the children-companies, particularly the one at Blackfriars. In both instances the plays were written, not for the common pot of a Henslowean dramatic pawn-shop or literary bureau, but directly for the actors.^ As a result they were gen- erally not collaborations, but the work of individual authors. They showed that the way to develop genius is not to yoke it to its fellows, but to free it from the furrow, and let both feet and wings aid in the rurming. Great genius never did nor can col- laborate great art. The single Praxitiles, or Giotto, or Raphael, 'The proposition that the chil- intended to be serious. See A. Al- dren acted such plays, mostly sple- brecht, Das Englische Kinderthea- netic, as were rejected by the men- ter CDiss. Halle, 1883), 39. companies would be funny if not 14 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS or Shakespeare, or Wagner is greater than the collaborating world. The actors too enjoyed a similar freedom, and were not im- pecunious dependents. The conditions under which both author and actor worked were conducive to excellence of art in its kind. It is noteworthy of the authors who wrote for both the chil- dren and the men's companies, aside from Eurbage's, — nanjely Middleton, Webster, Dekker, Day, — that their plays for the chil- dren are better than those for the men. Of those who wrote exclusively for the unexcepted men's companies, — as Wilkins, Smith, Rowley, Heywood, Chettle, Monday, Houghton, Wilson, and a few more,^ — none rank with the chief authors of the chil- dren-actors, and most of them are little if any superior to the poorest, — those who wrote for the Children of the King's Revels exclusively or mainly, — Sharpham, Armin, Mason, Barry, and Markham. Besides several other excellent actors, two of the three Roscii of the time were fledged in this "aery" of "little eyases," and several others became famous. As will fully appear later, the boys of the children-companies, grown men, ultimately dominated the stage. Their members, after their own organizations closed, are found as leaders thereafter in every company but one, and for more than fifty years their influence was a factor in the theatre and drama. But the children-theatre was in no respect a primary school to the "common players." It was a lively competitor, both dra- matically and commercially. Shakespeare felt that the competi- tion was more on the latter than on the former side. It was, so far as immediate effects were concerned. But the perspective of history shows the same result that sharp competition, com- mercial or other, always has, — the putting forth of effort to su- perior excellence. It stimulated genius in the dramatist and in the actor, gave wider range of opportunity to each, and added vastly to the number as well as quality of plays produced. It is not possible to estimate exactly the tremendous stimulus to dramatic effort by this new element of competition in the field. We know from Henslowe's Diary, which has to do only with '■Cf. infra, 163'. INTRODUCTION 15 men-companies, that from one-half to two-thirds of the plays named therein have never reached us. How many were played by companies of which no diary record was kept we can only conjecture. And how many were written and never accepted it would be futile to attempt to investigate. We can only get from contemporary records that the number of unknown plays was very considerable. Of the children-companies, we can identify only half of the court plays. It is quite probable that more than half of their publicly acted plays have reached us, but there is ample evidence that we do not have them all. In the case of the Children of the King's Revels at Whitefriars, as we shall see, there were condi- tions that practically prevented publishing any of their plays while the company existed. It is remarkable that we have any of their plays at all. It is impossible to characterize the children's plays in the gross except very generally. Some have literary merit, many fall short. With the exception of those by Jonson and Chapman, their com- edies and comic situations of tragedies have generally a low moral tone; not differing in that respect, however, very greatly from the rest of the plays of the age. On the whole they are fuller of personal, political, and local allusions than those of the men-companies. Their tragedies contain much rant, bombast, and turgidity. Their plays seem to take color not a little from the courtly, fashionable, or smart audiences and from the irre- sponsible nature of the actors. The irresponsibleness of the youthful actors can not but account at least in part for the po- litical indiscretions of Eastward Ho, The Isle of Gulls, and the two Biron tragedies. By Elizabeth's favor and patronage of the Blackfriars Boys, children-companies, and particularly this company, became the fad. It took the genius of Shakespeare to counterbalance their influence. From his testimony of how he felt about them, it is probable that their competition was one of the factors that en- tered into the best efiforts of his genius. Good plays and good acting by his company were the necessary countervail. Thus much for a background. A knowledge of the proper place and relation of these chil- 16 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS dren-companies in the development of both theatre and drama gives just recognition to the value of every slightest detail of their history. Hitherto nothing very definite has been known about the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars and their ofif- springs, the Children of the Revels under James, their careers and influences. It is hoped that the following pages, based upon original records, documents, and the plays, may contribute to definiteness and add to the sum of knowledge. The history developing out of preceding conditions and evolv- ing into the influences noted concerns itself specifically with the companies of children, their playhouses, management, member- ship, and performances. The boys do not emerge into individual prominence until they approach the end of their career. They are from the first little more than puppets in the hands of their superiors. Hence their history is very much the history of their managers. The point of main divergence in the evolution of the Chapel Children, swinging them into the active current of dramatic com- petition, dates from the first royal commission to Nathaniel Gyles for taking up children, and the opening of the Blackfriars by Henry Evans, 1597. The termination of the theatrical activity of the resulting Children of the Revels companies is i6i3-[i5]. Imitations and echoes of this activity continue to the Restoration. CHAPTER I THE BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING The remodeling of one of the Priory buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Blackfriars at I^ndon into a theatre, the leas- ing of it by Richard Burbage to Henry Evans for a playhouse, and the taking up of children therefor under the first royal com- mission to Nathaniel Gyles, Master of the Qiildren of the Qiapel Royal, date the beginning of this history. These three events took place in 1596-97. February 4, 1596, James Burbage, "the first builder of play- houses,"^ purchased through Sir Thomas Cawarden's executor. Sir William More of Losely, for £600" certain "romes" of the dissolved monastery "of the late Blackfryers Preachers."^ In November he was engaged in remodeling the structure for a the- atre,* in which month the inhabitants of the precinct petitioned" ^ The Globe-Blackfriars Share Papers of 1635, in J. O. Halliwell- Phillips, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (9th ed. 1890), I, 317. James Burbage built "The Theatre" in 1576, which was in fact the first modern theatre in England. But the commonly accepted view that this is the earliest theatre-building in England is not quite correct. Upon the contemporary evidence of Bishop Grandisson there was a the- atre in existence in which "ludi" were presented at Exeter in 1348. See two Latin mandates of the Bishop directed against the doings at this theatre, printed in Register of Bishop Grandisson (ed. F. C. Hingeston-Randolph), II, 1055, 1130; reprinted in part, with com- ments, in E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage (1903), I, 383, II, 190. '"Our father purchased it at ex- treame rates," say Cuthbert, Wini- fred and William Burbage in the 1635 Share Papers («. s.). 'Deed of Sir William More to James Burbage, 4 February, I59S~ [6]. Original indenture at Loseley House. Abstracts in Appendix to Seventh Report of the Royal Com- mission on Historical Manuscripts under "The Manuscripts of William More Molyneux, Esq., of Loseley Park, Guildford, co. Surre/' (1879), 6536. In extenso in Halli- well-Phillips, op. cit., I, 399-304. 'Petition of the Inhabitants of Blackfriars, u. i. 'Petition of the Inhabitants of Blackfriars Precinct to the Queen's Privy Council, [Nov., I5p(5]. The original document has not come to light. But an undated copy of it made ca. 1631 is preserved in the English national archives, the Pub- lic Record Office, State Papers, Do- mestic, Eliz., cclx, 116. Printed frequently; e. g., Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 304. The petition does not give the 18 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS against his procedure.^ The opposition however went for noth- ing.^ The work of reconstruction was completed and the ancient Priory received, under permission of Elizabeth, the new baptism of the drama by which it became in its time the most famous, and historically as the model of the modem theatre-building, the most important structure in English stage-history." The long prevalent erroneous belief that Shakespeare was con- nected with the Blackfriars from the time of this new birth roused a century of antiquarian interest in the ancient monastery to which it once belonged. As a result, its monastic history has been stated again and again, while the erroneous notions con- cerning it as a theatre permeate the thousands of critical and commentarial writings of the past hundred years touching the Elizabethan-Jacobean drama and stage. The truth concerning Blackfriars for the first twelve years after Burbage's purchase- date of the original document. But the date is referred to as Novem- ber, 1596, in An Order for the sup- pression of Blackfriars theatre by the Corporation of the City of Lon- don, the original entry of which I have examined in the City archives of London at the Guild-hall, Rep- ertory S4, fol. 38&, under date "xxi° die Januarij 1618" [=1619]. Fre- quently printed; e. g., in Halliwell- Phillips, op. cit.j I, 311. ^For Mr. J. P. Collier's misdat- ing of this petition as 1576 {History of English Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage, 1831"; 1879*, I, 21Ssqq.), to support a certain theory, his assuming another peti- tion in 1596 (I, 2S7 sqq.) and his forging of a counter-petition thereto concerning Shakespeare and his fel- low-actors (I, 288) in further sup- port of his theory, his consequent placing of Shakespeare's company and the children-actors in competi- tion in the Blackfriars theatre where they "shared a divided kingdom," — the children acting there in summer and the Shakespeare company in winter (I, 360) — , as scholars are still repeating even in this present year ; and for the long train of con- nected and consequent errors that permeate the many works of refer- ence, both cyclopaedic and special, in this field, occurring in even some of the most important of recent lit- erary-historical dissertations done for the doctorate, see Historical Preface, vol. I, of my complete work. 'See infra, 53, 152, 153-54', 161'. 'The Italian-French influences manifested under the D'Avenant- Killigrew theatrical monopoly of London at the beginning of the Res- toration period were mainly scenic, operatic, and otherwise spectacular rather than structural. Agreeable with this conclusion, reached inde- pendently, see the latest scientific research in the field of French in- fluences in England: — L. Charlanne, L'Inftuence Frangaise en Angleterre au xvii° Siecle, Le Theatre et la Critique (These de I'Universite de Paris, 1906), chap. Ill, "L'influence frangaise au theatre," 58-85. The new theatre-buildings of D'Avenant and Killigrew do not seem to have differed widely in form and main features from the Salis- bury Court, the Cockpit (Phoenix), and their model, the Blackfriars. The architecture of the original "public" theatre, of course, — repre- BLACKFRIAR'S THEATRE BUILDING 19 of the building is interwoven with the history of the company of boy-actors who held its boards. Its earlier history is con- nected with monastic annals and the office of the Master of the Revels, and may here be stated briefly as a necessary preliminary.^ The Dominican or Black Friars in 1221 made Holborn, Lon- don, their first point of settlement in England.^ In 1276 they begged a new and larger site. Here they built and for nearly three centuries maintained the famous monastery that has left to commercialized London no other heritage or relic than such com- memorative names as "Blackfriars road," "Blackfriars bridge," "Blackfriars pier," "Blackfriars school." The property lay at the extreme southwest corner of the an- cient City of London, partly within the old Roman wall, but mainly without.' The wall then ran straight on from Ludgate down to the Thames. It crossed the grounds soon to be used by the Friars for their fine old conventual church and cloisters, and passed just a few yards east of the site of the later Blackfriars theatre, grounds now occupied mainly by The Times buildings. Very soon after acquiring the tract, the Black Friars through their powerful fellow. Archbishop Kilwardby of Canterbury, were influential enough to secure an order to tear down the old city wall that crossed their acquisition. In compensation they sented by "The Theatre," Curtain, 1846), VIII, 1847; William Bray, Rose, Swan, Globe, Fortune, Bear in Archaeologia, XVIII, 317ff.; T. Garden, and Hope, — perished in its F. Ordish, in The Antiquary, XIV own generation and left little in- (1886), 23; and item-references, fluence upon the style of the mod- infra. ern theatre-building. For certain ^John Stowe, op. cit. (1633), data, cf. infra, passim. 4876, 3736. ^For data, see John Stowe, Sur- 'In the yeere 1376. Gregory vey of London (1603), 341jgg.; id. Rokefley, Maior, and the Barons of (ed. 1633), 373 Jgg.; id. (ed. Strype, London, granted and gave to Rob- mi), I, 667-80; id. (continued by ert Kilwarby, Archbifhop of Can- Edmond Howes), Annates, or A terburie, two lanes or wayes next General Chronicle of England the ftreet of Baynards Caftell, and (1631) ; A. J. Kemp, Loseley MSS. the Tower of Mountfichit, to be de- (1835), 16, 73, 175, 186; Appendix stroyed. On the which place the to Seventh Report of the Royal faid Robert builded the late new Commission on Historical Manu- Church, with the reft of the Stones scripts (1879) under "The Manu- that were left of the faid Tower, scripts of William More Molyneux, And thus the Black-Fryers left their Esq., of Loseley Park, Guildford, co. Church and houfe by Oldboorne, Surrey," 5966-681o; Sir William and departed to their new." — Idem, Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 487 ; also 373, with slight change in (ed. Caley, Ellis, and Bandinels wording. 20 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS built a new wall which served on the one side as a continuation of the city wall shutting them in from outside danger, and on the other side as a means of isolation from the City proper. This new wall ran westward from the old Ludgate down the slope, approximately along what is now Pilgrim street, to a point a few yards south of Fleet bridge, — now the site of Ludgate cir- cus; — thence southward along the Fleet ditch, — present New Bridge street, — to the Thames ;^ thence along the Thames to the east side of the old Baynard castle site;^ thence with broken saw- teeth irregularity northeastward, enclosing Mountfitchett's Tower and angling up the Ward Row, — later Wardrop, Wardrobe, now St. Andrews Hill, — ^to Carter lane; thence in an irregular diag- onal northwestward past the end of Creed lane to the original starting corner adjoining Ludgate.* This walled precinct of the Blackfriars was a sanctuary in- violate, within which the will of the Friars was supreme over laws of city and state.* It was a liberty independent of City and society in matters of control, yet claiming protection from both, just as in the case of all similar religious orders of the time. No one, even though an official from the City, might enter within the four constantly guarded gates of its walls without permission. The monastery with all its rights and possessions was, upon the dissolution of the Catholic religious orders by Henry VHI, surrendered to the Crown November 12, 1538.'' Its value in yearly income was then 104 /. 15 J. 4 d.^ Upon the dissolution of the order, the liberties and privileges of the Friars were granted by Henry VIII also to the Friars' '"Now here is to bee noted, that 1428 by Humphry, Duke of GIou- the Wall of London, at that time, cester, and shown prominently as went ftraight South from Ludgate, "Baynards castle" in all ancient downe to the river of Thames: But maps after that date. See also W. for building of the Blacke Friers J. Loftie («. t.), 80. Church, the faid Wall in that place 'On preceding data as to site, was by commandement taken walls, &c., cf. the various ancient downe, and a new Wall made, maps of London. Also, cf. W. J. ftraight Weft from Ludgate to Loftie, London (Historic Towns, Fleet bridge, and then by the water ed. E. A. Freeman & Wm. Hunt, of Fleet, to the River of Thames, 1887), 76-80. &c."—Idem, 405. 'Cf. infra, 31\ ^This is the original castle of "John Stowe, op. cit. (1633), 374. Baynard and Fitzwalter, which was 'Idem, op. cit. (1603), 342; given to the Friars. It must not be (1633), 374; (ed. Strype, 1744), I, confounded with the later, larger 6680. castle built a little to the east in BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 21 worldly successors,^ and became from that time forth matter for constant contention between the inhabitants of the precinct and the Crown on the one side and the persistent City administration assertive of authority on the other until late James I. This chronic condition shows itself acutely in the opposing attitudes of Queen Elizabeth and the City authorities toward the establish- ment and maintenance of Blackfriars theatre as discussed in suc- ceeding chapters.^ The buildings of the Blackfriars precinct were situated on the high embankment north of the Thames and east of the old Fleet ditch, — now New Bridge street. They included^ besides the little church at St. Anne's and numerous shops and dwellings, the im- posing conventual church 220 feet long from east to west by 66 feet wide; a churchyard on the north 200 feet by 90 feet; the cloisters on the south, comprised in a square of no feet; and to the west of these, the little chapter-house and the large Priory buildings, one of which standing on the site of the present "Pub- lishing Office" of The Times, and opening on a short, narrow, irregular passage-way, still called "Playhouse Yard," became the Blackfriars theatre in 1597. Edward VI, who succeeded to the throne January 28, 1547, put this particular building to a new use, which probably deter- mined its ultimate service to the drama. Soon after his accession he had all the apparel and furniture for the revels and masks at Court removed to it from Warwick inn.* Here also Sir Thomas Cawarden, one of the first Masters of the Revels, ° had his office and rehearsed, doubtless in the great 'The nature and extent of these tion of the Blackfriars and the lib- liberties and privileges with argu- erties granted the same. Noted in ments in their defense are set forth Hist. MSS. Com., op. cit., 6636. in a lengthy brief and the testimony ^ See infra, 54^-54', 148-62. of witnesses, published under the 'For items, see survey, taken by heading, "Notes and Articles for Hugh Losse, the King's surveyor, maintenance of the ancient Liberties 4 January, 3 Edward VI, preserved and Privileges of the late diffolved among the Loseley MSS. Noted in Black Friers, neere Ludgate in Lon- A. J. Kemp, op. cit., 175 ; Hist. don," in John Stowe, op. cit. MSS. Com., op. cit., 6O60. (1633), 375-80. These documents *See expense account for this re- give the inhabitants' side of the moval in Kemp, op. cit., 73. long controversy. For the City's 'Sir Thomas Cawarden is gen- side, see infra, 154S 154l See also, erally believed to have been the first at Loseley House, documents {temp. incumbent of the office of the Mas- Eliz., undated) on the first founda- ter of the Revels. Letters patent 22 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS hall, companies of actors in masques and interludes or plays chiefly for performances at Court/ and occasionally also for sim- ilar diversions at the houses of noblemen." After thus using the building for three years, Edward VI made Sir Thomas Cawarden a present of the entire Blackfriars pre- cinct not already donated to other favorites, — the two churches, the cloisters, the priory houses, shops, residences, and lands, — by letters patent dated at Westminster March 12, 1549- [50].' Not long afterwards, the office of the Revels and all the King's theatrical properties were removed to St. John's, Jerusalem, where they remained until ca. 1607.* of his appointment, dated March 11, 1545- [6], are printed in extenso in Thomas Rymer, Foedera, XV, 63; original at Loseley House, and noted in Hist. MSS. Com., op. cit., 6026-6030. Recently Dr. Rudolf Brotanek, Die Englischen Maskenspiele (JVie- ner Beitrdge zur Englischen Phi- lologie, ed. Dr. J. Schipper, XV), 99, 110-11, has shown that two men were Cawarden's predecessors, — Harry Wentworth, 1510, and Sir Henry Guildford, 1514. Dr. Bro- tanek's source of information is. Letters and Papers, foreign and do- mestic, of the reign of Henry VUI, arranged and catalogued by J. S. B[rewer] (4 vols. 1862), II, 1492, I, 958, I, 718if. "See documents at Loseley House; referred to in Hist. MSS. Com., op. cit., 602-15, passim. 'Idem, 597a; 6086. Here for ex- ample, 20 May, 1553, the Earl of Northumberland, presuming upon the custom, begs Sir Thomas Ca- warden to prepare or "apoynt out a couple of fayre maskes, oon of men and another of women" for presentation the following Thurs- day at a triple wedding, — a daugh- ter of the house of Northumberland with the Lord of Suffolk's son, an- other daughter with Lord Hastings, and one of the Lord of Suffolk's daughters with the Earl of Pem- broke's son. Also idem, 614o. 18 July, 1558. Thomas Coppley entreats Sir Thomas Cawarden of his courtesy to "lend the vse of one of" his "maskes" for the domestic celebra- tion of the writer's marriage. 'See Deed to fames Burbage, in Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 301c; also Repert. Orig. MS. (Brit. Mus.), Ill, 1276. See farther Let- ter-Book Z, fol. 236 (Guildhall Rec- ord Office, City archives of Lon- don). This date, in the document on the "Liberties" of Blackfriars published in Stowe, op. cit. (1633), 3766, is stated thus: "in his Letters Patents dated the 12. day of May" &c. "May" is certainly error for "March," which is given in all the other records. The present docu- ment, for example, (in Letter Book Z, fol. 236) gives it, "by his lettrss patentes dated at Westminster the xij"" of Marche, in the fourth yeare of his Reigne." This valuable his- torical document, dated January 27, 1579, has never been printed. See further, infra, 154'. *See Privy Seal from James I to Edmund Tilney, Master of the Revels, for allowance of 20 /. yearly for rent of "a house convenient for the Execution of the Office of o' R'evelles" dated "at o' Pallace of Westm' the eight and Twentith dale of December in the ffifte yeere of o' Raigne" &c. [=28 Dec. 1607]. The document is preserved in the Public Record Office and has not, I believe, been printed. I have BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 28 Sir Thomas Cawarden, the new possessor, made material changes in the precinct. One of his first acts was to demolish the noble old conventual church^ as well as the little church of St. Anne's.^ He seems to have planned to make his acquisition the residence-quarter for nobles and lords. The splendid man- sions and noble society that we find there a little later show how well he succeeded.^ No material changes were made in the Priory House, for be- tween 1580 and 1584 we hear of plays being acted there. Three evidences establish the fact. made a transcript of it and am pub- lishing it in extenso, u. i. The orig- inal may be consulted in the bundle of Privy Seals for "December, 1607." The new office-rooms, rented thus on account of granting St. John's to Lord Aubigny, were in the old Whitefriars monastery, sep- arated by only a wall from the Whitefriars theatre there, in which the Children of the King's Revels held forth. The removal from St. John's and relocation of the Revels office occurred, as this document shows, at least four years earlier than hitherto supposed. See, for example, Peter Cunningham, Ex- tracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court, &c. {Shakespeare Society Publications, 1843), xlyiii, where is made the statement, hith- erto universally accepted by schol- ars, that St. John's was granted to Aubigny and the office of the Rev- els removed to St. Peter's Hill in 1611. On the contrary, the office was removed first to Whitefriars, as above, in or before 1607, and to St. Peter's Hill later. See further under The Children of the King's Revels at Whitefriars in my forth- coming work on the drama and stage of Shakespeare's time, vol. I; also, the above document in extenso, vol. III. ^In May, 1900, while tearmg down an old building on the north side of Ireland Yard,— No. 7, be- tween Friar street and St. Anne's Churchyard, — and excavating for a new structure, workmen brought to light a fine old specimen of Nor- man architecture in the form of walls and arches, 16 feet high, ca. 27 feet wide, and 40 feet long. See description and colored plate from a painting of the ruins by Philip Norman, London Vanished and Vanishing (1905), 115-18, with fur- ther reference to an earlier article by the same author in the London Topographical Society's Annual Record (1901). It has been thought that these ruins, now demolished, were a part of the old Blackfriars conventual church. But taking the known di- mensions of the cemetery 90 x 200 feet, the church 66 x 220 feet, and the cloisters 110 x 110 feet, a total of 266 feet north and south by 220 feet east and west, and measuring down from Carter Lane on any scale map, it seems almost beyond doubt that the ruins occupied the site of one side of the ancient clois- ters. The nature of the architecture and the width of the ruin, 27 feet, divided into two equal aisles by a row of four marble pillars support- ing the stone vaulting of the roof, suggests farther that this is a ruin of the ancient Blackfriars cloister, just south of which stood the theatre. ''See further John Stowe, op. cit. (1603), 341-43; id. (ed. 1633), 374&-375(l. 'Of course there were others also interested to the same end. See, for example, documents in Stowe, op. cit. (ed. 1633), 377&. 24 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS About 1581 Stephen Gossen gives us to understand that a great many comedies were being acted at Blackfriars.^ In 1584 Lyly's Ca/mpaspe and his Sapho and Phao were published. Each con- tains two prologues, — "The prologue at Blackfriars," and "The prologue at Court." There is no known documentary declaration as to what company or companies played at Blackfriars then. But the two plays named were, as their title-pages show,^ pre- sented conjointly by the Paul's Boys and the Children of the Chapel. It is then likely that under their respective Masters the same joint presentation of at least these two plays and possibly others was made at Blackfriars. There are no further evidences that the house in question was used as a theatre prior to its purchase and remodeling by James Burbage, 1596-97.^ At some undetermined time between the above use and the purchase by James Burbage Feb. 4, 159 5- [6], the large hall of the second floor was divided into rooms,* and the entire building was converted into apartments for residence and lodging. '' The site of Blackfriars theatre is well known mainly to the- atrical histories. In busy modern London, it is in fact quietly secluded in a tract that corresponds roughly to the ancient pos- sessions of the monastery and that is bounded by two of the busiest streets of London on the north and west, near the lines of the ancient wall. If you are at St. Paul's, and wish to reach the site of the Blackfriars theatre, go southwestward five minutes ^"But in Playes either those "Sapho and Phao, played beefore thinges are found that never were, the Queene's Maiestie on Shrove- as Cupid and Psyche plaid at tewsday by her Maiesties Children, Paules; and a great many Coedies and the Boyes of Paules. Im- more at y° Blacke friers, and in printed at London by Thomas Cad- euery Playe house in London." — man, 1584." Stephen Gosson, Plays Confuted in 'For notice of the Collier for- Five Actions (ca. 1581), reprinted geries and the consequent errors in The English Drama and Stage still followed by literary historians, (ed. Hazlitt, Roxburghe Library, see Historical Preface in forthcom- 1869), 188. ing complete work. ^"A most excellent Comedie of *" . . . all those seaven greate Alexander, Campaspe, and Diog- upper romes as they are now de- enes, played beefore the Queene's vided, beinge all uppon one flower Maiestie on twelfe day at night by and sometyme beinge one greate her Maiesties Children, and the and entire rome." — Deed to James Children of Paules. Imprinted at Burbage, Feb. 4, 1595-I96], in Hal- London, for Thomas Cadman, liwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 299. 1584." [First edition.] "See deed, u. s. BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 25 through narrow, crooked lanes or little streets or foot-ways down the hill to the elevated railway, thence alongside of it down Water Lane southward to Playhouse Yard. Or if you are at Ludgate circus at the foot of Fleet street, cross New Bridge street diag- onally to the right. Then at the right of the railway station go up Union street, one street south of the line of the old north wall of the Friars, up to Water Lane, thence southward as before. But unless your admiration for things ancient in city construc- tion and for unfrequented aimless little crevasselike streets is strong, you may hesitate to venture alone the whole of either of these shorter general routes. You may, however, take a more frequented way. Suppose you come down Fleet street. When at the bottom you reach Ludgate circus, turn to the right down New Bridge street. Then just be- fore reaching Blackfriars Bridge on the Thames, turn left into Queen Victoria street. A few steps take you to Water Lane, along which runs the elevated Southeastern and Chatham Rail- way. Go north on Water Lane up the hill seventy-five paces, and you reach at your right "Playhouse Yard," — the name given to the little passage in memory of Blackfriars theatre. This is not a "yard" or a court, but a narrow, irregular way used by foot-passengers. With a width varying to 30 feet, it runs east 90 feet butt against a building which occupies probably the site of the old Pipe Office, adjoining the entrance to the "Publishing Office" of The Times, — approximately the place of the north entrance to the Blackfriars theatre. Here the passage jogs left into a wide unsanitary corner pocket, then narrows off in its original direction to about 12 feet for a distance of 90 feet far- ther, where it again jogs off left and becomes Glasshouse Yard, — so named from the glass-factory that used to stand here near the theatre.^ It is an observation made by foreign visitors to Lon- don and confirmed by maps since the begirming of its history, that a given street undergoes a change of name for every im- ^"Like the Glass-house Furnace dwelling adjoining Blackfriars the- in Blacke-friers, the bonefires that atre, given by Sir George Moore are kept there [in Hell], neuer goe to Cuthbert and Richard Burbage out." — Thos. Dekker, Newes from 36 June, 1601, a passage or way Hell (1606), Non-dramatic Works from it is mentioned, "which lead- (ed. Grosart, Huth Library), II, 97. eth towards the glassehouse nowe In the deed of a messuage or in the tenure of Sir Jerom Bowes, 26 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS portant place it passes. So in the present case, this passage in turn, a few steps farther on, is continued as Ireland Yard, which probably was the north boundary of the residence property Shake- speare purchased here in 1613,^ and takes its name apparently from William Ireland who then occupied the house.^ Within the fifty years next succeeding Sir Thomas Cawarden's acquisition of the precinct, the immediate environs of the Black- friars theatre site had become one of the most aristocratic resi- dence districts of London. Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, Queen Elizabeth's Chamberlain of the Household, had his mansion here. His son. Sir George Carey, who upon the death of Sir Henry succeeded to the title of Lord Hunsdon and in the following year, 1597, became also Lord Chamberlain,^ had his residence adjoin- ing the south wall of the theatre. The gate to his mansion ad- joined the south entrance to the theatre, and both opened out of the same passage-way.* Sir William More of Loseley owned a house on Playhouse Yard (then called Pipe-Office Yard), almost opposite the north entrance to the theatre. It was occupied by Lord Cobham,^ who during a part of the first year of the the- atre's history was Lord Chamberlain. Elizabeth Dowager Lady Russell resided near. Queen Elizabeth was frequently enter- tained in the neighborhood at noble marriages, great dinners, elaborate masques, &c., particularly at Lord Cobham's and Lord Hunsdon's ; and at least once, possibly oftener, at a play in Black- friars theatre.* knight, on the north parte." — His- Lord Chamberlain in the interval torical MSS. Com., op. cit. (1879), until his death, i. e., from Sunday, 659. August 8, 1596, to March 5, 1597.— 'See article in connection with See original entries of the Clerk in the three newly discovered Chan- Registers of the Privy Council, pre- cery documents involving Shake- served at Whitehall, London, ad speare as plaintiff in 1615 concern- loc, or the same in Acts of the ing his Blackfriars house, published Privy Council (ed. J. R. Dasent), in extenso by me in The Standard XXV, 4; XXVH, 50; XXVI, 98. (daily), London, Wed., Oct. 18, Cf. also Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., 1905, p. 5, col. 1-3. I, 366c, and F. G. Fleay, A Chron- ^Cf. also J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, icle History of the London Stage Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (1890), 134. (9th ed. 1890), II, 246. *Deed to James Burbage, 1596, 'Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, in Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, died July 33, 1596. His son George 300a. was appointed to the office of Lord 'Ibid., I, 301o. Chamberlain Sunday, April 17, 1597. 'Cf. infra, 95-97. William Brooke, Lord Cobham, was BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 27 According to the Petition of the inhabitants of Blackfriars precincts in 1596,^ there were others of the nobility and gentry in the neighborhood. The deed of a dwelling-house and grounds by Henry Walker to William: Shakespeare in 161 3=* shows that formerly John Fortescue^ had lived in that house, and at present Henry, Earl of Northumberland, occupied adjoining property. The prominent families of the Blackwells and the Bacons also resided near. The Chancery docum.ents concerning Shakespeare and others in 1615, which I recently discovered in the Public Record Office,* give the names of others, — ^particularly Sir Thomas Bendish, Robert Dormer, Edward Newport, and addi- tional members of the Black^vell and Bacon families. In various other unpublished documents in the Public Record Office I have met with the names of additional more or less prominent mem- bers of the nobilitj- and gentry of the time in connection with property transactions in the Blackfriars. Documents published by Stowe^ give some of the earliest names, in Henry VIH, as Sir John Portenary, Lord Cobham, Lord Zanche, Sir Thomas Qieney, Sir William Kingston, Sir Francis Brian. But certain unpub- lished documents which I have come upon in the Guildhall ar- chives" indicate that the most of the Blackfriars inhabitants were not of the wealthy class. The same impression is given by sev- eral allusions to working people in documents published by Stowe,^ as also by the mention of the feather-makers, Puritans, &c., of Blackfriars in contemporary dramas. From all evidences I conclude that the aristocratic part was on the higher slope of the hill, limited practically to the district occupied formerly by ^Cf. supra, 17'- duced facsimiles of two of the doc- 'See deed and mortgage in Hal- uments (Bill and Answer) in New liwell-Phillips, op. cit., II, 31-36. Shakespeariana, April, 1906, front- 'Sir John? _ ispieces; originals in Public Record 'See the three documents in ex- Office, London, under Chancery tenso with introductory article pub- Proceedings, Bills and Answers, lished by me in The Standard James I, Bundle B 11, No. 9 ; and (daily), London, Oct. 18, 1905, p. 5; Court of Chancery, Decrees and Or- lype-facsimiles of them with sep- ders, vol. 1614"A," p. 1074. arate article in University of Ne- 'John Stowe, op. cit. (ed. 1633), braska Studies, October, 1905, 347- 377&. 56; type-facsimiles with brief article 'E. g.. Letter Book Z, fol. 23-28. in Englische Studien (ed. Johannes ^John Stowe, op. cit. (ed. 1633), Hoops, Heidelberg) 1905-6, 375ff. XXXVI, 56-63; photo-engraved re- 28 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS the cloisters, the pretentious Priory buildings, and the spacious old conventual church. In the midst of this aristocratic district stood the Blackfriars theatre. It was a much more pretentious structure than usually supposed. The fact that James Burbage in 1596 paid 600/. for the house, — about 4800/. in present values on a conservative basis,'^ — indicates it was of considerable size. Compare this price with the value of the best known property in the district, Shake- speare's house. This v/as a dwelling of at least two stories, with several rooms, and cost only 140 1, at the time of its purchase by the poet in 161 3. The natural inference follows that the Priory House purchased by Burbage and converted by him into the Blackfriars theatre must have been four to five times as large. This inference is borne out by the available data of certain pub- lished and unpublished^ documents. At the time of purchase by Burbage the building contained several flats and lodgings. When remodeled into the theatre, it contained one great hall with gal- leries and a stage, and several smaller rooms adjacent and above for specific uses. A further notion of the pretentiousness of the Blackfriars structure is given by a comparison of total costs of contemporary theatres. "The Theatre," built by James Burbage in 1576, approximated 600 /.; and when in 1598-99^ it was torn down. Gyles Allen, lessor 'It is impossible to state relative On comparative values, see fur- values exactly. A comparison of ther Sidney Lee, Life of Shake- prices then and now shows building speare (4th ed. 1899) 187', where materials about one-tenth to one- also one-eighth is taken as the basis, fifteenth as dear as today, with labor But J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., and most necessities of life approx- I, 21, says, "In balancing Shake- imately of the same relative cheap- spearean and present currencies, the ness. As to real estate, values of former may be roughly estimated not only this same property (now from a twelfth to a twentieth of the owned by The Times) but of prop- latter in money, and from a twen- erty throughout London have so in- tieth to a thirtieth in landed or creased that a comparison on that house property." basis would make the price paid by ^See infra, 36', 39'. Burbape seem fabulous. The esti- 'The process of demolition began mate I have here allowed of one- Dec. 28, 1598, and seems to have eighth is probably too conservative, been completed in January, 1599. but even on that basis shows the See extracts from suits at law in property highly valuable. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 360-61. BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 29 of the land on which it had stood, wishing in a suit at law to secure damages, placed upon it the high value of 700 1} The cost of the Globe, constructed in 1599 partly from the old materials of the tora-down "Theatre," cannot have reached near 600^.^ The Fortune, erected the next year (1600) on the general plan of the Globe, was contractea for, to be built wholly out of new materials, at 440 1.^ But the building when completed exceeded the contract-price, amounting to 520 /.* The lease of the grounds cost 240/. Hence the total cost of the Fortune theatre and grounds wjis 760 /.° ^See data from suits in Halli- well-Phillips, op. cit., I, 371c. 'Cf. infra, 29*. 'See contract of Henslowe and Alleyn, owners, with Peter Street, carpenter. Original in Dulwich College Library, in the suburbs of London. Printed in E. Malone, Shakespeare Variorum (ed. Bos- well, 1831), III, 338-43; J. O. Hal- liwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 304-6; G. P. Baker, The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist (1907), 315-20 (from Malone, u. s.). * Peter Street was the builder of both the Globe (u. s.) and the For- tune. His contract of 440 /. to build the Fortune after the general plan of the Globe is based upon his ex- perience in erecting the Globe. That amount rather than the 520 1., then, gives his approximate estimate of the cost of the Globe if it had been built not of old, but wholly of new material. Upon this basis the Globe, built partly of materials from "The Theatre," cannot have cost so much as 440 1, in actual cash outlay in 1599. 'Data from Edward AUeyn's memorandum of "What the Fortune cost me Novemb., 1599," printed from the original MS. at Dulwich College in The Alleyn Papers (ed. J. P. Collier, Shakes. Soc. Pub. 1843), xiv. Also in J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry (1879'), III, 119. [But there is an error by some one. The contract for the Fortune (m. s., 39") is dated "the eighte dale of Januarye, 1599- [1600], and in the twoe and fortyth yeare of the reigne of our sov- ereigne ladie Elizabeth." At this period the calendar year ended March 34. Has Alleyn in his Pock- et-book note above, "Novemb., 1599," forgot to change the year after passing March 24? It should of course be "1600." For similar errors, see Henslowe's Diary (ed. Collier, ^. 6". Pub., 1845), S9, 47, 99, 103, et passim]. Sometimes the cost of the For- tune is stated as 880/. But that includes private buildings that Al- leyn placed on the same grounds. Sometimes the amount is given as 1320 /. But that includes not only these private buildings, but addi- tional houses and leases in Golding Lane purchased by Alleyn, the ex- pense of all being itemized and summed up in the same account (m. s.). Collier (Memoirs of Ed- ward Alleyn, S. S. Pub. 1841, 59), upon reconsideration after the first edition of his History (1831), de- cides that the 530 /. was only Al- leyn's half of the expense. But his assumption that Henslowe paid an equal amount is gratuitous and is supported by no document. On the contrary all the known data accord with 760 I. as the total cost of the Fortune theatre and lease of grounds. 30 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The cost of the Curtain and "the Httle Rose"^ is unknown, but cannot have equaled that of the Fortune or the Globe. The outlay for the Bear Garden and especially for the Swan can be approximated through our knowledge of the Hope. In 1613, the Bear Garden was torn down and the Hope built in its place on the model of the Swan in every detail." The old mate- rials of the Bear Garden and of another old house were to be used in building the Hope/ and an adjoining two-story "bull house or stable" large enough to accommodate six bulls and three horses. Besides this old lumber, the cost in cash for labor and new materials was agreed upon as 360 /. It is liberal in any case to estimate the materials at half the total cost of the finished structure. But in this case the 360 /. includes part of the mate- rials, — all the new. It includes also the labor on the "bull house or stable." It would on this basis seem generous to estimate the cost of the Hope theatre exclusive of grounds at 500/. In no respect does it seem to have equaled the Fortune building, which cost 520 /. The Bear Garden, then, at the time of pulling down, and most likely at first cost, was worth less than the new building of the Hope that displaced it. As to the Swan, it is fair to conclude that that theatre was not more pretentious in form nor worth than the Hope, for which it served as model. But according to a contemporary Dutch priest of St. Mary's, Utrecht, Johannes De Witt, who stands absolutely alone in his testimony, the Swan was a magnificent theatre, "con- structum ex coaceruato lapide pyrritide,"* and large enough to 'The Rose may have been worth ing the Hope. Printed in E. Ma- more than half as much as the lone, Shakespeare Variorum (ed. Blackfriars. The rental value Boswell, 1821), HI, 343-47; re- placed upon the Rose in 1603 by a printed therefrom in G. P. Baker, prospective tenant was 20 /., just The Development of Shakespeare as half the yearly rent of the Black- a Dramatist (1907), 320-25. friars. But Henslowe thought his "The Hope was used for bull- "little Rose"' worth more than 20 1., baiting and bear-baiting two days and declared he would pull it down in the week, and for plays four rather than accept that amount. — days. Cf. contract u. s.; also cf. Cf. Henslowe's Diary (ed. Collier, infra, 33°. S. S. Pub., 1845), 235-36. "Translated as "flint," "flint ^See contract by Henslowe and stone," "concrete of flint stone," &c. Meade with Gilbert Katherens, car- But the translation or the meaning penter, 29 August, 1613, for build- makes little difference, since the BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 81 accommodate three thousand spectators.^ Also the painted pil- lars were to him so good an imitation of marble as to deceive the sharpest eye.^ All this would argue great cost in building. But De Witt's statements are unfortunate in not being wholly true. The Swan was built of wood," and was later (1613) duplicated in every particular by the Hope, the contract for which has come down to us.* The inner walls were plastered. The outer walls too were plastered or roughly stuccoed or "cemented" but not in such man- ner as to leave the heavy cross-timbers of the framework artis- tically exposed,^ as has been surmised;' The plaster or cement statement is not true. The Swan was built of wood. See infra, 31'- 31*. ^Cf. infra, 50'. ^For De Witt's full description and a very free-hand sketch of the Swan therefrom by Van Buchell, generously reproduced in most of the later works on the English drama and stage, see Dr. K. Th. Gaedertz, Zur Kenntnis der Alt- englischen Biihne (1888), where De Witt's Latin document and the Swan sketch, both done from pleas- ing recollection, were first pub- lished. Original MS. and drawing in the Utrecht library, where Dr. Gaedertz discovered them. "Paul Hentzner, a German so- journer in England in 1598, not more than two years after De Witt's visit, declares in his ex- haustively minute and generally veritable observations on London that the [public] theatres of that period were "all built of wood." The contract for the Hope, modeled on the Swan, specified wood for the entire frame-work, and indicates plaster for finishing. Cf. infra, 32\ * See contract, u. s., 30^ So nearly is the Hope to be like the Swan that Henslowe and Meade have not felt it necessary to make specifications in detail, even of the size. Gilbert Katherens, the carpenter, is to find out all such details from the Swan, — "And to builde the same of suche large compasse, forme, wideness, and height, as the plaie house called the Swan in the libertie of Paris Garden in the saide parishe of St. Saviours now is." Furthermore, "And the saide playe house or game place to be made in all thinges and in suche forme and fashion as the said playhouse called the Swan." °A style of construction still pre- served in occasional old buildings of London, as inns, — e. g., in Hol- born street, — in Stratford-on-Avon, Shrewsbury, Chester, and most other old towns of England. Also seen in especially good examples in ancient bauer or peasant houses and inns of southern Germany. A style imitated on more conventional lines quite widely this present year in American residence buildings in outward effect, but not in real con- struction. Although numerous buildings contemporary with the early theatre show in the engrav- ings this style of architecture, none of the many pictures of early the- atres do. For a convenient collec- tion showing both, see Sir Walter Besant, London in the Time of the Tudors (1904), passim, or Halli- well-Phillips, op. cit., passim. For later views, cf. Philip Norman, London Vanished and Vanishing (1905. Illus. with 75 colored plates from paintings by the author). °So at least I understand Prof. G. P. Baker, op. cit., 73, in the ex- pression "a cross-timbered con- struction." CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS covered the entire exterior,^ and was probably marked off so as to give the appearance of stone blocks,^ or otherwise ornamented. Also the pillars "tippon and over the stage" of the Hope, like those of the Swan, were simply "turned cullumes [columns],"' a very plain adornment at best, while the posts supporting the balconies were made of square dimension stuff measuring from ten by ten in the lower story to six by six in the upper. And ^The Fortune was plastered thus outside, as shown by the contract for its construction (m. s., 29') thus : "Ajid alsoe all the saide frame and the [outside] stearcases thereof to be sufficyently enclosed without with lathe, lyme, and haire." The Globe as the specified model of the For- tune must then have been built in the same manner. The general specifications in the Hope contract (m. s., 31*) calling for the use of "lyme lears [= hears], sand, brickes, tyles, laths, nayles," &c., the whole building "to be made in suche forme and fashion as the said playhouse called the Swan," indicate the same style of plaster exterior for both as for the Fortune and Globe. Cor- roborative of this evidence is the engraving of the Hope ("Bear Gar- den") in R. Wilkinson, Londina II- lustrata (1819), I, pt. ii (no pag.), which shows a plaster exterior marked off into large stone-shaped blocks. Although Visscher's view of 1616 was used as a basis for this engraving, it is fair to presurne the engraver had more tangible evidence than mere imagination upon which to represent such an exterior. Par- ticularly so since it is not contra- dictory but corroborative of the other evidences, and is itself cor- roborated by common custom of the times represented. From the amount of lime, sand, lath, lath-nails, &c. used by Hens- lowe "a bowte my play howsse" (probably the Rose) in 1592, this theatre also had a similar exterior. (See items in Henslowe's Diary, ed. Collier, 5. S. Pub., 1845, 10-15.) In all these known cases of the Fortune (and Globe), the Hope (and Swan), as also in case of the addition to the Bear Garden in 1606 {cf. contract in Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, ed. Collier, 5. 5". Pub., 1841, 78-81), the heavy-timbered "frame" is mentioned and emphasized as the main thing in the structure. The plastering over heavy laths or "slates" was of course regarded as part of the "finishing." There seems little room for doubt that the same sort of heavy- timbered "frame" and plaster ex- terior characterized the Globe, the Fortune, the Bear Garden, the Swan, the Hope, and the Rose, and probably all other public theatres prior to the building of the new Globe and Fortune. {_Cf. infra, 34'.) There was good reason why all the Elizabethan and early Jacobean public theatres should avail them- selves of this same general plan of unpretentious and comparatively in- expensive efficiency. In this they were using the mode of building that was most in vogue for common houses, inns, and other structures not intended for the centuries, — a mode, so far as the plaster exterior is concerned, still used widely in southern Europe and parts of Amer- ica, though not always for cheap- ness. The theatre was more or less an uncertain business enterprise, usually located on temporarily leased grounds, and did not war- rant the anticipations of the future in either the expense or permanence that the use of brick or stone, — much less of flint stone, — would carry with it. "See the Wilkinson engraving of the Hope (Bear Garden), u. s., 32'. ^Cf. contract for Hope, u. s., 30'. BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 83 neither the Swan nor the Hope could on an architect's estimate accommodate more than one-third the number De Witt guessed.^ The removable stage of each rested on "tressels"^ and could be taken up for bull-baiting or bear-baiting, and put down again for play-acting,^ — an impermanency and practice that further sug- gests less of fixed excellence in structure and adornment than De Witt gave compliment to.* There is no evidence of a pretentiousness of either the Swan or the Hope, built and used thus alike, that warrants a more gen- erous valuation than the liberal 500 I. as already calculated, or a larger estimate of their capacity than that of the Fortune or the Globe. Rather do these estimates of value and size seem too large than too small. In the same year the Hope was built, the original Globe was 'On comparative capacities, see infra, 50\ 'Cf. Hope contract, u. s., 30'. The De Witt- Van Buchell sketch of the Swan, which is merely suggest- ive, — in the main rightly but some- times wrongly suggestive,— and in no detail exact nor intended to be exact, shows a temporary prosce- nium; — which however most prob- ably extended much farther back than there shown, with the posts also moved far rearwards, leaving the "heavens" unsupported and pro- jecting forward over the temporary stage, as specified in the Hope con- tract. '"The Hope on the Banks side in Southwarke, commonly called the Beare Garden, A Play house for Stage Playes on Mundayes, Wed- ensdayes, Fridayes and Saterdayes, And for the Baiting of the Beares On Tuesdayes and Thursdayes, the Stage being made to take vp and downe when they please."— JW^. notes in a copy of Stowe's Annates or Chronicle (continued by E. Howes), 1631, in the Phillips col- lection, Thirlestone House, Chelten- ham; reported by Dr. F. J. Furni- vall, "The End of Shaksperes Playhouses," in The Academy (1882), XXII, 314-15. *When one considers De Witt's description and sketch of the Swan, one is divided between gratitude for certain data and the suggestive il- lumination of our knowledge on the one hand, and admiration on the other for the exhilarating quality of dramatic ale that made the dis- tinguished Dutch scholar and priest see the rather plain, moderate-sized plastered wooden bear-baiting and bull-baiting playhouse with gener- ous vision, even in pleasing retro- spect. Ben Jonson in closing The In- duction to his Bartholomew Pair, under date 30 Oct., 1614, the first play ever presented at the Hope, damned that bull-baiting theatre as not merely unaesthetic, • but as "be- ing as durty as Smithfield, and as f linking euery whit." [The slush and filth of the cattle-market of the Bartholomew fair, held every Au- gust at Smithfield, was proverbial.] With the breath of this judgment blown suggestively across from the Hope to its model in structure and use, the Swan, it would seem that De Witt at a distance with his Latin prose was more poet than Jonson present with his English verse. 84 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS burned down^ and the new Globe erected" by the shareholders* in its place at a cost of 1400/.* Although begun in 1613 it was not completed until the spring of 1614,° nearly a year after the fire." The reason for the extraordinary expense and the longer time required for construction was that the building was erected much more substantially'' and fitted out in a manner superior to all * Burned 29 June, 1613. For de- tails, see a letter from John Cham- berlain, 8 July, 1613, in Malone, op. cit., 69; Sir Henry Wotton, Rel- iquae Wottoniae (1685), 425; John Stowe (continued by E. Howes), Annales or a General Chronicle (1631), 1004; "A Sonnet on the pit- iful Burning of the Globe Playhouse in London," in J. P. Collier, His- tory of English Dramatic Poetry and the Stage (1831), I, 387; printed also from another MS. in Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 310-11. The least known but one of the most nearly contemporary of these accounts is a letter from Rev. Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering the next day after the fire, 30 June, 1613, in [Thomas Birch], The Court and Times of James I (1848), I, 253. 'For the statement in an early record, but on an unknown basis, that the Globe was "now built vp again in the yeare 1613 at the great charge of King lames, and many Noble men and others," see The Academy, loc. cit. 'For a list of the shareholders and their shares at this time, — and from the beginning of the Globe, — see the long and valuable documents on Shakespeare, and the Globe and Blackfriars theatres, which I dis- covered some time ago and shall as soon as possible make known in a separate publication. *See Answer of John Shanks in the Globe-Blackfriars Share-papers of 1635, in Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 3160. "" . . . And the next spring ri614] it was builded in farre fairer maner then before." — John Stowe (continued by E. Howes), Annales or a General Chronicle (1631), 1004. The MS. notes in the copy of this edition at Thirlestone House (m. s., 33°) declare that the Globe was burnt down in 1612 and rebuilt in 1613. But those notes are inaccu- rate in dates and data, and can be accepted only when confirmatory of other evidence. "It had but recently been opened when Chamberlain wrote Mrs. Carleton («. i., 35'), just a year and a day after the fire. 'The new Globe required nearly two to four times as long in con- struction as any former public the- atre, — the Fortune contract (m. s., 29') calling for six and one-half months and the Hope three months. It cost nearly three times as much as any of them. These items indi- cate a better sort of material or bet- ter workmanship or both. The Fortune theatre, the sharp rival of the Globe, was, after the 1621 fire, rebuilt with a brick veneer {cf. The Academy, u. s., "And built againe with brick worke on the out- side in y' yeare 1622"), possibly in continuation of the long emulation. An official return, 1684 (W. Rendle, New Shak. Soc. Pub., 1878, App. I, xvii), declares "The Globe playhouse nere Maide lane built by the Company of Players with, tim- ber about 20 yeares past uppon an old foundacion." This seems to preclude any notion of brick-work in the Globe above the foundation. But Wilkinson, who published, 1819 (op. cit.), the famous view of the plastered brick-veneered facade of the second Fortune (Shepherd del., 1811, Wise sculp.), then still stand- ing, engraved also in the same work, from Visscher, a view of the new Globe, showing brick-work in the key-stone arches over the win- BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 85 former public theatres.^ The managers seem to have taken some- what into account the demands of the better class of society that in late Elizabeth had abandoned the public theatres and followed after royalty in the enjoyment of superior accommodations and aristocratic exclusiveness at the Blackfriars.^ The Blackfriars Priory House cost Burbage at purchase 600 1. The extensive remodeling^ necessary to convert the building into a theatre cannot, upon conservative estimates, have cost less than 200 L, and most likely exceeded that amount. The completed Blackfriars, then, had in 1597 a cash value of at least 800 /. Upon all known evidences, some of which have been adduced in this comparative view of the theatres, the Blackfriars, then, at a value of 800/., was the most expensive theatre building ever established in London prior to the new Globe in 1614. Still a further comparison is serviceable. Since the publication of Wright's Historia Histrionica* all pri- vate theatres have been generally classed together under the word "small," giving rise to absurdly false notions. The Blackfriars was large enough for the Burbage-Shakespeare company to take it for their own use after the termination of the Children of the Queen's Revels there in 1608.° Here they were able to assemble such audiences as to enable the company to get more by 1000 /. for their Blackfriars performances in a single winter than they were used to get at the Globe.® This was due mainly of course dows, like those of the upper win- speech of this new playhouse, which dows of the Fortune fagade. is said to be the fairest that ever An original drawing of the Globe was in England." — John Chamber- in the Grace collection (Brit. Mus., lain, Esq., to Mrs. Alice Garleton, Pennant's London) the antiquity of 30 June, 1614, in [Thomas Birch], which is forged, likewise shows the The Court and Times of fames I arches of brick. On the whole it (1848), I, 329. Cf. also supra, 34'. seems questionable but not unlikely 'Cf. infra, 51, 95-97, 105ff., 126- that the timber framework was 29, 148-62, 173ff. brick-veneered and plastered over, 'Cf. infra, 39-43. after the old and still present cus- *James Wright, infra, 36', 43". torn, as in the case of the Fortune. °See under "Children of the "T have not seen your sister Queen's Revels at Blackfriars" in Williams since I came to town, forthcoming work, vol. I. though I have been there twice. ""This replyant [Kirkham] sayth, The first time she was at a neigh- and the same will averr and proue bor's house at cards, and the next to this honorable Courte, that dur- she was gone to the New Globe, inge such time as the said defend- to a play. Indeed, I hear much ants Hemings and Burbidge and 36 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS not to greater size of auditorium, but to superior accommodations and higher prices in entertaining a more select and exclusive set of patrons. The Blackfriars as we shall see was not so large as the Globe, though of greater size than seems generally believed. It was the standard for Whitefriars (ca. 1604),^ and the model in form and size for the Cockpit (ca. — ?; rebuilt as Phoenix, 1617), and for Salisbury Court theatre (1629).^ The above comparisons give us general conceptions. Materials at hand enable us to determine with some definiteness the size of the Blackfriars building and essential features of its exterior at the date of purchase, as also the interior arrangement of rooms, the extent of alterations made by the Burbages, the exact square dimensions of the "Great Hall" used as the theatrical auditorium, the location of the stage, and the general features of arrangement of both auditorium and stage. The evidences are in the Deed to Burbage,^ the numerous suits at law by Henry Evans, Edward Kirkham, and their associates against each other,* Clifton's com- plaint in the Court of Star Chamber against Evans et al.,^ docu- ments concerning Salisbury Court theatre," and contemporary plays. theire Companye contynewed playes "Printed in Halliwell-Phillips, op. and Interludes in the said great cit., I, 299-301. Hall in the flfryers, that they gott ^ These suits take rank among the & as yet dothe, more in one Winter chief records of the Elizabethan- in the said great Hall by a thou- Jacobean stage. Two of them, con- sand powndes then they were vsed taining eleven documents, were dis- to gett in the Banckside." — Kirk- covered by the late Mr. James ham's Replication in Kirkham vs. Greenstreet, and printed in extenso Evans et al., Court of Chancery, in F. G. Fleay, op. cit., 310-51. 1612, Public Record Office. Printed [Later references, "G-F."] from the transcript of James Green- Twelve additional suits — contain- street, the discoverer, in F, G. Fleay, ing bills, pleas, answers, replica- A Chronicle History of the London tions, depositions, bonds, and articles Stage (1890), 248. of agreement — belong among the '- See "Children of the King's treasures of my own researches, and Revels at Whitefriars," in forth- will appear in extenso in my forth- coming work, vol. I. coming work, vol. III. Occasional ^"They [Blackfriars, Cockpit, quotations are made from them in and Salisbury Court] were all three the present work, built almost exactly alike for form "Greenstreet's transcript in Fleay, and bigness." — James Wright, His- op. cit., 127-32. [Referred to here- toria Histrionica (1699), in Haz- after as "G.-F."] litt's Dodsley, Old Plays (1876), "Published by Peter Cunningham XV, 408. [But Wright is not quite in The Shakespeare Society's Papers exact here. See infra, 39']. (1849), IV, 91-108. BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 8T The Blackfriars building was a stone^ structure erected in two sections. The north section adjoining the Pipe Office, — a gov- ernment repository where great drainpipe-like rolls of state parch- ments were kept, — was three stories high, with garret above these and cellars or vaults beneath.^ The tiled roof was steep,^ with gable-end facing north on Pipe-Office Yard* (now Playhouse Yard), and dormer windows in the third story.^ In the west half of this section there were two rooms on the second floor" and two on the first immediately below. ^ These four rooms were balanced on the east by an entry hall and a great winding stone stair-way.* The main entrance of the building was out of Pipe-Office Yard and led by the great winding stair and hall to all the rooms of this north section, as also on the second floor by a passage through the dividing stone wall to that part of the south section described as the "seaven greate upper romes . . . sometyme beinge one greate and entire rome."' The south section is of chief literary-historical interest because of its having been made into the "Great Hall" of Blackfriars the- atre. At the date of purchase this section was two stories high^* with "cellar" or basement rooms besides. ^^ The flat roof was cov- ered with lead,^^ up to which from the "seaven greate upper romes" ran a stone stair-way.^' The lower floor of this section, '^Cf. Deed to Burbage in Halli- Johnson. They had a separate en- well-Phillips, op. cit., I, 399-300, trance.— /(/em, 300, 38-43. passim. 'Idem, 299, 31-23, 31-33; 300, 30- ^Ibid. The parts describing the 31, 34-25. north section are 299, 21-35; 300, 'Idem, 399, 31-23; 300, 20-31, 26- 17-36, 38-53. 28, 28-31, 34-36. 'See Deed, u. s., description of ^"Idem, 299, 14-31; 399, 35—300, the two rooms in third story occu- 17; 300, 36-38. pied by Edward Merry (300, 21-31) "Wem, 300, 11-17. and of the garret above (300, 31- ''Idem, 399, 16-19. Steep roofs 36). were covered with tile, and flat roofs 'Idem, 399, 33, 33; 300, 41-46. with lead. During a recent delight- 'The location of the rooms occu- ful itinerary of Hampton Court Pal- pied by Edward Merry (id., 300, ace by members and friends of the 21-28) would seem to require this London Shakespeare League con- sort of structure so common to the ducted by Mr. Ernest Law, I was times. impressed with the appearance of a 'These were occupied by Charles similar flat lead-covered roof of a Bradshaw. They had an entrance contemporary part of the structure from the main stairway, and also that we crossed in passing from an outside stairway. — Idem, 300, 17- "the Great Hall" to another portion 21, 50-53. of that Shakespeare-haunted palace. 'These were occupied by Peter "Idem, 299, 17-18. 38 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS immediately under the "seaven greate upper romes," was divided into lodgings and apartments.^ The rooms occupied by Thomas Bruskett, called "Midle Romes or Midle Stories,"^ comprised an area 52 feet by 37 feet and extended southward to the mansion of Sir George Carey.^ Two other rooms in the north end of this sec- tion were occupied by Peter Johnson, and were connected with the two rooms he had on the same floor in the north section.* The Deed to Burbage locates Bruskett's apartments as being under the west part of the "seaven greate upper romes,"° but omits to mention what was under the east part. But from the size of the auditorium made by Burbage,' it is likely there was at date of purchase a passageway 9 feet wide in the undescribed location. The entrance to the lower floor of this section was on the south and adjoined the gate to Sir George Carey's mansion, both open- ing out of the same passageway or lane.^ As this south section alone was converted into the theatre-audi- torium, its size is of interest. The supposition is general that both auditorium and stage were small. The comparative view already given and the definite data now at hand show this is not quite a correct view. The dimensions of 52 x 37 feet, specifically stated in the deed as the measure of only those apartments of the lower floor occu- pied by Thomas Bruskett,' have been assumed to be the size of the entire theatre.' But in fact the auditorium alone was more than one and one-half and the entire building possibly more than two and one-half times that size. ^Part of these were occupied by The two rooms at the north end Thomas Bruskett (idem, 299, 35 — occupied by Johnson on the same 300, 11), and the others by Peter floor with Bruskett are called Johnson {idem, 300, 36-38). "lower rooms," doubtless because 'The designation "middle rooms" there the basement rooms are not or "middle story" was regularly mainly above ground, used to mean the second one of 'Deed, u. s., 299, 38 — 300, 11. three stories. [For convenient ex- *Idem, 300, 36-41. ample, see contract for Hope the- '"lyeing and beinge directlye un- atre, u. s., 30^ where the second der parte of those of the sayd seaven of the three galleries is called "the upper romes which lye westwardes." midall storie."] In the present case — Idem, 300, 1-3. these rooms are called "middle" be- 'Cf. infra, 39'. cause the basement rooms, on ac- ''Deed, u. s., 300, 6-11. count of the rapid southward slope "Cf. supra, 38\ of the grounds, constitute the first 'See for example, C. I. Elton, story. Hence they are described in Shakespeare's Family and Friends the deed as "adjoining" the gardens. (1904), 458. BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 89 In certain documents which I have recently found, the exact size of the "Great Hall" or auditorium is stated as 66 x 46 feet, with the length running north and south.^ It is made clear that this is the full size of the south section. The dimensions of the north section can only be approximated from this, in connection with items already referred to in the deed, and others yet to be mentioned from other documents. The width was certainly 46 feet, while no possible conception of the arrangement of rooms from first floor to garret would seem to allow an approximation of less than 40 feet north and south. This would make the entire building 46 feet wide and something over 100 feet long. The auditorium section of Blackfriars theatre, therefore, was about half the size of the Globe or the Fortune.^ The entire build- ing was also at least four feet wider than Salisbury Court theatre, but may or may not have exceeded it in length.^ The alterations by the Burbages in converting the Blackfriars building into a theatre were extensive and cost much time and money.* The north section alone required but little change to 'The "Great Hall" of the Black- friars is described as "existenj pars et parcella illorww Aovaotum et oedificacionum ibidem quae fuerunt tunc nuper p^rquisitos et emptor de Wille/mo Moore Milit^ per Jaco- bum Burbidge defunctwm patrtm praedicti Ricardi et per dictum Ri- cardum Burbidge cotitinen.r per es- timacionem in longitudine ab aus- tral^ ad boreakm portem eiusdem sexaginta et sex pedes assissae sit plus siue minus et in latitudine ab occidentals ad orientalem partem eiusdem quadraginta et sex pedes assissoe sit plus siue minus." [Ital- ics supplied by me in place of the original characters of abbreviation]. — See documents in extenso in vol. Ill of forthcoming work. 'The Fortune, 80x80 = 6400 sqft. (See Contract for Fortune, in Hal- liwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 305o.) The Blackfriars "Great Hall," 66 x 46 = 3036 sqft. The Globe, though the model for the Fortune in struc- tural details, was not square but octagonal. 'The grounds purchased for the erection of Salisbury Court theatre (1639) were 42 x 140 feet. It is not likely that the theatre occupied the full length of the grounds, but its width was certainly narrow enough at 42 feet. — See Indenture, 15 July, 1629, Brit. Mus., Add. ch. 9290. See this and other documents on Salis- bury Court theatre published by Pe- ter Cunningham in The Shakespeare Society's Papers (1849), IV, 91-93, 103. From the preceding data, the statement of James Wright, His- toria Histrionica (1699), in Haz- litt's Dodsley, Old Plays (1876), XV, 408 (m. s., 36') that Black- friars, the Cockpit, and Salisbury Court "were all three built almost alike for form and bigness," is not quite exact — ^nor is it intended to be. No farther data are known as to dimensions of the Cockpit. *"Now for the Blackfriars, that is our inheritance; our father pur- chased it at extreame rates, and made it into a playhouse with great charge and troble," say Cuthbert, Winifred, and young William Bur- 40 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS make it adaptable to the new uses. The lower room just west of the main entrance and the room just above it were still kept for residence purposes, and were reser\'-ed by Richard Burbage in making the later lease of the premises to Evans.^ The other west lower room was converted into "the Scholehouse"^ where the Qiildren of the Chapel maintained at Blackfriars as actors were taught various subjects, including those of the Grammar school.^ The room immediatel}' above was later made into a dining-room or commons for the boy-actors by Henry Evans, the lessee, at his own expense.* The south section underwent a thorough transformation. The two stories were converted into the auditorium called "the great Hall or Room,"° which was separated from "the Scholehouse" and dining-room above° by the stone walF between the two sec- tions of the building. The roof was changed, and rooms, prob- ably of the usual dormer sort, were built above the Great Hall.* bage in the Globe-Blackfriars Share- Papers of 1635. In Halliwell-Phil- lips, op. cit., I, 317. 'See supra, 36*. ^"A certen roome, called the Scholehouse, and a certen chamber over the same."— Evans's Bill of Complaint in Evans vs. Kirkham, G.-F., 213c. These same two rooms are mentioned over and over in the documents discovered by both Mr. Greenstreet and myself. In one of the latter, for example, "the schoole- howse" is definitely located as "schola anglice schoolehowse ad borealem finem Auloe proedictoe." °See Diary of the Duke of Stet- tin, infra, 106-7, 113-35. * Evans speaks of the chamber over "the Scholehouse" as "made fitt by your oratour, at his owne proper costs and chardges, to dyne and supp in." — Evans's Bill of Com- plaint in Evans vs. Kirkham, G.-F., 2146. "See documents in G.-F., 211o, 215c, 223c, 2276, 328c, 230o, 2336, 239c, &c. The same appears with equal frequency in my more recent discoveries referred to supra, 36*. ""w"' said scholehouse and cham- ber over the same were seuered from the said great hall." — Evans vs. Kirkham, G.-F., 2146. 'See Deed {op. cit., 299c) de- scribing the vault under the north entrance-hall with a great stone wall on the south side of it. The different height and method of roofing of each section indicates this wall extended from the vaults to the roof. Also, if it had not been for this stone wall in the way, the auditorium would doubtless have been made larger. *The deed to Burbage (m. s., 17') minutely describes and lo- cates every part of the building, except the space to the east of the rooms occupied on the first floor by Thomas Bruskett (cf. supra, 38', 38°). The stairs in the north section led up into the gabled garret. The stone stairway out of "the seaven greate upper romes" ran di- rectly up to the leads of the flat roof of the south section. There were no rooms above the second story of this auditorium section then. But when the building was finally remodeled into a theatre and Evans leased it, there were. They are mentioned in the lawsuits nu- merous times in connection with the BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 41 These by their adaptation for the purpose must have served for the lodgings of the Children of the Chapel who, as shown later/ were boarded, lodged, and instructed at the theatre under the su- pervision of Henry Evans.^ Evans and his wife had residence in "one or two rooms''^ in the building, — doubtless the two on the third floor fronting Pipe Office Yard. In the Great Hall, galleries* and lords' rooms'' or private boxes with lock and key'' were built around the sides. No published lease; e. g., "All that great Hall or Rome w"" the roomes over the same." — Evans vs. Kirkham, G.-F., 211. "Whereas Richard Burbage . . . hath leased and to farme letten vnto henrye Evans all that greate hall or Roome with the roomes ouer the same in the said indenture men- doned."— The 200/. bond of Evans to Kirkham et al. in one of the doc- uments which I recently discovered. Cf. infra, 92^ That the "roomes ouer the same" were of little use except in connec- tion with the theatre is shown by the Plea of Burbage and Hemings in the suit of Kirkham vs. Painton, G.-R, 238a. ^Infra, 71, 73ff, 98ff, lOSflf. ^If the new roof was given a pitch similar to that of the north section, there would have been a space at least 66 feet long and about 33 feet wide to divide into rooms. Allowing a hall of 6 feet, the re- maining space would have made twelve rooms, each 11 x 13 feet. With two in each room, this would have accommodated twenty-four boys, — approximately the number required in most of the plays pre- sented by the Children of the Chapel maintained at the Blackfriars. (Cf. infra, 75). '" . . one or two roomes where- in your subiect then inhabited." — Evans vs. Kirkham, G.-F., 311c. ^Galleries are mentioned in dif- ferent documents that I have re- cently brought to light; e. g., " . . ' tocius illius magnoe Aulae vel loci anglice Roome cum locis anglice roomes supra ead«m . . cum Theatro anglice a Stage por- ticibM.f anglice Galleryes et sedilibus de quantitate specificate in scedula ad inde annexata" &c. — Cf. supra, 36*. As Ben Jonson was writing for no other company than the Children of the Chapel during 1600-1601, the following can but refer to incidents at Blackfriars. Also every identi- fiable reference in Satiromastix to Jonson as a playwright is to his Poetaster, played first at Blackfriars ca. April, 1601. Horace [Jonson] is made to swear, "You shall not sit in a gal- lery when your comedies and inter- ludes have entered their actions and there make vile and bad faces at every line," &c. — Thomas Dekker, Satiromastix (ed. T. Hawkins, Ori- gin of the English Drama, 1773), III, 193. See further infra, 42. "Horace [Jonson] is further sworn, "You must forswear to ven- ture on the stage when your play is ended, and to exchange court'sies and complements with gallants in the lord's rooms, to make all the house rise up in arms and to cry, — That 's Horace, that 's he, that 's he." — Ihid. °"A little Pique happened be- twixt the Duke of Lenox and the Lord Chamberlain about a Box at a new Play in the Black Fryars, of which the Duke had got the Key." — Letter from Rev. G. Garrard dated Jan. 35, 1635, in The Earl of Straf- forde's Letters and Dispatches (1739), I, 511. Quoted also, but inexactly, in E. Malone, op. cit., Ill, 42 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS document declares how many galleries there were. But one of the recent discoveries from which quotation has just been made uses the plural "porticibwj anglice Galleryes,"^ by which it is sure there were two or more, while The Dutch Courtesan by reference to "the middle region" makes it clear there were three.^ Also the available space of two full stories' would have allowed an upper gallery, a middle gallery, and the usual lower gallery on the level with the stage.* In that part of the lower gallery that adjoined the stage must have been the chief loges or boxes or rooms for gentlemen and lords,^ — to which reference is made when Horace [Jonson] in Satiromastix is accused of coming on the stage at the close of his play and exchanging courtesies and compliments with 74°, and J. P. Collier, op. cit., Ill, 145. Although the date of this notice is 1635, there are reasons to believe that the structure and arrangement of the "rooms" was the same from the first. ^Cf. supra, 41'. "" ... And now, my very fine Heliconian gallants, and you, my worshipful friends in the middle region." — Cockledemov's Epilogue to Marston's The Dutch Courtesan, V, iii, 162-64. Played at Black- friars ca. autumn, 1602. Cf. also "middle rooms" and "middle stories," supra, 38^ 'The Fortune contract (m. s., 29°) calls for three stories, the first 12 feet, the second 11 feet, and the third 9 feet, a total of 32 feet Blackfriars auditorium must have been of nearly or quite an equal height. This might well have been. Any one familiar with the nobler mediaeval monastic or conventual buildings is aware that their ceil- ings are generally very high. The upper story of Blackfriars seems to have been built and roofed by the friars as a single room for audi- torial purposes, and certainly dur- ing Sir Thomas Cawarden's time was used as such, even for presen- tation of plays, and for rehearsals of interludes, masques, &c., in prep- aration for Court entertainment. A room 66 x 46 feet built and used for such purposes could hardly be less than 16 to 18 feet in height, — ^pos- sibly rather more than less. If then the lower floor was but 12 to 14 feet high, the reconstructed "Great Hall" had a height of 28 to 32 feet. With 4 feet as the height of the stage-level gallery, this 28 to 32 feet of space allowed an average height of 8 to 9 feet for each gallery-story. *This low gallery was charac- teristic of contemporary public the- atres. (See for example the De Witt— Van Buchell sketch of the Swan.) It is still found in Euro- pean theatres, especially in those of a date not quite modem. No better example could be cited than the old Stadttheater of Freiburg in Baden, not only in this particular of the lower gallery but in most other par- ticulars ; for it was remodeled as Blackfriars was from part of a me- diaeval monastery. (Cf. infra, com- plete work, vol. I.) This feature of a stage-level gal- lery around the whole room appears in the American theatre in only the most rudimentary form, extending no farther back from the stage than the two or three private boxes and the one or two open loges at their rear. 'Cf. supra, 41», 41°, 42'. In the public theatres these "gen- tlemen's rooms" were at right and left of the stage with a passage be- tween. In the Swan sketch they BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 43 gallants in the lords' roonis> Dekker evidently thinking in an- other instance of the gallantly dressed audience on the Blackfriars stage as constituting the chief part of the "city" of elegance calls these lords' rooms "now but the Stages Suburbs."^ The stage was in the south end of the "Great Hall."^ It has been assumed since the days of Wright's Historia His- trionica (1699),* and widely disseminated on the authority of Malone^ that the Blackfriars stage was small. But "small" and "large" are such merely relative terms that upon the basis of mod- ern notions no private or public stage of Shakespeare's time could be regarded as "large." The best we can do is to take a com- parative view, of the stages of the time on their own basis. The assumption that Blackfriars stage was small is based upon the primary assumption that all the private theatres — Blackfriars, Whitefriars, Paul's, Cockpit; Salisbury Court — were built alike and had stages alike. But in fact the only reference cited by Malone, Collier, and the rest on the size of Blackfriars stage is taken from a Paul's play.' Quite the reverse of the usual opinion, the truth seems to be that the stages of the public theatres had are labeled "orchestra" (i. e., in the hall and under the east end of the Latin sense), and are mentioned in stage. It speaks of the need of re- the Fortune contract, the Hope con- pair "in exteriori ostio ducenie ad tract, and numerous plays as "gen- praedicfa dimissa pro^missa et tlemen's rooms." See also infra, ... in paviamento per orientolem 44-45, 136-41. partem praedictoe Auloe et in But the physical nature of Black- paviamento s\ihter orientolem finem friars building and stage required Cuiusdom Theatri anglice the Stage a different arrangement. Our pri- in Aula proedicta" &c. vate boxes are the outgrowth. 'Infra, 43'. ^Cf. supra, 41'. 'Jnfra, 43». 'Infra, 140", 141-42. See infra, 130-31\ 'The stage could not have been Malone (op. at.. Ill, 61'), how- placed in the way of the main en- ever, seems to base his conclusion trance, which was at the north when on. James Wright's statement in the purchase was made by Burbage. H%stona Htstnomca («. s., 36', 39') No other entrance after the remod- concerning the similar size and eling could have led to all the de- iprm of Blackfriars, Cockpit, and mised premises. The stage is fur- Salisbury Court, coupled with two ther excluded from the north end "nes of the epilogue to Thomas as also from the sides of the hall Nabbes s Tottenham Court, acted at by one of the recently discovered Salisbury Court 1638 {cf. title- documents («. s., 36*) which men- Page), which read as follows: tions minor repairs in the en- "When others' fill'd rooms with trance leading to all the premises, neglect disdain ye, and in the east and west walls and My little house with thanks shall the floor along the east side of the entertain ye." 44 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS only general features alike, with important particular differences ; while the stages of the three earliest contemporary private the- atres, Blackfriars, Whitefriars, and Paul's, differed widely not only from these but also from each other.^ Again, it is assumed that in all three of these private theatres gallants sat on the stage, for which practice stools were provided. This assumption likewise is based upon the same primary assump- tion that the stages of all the private theatres were alike, and that the custom practiced on one was the custom also on the others. On the contrary, every reference to this practice quoted by Ma- lone, Collier, and others, and every one that my own research re- veals, in the period of late Elizabeth and early James I prior to the establishment of the Cockpit, is either from Blackfriars plays or in reference to that stage. The custom, as pointed out else- where, spread to later theatres.^ But there is no evidence of it at either Paul's or Whitefriars. On the contrary, we are distinctly informed that the stage at Paul's was "so very little,"^ that auditors were not allowed to sit there. A.s to Whitefriars there is no evi- dence on either side. The fact that gallants sat on the Blackfriars stage without "wronging the general eye"'* or hindering the players,* while at Paul's they could not^ and at the Globe were not allowed to^ and at other public theatres were not provided for* indicates that Blackfriars stage was, if not large, at least not small ; and also that it was of a different construction from its earliest contem- poraries.'' Even more under these circumstances than if they were lacking is the presentation of elaborate dance and masque,* — that attractive spectacular feature of nearly every Blackfriars play from 1600 to the death of Elizabeth," — further indicative of an adequate stage. After August 9, 1608,^" even with gallants 'The stages of Cockpit and 'Infra, 137-41. Salisbury Court, built later on the ^Cf. infra, 46-49, and plats, 50-51. model of Blackfriars, are not here 'Infra, 118-19. in question. 'Infra, 119-23. ^For the full discussion on the '"The Blackfriars was taken over origin and influence of the custom by the Burbage company by six sep- of sitting on the stage, see infra, arate indentures of lease from Rich- 130-47. ard Burbage to his fellow share- '^Infra, 131'. holders, — Shakespeare among the *Infra, 142. number,— August 9, 1608, just fol- 'Infra, 134*, 136. lowing the termination of the Chil- BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 45 still frequenting their accustomed places, the Blackfriars stage was of sufficient proportions and equipment for the Burbage company,^ the largest in London, to present on its boards the great Shakespearean plays with an excellence that is doubtless not disproportionately measured by the satisfaction of the audi- ence and the consequent financial returns exceeding by a thou- sand pounds in a single winter the amount visually received at the Globe.^ The preceding comparative view gives a general notion of Blackfriars stage more nearly true than the "little" conception current in stage annals. While no published document declares the exact dimensions, it is possible from data now at hand to translate this general notion into nearer mathematical definiteness. It was the physical limitations at Blackfriars that determined the width of the stage and made it in its relation to galleries and audience different from all public theatre stages. In the case of the Fortune, modeled after the Globe, the stage was 43 feet wide, with a passage of 6 feet on each side between the stage and that part of the lower gallery where the gentle- men's rooms were,^ — ^the place labeled "orchestra" (in the classical sense) in the sketch of the Swan showing a similar arrangement.* As pointed out later" this condition made it im- possible for the custom of sitting on the stage to receive encour- agement at the Globe, the Fortune, the Swan, and other public theatres, for such spectators would have cut off the view of the patrons in the gentlemen's rooms. dren of the Queen's Revels there to Burbage {cf. infra, I, part ii), through the drastic action of James which is later regarded by the Bur- I. See documents from English bages as a "purchase" of the lease and French archives in my forth- {cf. infra, I, part ii). According to coming three-volume work on the the newly discovered documents drama and stage of Shakespeare's concerning Shakespeare and the the- time. Also see other extensive doc- atres just referred to {supra, 44"), uments which I have recently dis- the Blackfriars was then leased to covered on Shakespeare, Globe, and Shakespeare and fellows for the Blackfriars, in forthcoming separate same amount as Evans had been publication. paying. They took it over at once 'Any possible notion that the just as it was when Evans was stage or theatre was changed in ar- forced by the King to give it up. rangement or equipment to accom- ^Cf. supra, 35'. modate the needs of the Burbage 'Cf. Fortune contract, u. s., 29". company is precluded by documen- *See the Van Buchell — DeWitt tary evidence. The former lessee, sketch, u. s., 31^. Henry Evans, surrendered his lease 'Infra, 136-38. 46 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS But if at Blackfriars the stage had been modeled after those of the pubHc theatres with an aisle of six feet or even of three feet between stage and galleries, the stage would have been but about 13 to 19 feet wide, — too narrow for acting, even with no spectators sharing it. So the Blackfriars stage was through necessity built on a plan of its own. The aisle-space as well as the gallery-space at right and left had to be utilized as the wings of the new-style stage. The width of the hall allowed the limit of 46 feet as the width of this extended stage. It was this construction that gave Black- friars a stage roomy enough for unhampered acting and at the same time allowed gallants to occupy coveted places "on the stage" at right and left of the actors, in the full admiration of the house, but without "wronging the general eye"^ or obstruct- ing the view of any one. When the Blackfriars custom of sitting on the stage was im- ported into France,^ it carried with it also the form of stage- structure on which it originated. The arrangement of seats at the sides of the stage in French theatres as shown by the testi- mony of Tallemant des Reaux,^ Moliere,* Voltaire," and Goethe,* is therefore reflexively contributive to a correct conception of the stage-structure at Blackfriars. In the evidences from per- formances at Blackfriars,'' Dekker's The Guts' Horn-Booke,^ and other sources,* the stage-patrons occupied the same level as the actors. This fact is likewise shown by the testimony of the above chief French contemporaries of the custom on the Paris stage. Goethe, however, who saw the last of this practice in a French theatre at Frankfurt in 1759, reports that the seats at the sides of the stage there were ranged on a slope slightly above the stage level, but with special reservations still on the stage for officers and other people of importance.^" The galleries of Blackfriars as of its foreign followers ended at the line of the stage-front, — just where our evolved first pri- vate boxes now are.^^ But there was no wall, nothing more than '■Infra, 131'. 'Infra, 132-134. 'Infra, 143-47. 'Infra, 133*, 140", 140*. 'Infra, 143'. 'Infra, 133\ 132°, 143", 143'. ^Infra, 143*. '"Infra, 146'. "Infra, 145', 145". ''Supra, 43-43, and plat, 50-51. 'Infra, 146*. BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 47 a railing, between the termination of the lower gallery and the wings of the stage where the gallants were wont to sit in full view. Allowing 103^ feet for the width of each gallery/ with a cor- responding but more elastic space on the stage at right and left for gallants, there was still a minimum width of 25 feet for the actors, — as great a space as sometimes used on the modern stage.'' The full 46 feet might have been used on occasion.^ But such practice could have been but rarely necessary or expedient. Hence the use of these v/ings rather as a source of revenue from social fops whose prime object was not to see the acting but to display their fine dress, especially to those in the high-priced seats of the first gallery, or to patronize the house with their grand presence. From the available evidences there is no reason to suppose a stage at Blackfriars much smaller than the public theatres had, as has hitherto been done.* The Fortune stage, certainly one of the largest in London, extended to the middle of the yard, — a distance of 40 feet. But a tiring-house at the rear took off I2j^ feet, leaving a depth of 27J4 feet for the actors. The construction of Blackfriars necessitated a different ar- rangement for tiring-house and stage. The accompanying sug- gestive plat of the seating capacity of Blackfriars," drawn to scale and with reference to known details, shows the possibility of an ample stage of 25 feet in depth, with a passage of four feet at the rear connecting the two lower rooms of the tiring-house. With an expandable stage approximately 25 feet deep and 'The galleries in the Globe and feet, ranging down to 20 and up to Fortune were 13% feet wide from 40 or more. — See Julius Cohn's OfR- the outside of the building, or about cial Theatrical Guide (1907), XII, 12 feet inside, with a 10-inch "juttey passim. forwards" in the two upper galler- °An actor at the extreme limits ies. — See Fortune contract, «. s., 29'. of the stage would have been cut See further, infra, plats, 50-51. off from the view of only those on 'The modern proscenium opening the same side in the two upper gal- ranges from about 20 to 40 feet, — leries. Sometimes iri a modern the- the latter serving for the most elab- atre he is cut off from all specta- orate grand opera, and the former tors on that side of the house, in plays and "shows" in the smaller *Cf. supra, 43. theatres. In the chief American cit- ''Infra, 50-51. ies the average is about 30 to 35 48 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS from 25 to 46 feet wide as occasion might require, the general notion of the size and structure of Blackfriars stage derived from known conditions as presented on preceding pages, is merely translated into nearer definiteness.^ At the rear of the stage and over the passage was a permanent balcony extending doubtless the full width between the two lower rooms of the tiring-house. The balcony did occasional service for certain situations in the plays, but seems to have been used mainly as the station for the musicians.^ The Blackfriars stage was elastic in depth as well as in width, and could according to the demands of the given play be varied by curtains or traverses of any required number placed at any required distance between the balcony and the front of the stage.' This flexibility was further increased by the use of a canopy* as occasion required, which could be set anywhere on the stage to be removed at will. But the evidences of structure, arrangement, furnishing, and equipment of Blackfriars stage must be deferred to a later work." 'While I have little doubt that the dimensions and other items here presented will ultimately prove to be substantially correct, I shall not be satisfied until I turn up certain documents I am now on trace of, which I am confident from the na- ture of them will settle details with finality. ^It is this close juxtaposition of the music to the tiring-house that gives point to the remark, in one of the Chapel Children's plays, about the author's swearing in the tiring- house, and thereby railing the music out of tune, as follows : "I assure you sir we are not so officiously befriended by him [the author, Ben Jonson], as to have his presence in the tiring-house, to prompt us aloud, stamp at the book- holder, swear for our properties, curse the poor tire-man, rayle the musick out of tune," &c. — Induction to Cynthia's Revels. At Blackfriars ca. April, 1600. °The gallants on the stage, — whose chief end at the theatre was not to see but to be seen, — are some- times made the butt of pleasantry for ostentatiously "standing at the helme to steere the passage of scaenes" («. i., 140'), solely for the opportunity of displaying themselves and their fine dresses the better to the audience. The crossing of traverses opposite their seats therefore could not have been an annoyance to them but may the rather have contributed to their notion of pleasure by the opportu- nity afforded for officious service. * The canopy was a cloth or can- vas affair in the shape of a covered room, a shop, a high wall, or other necessary enclosing apparatus. It is still an accessory more common on the European than the American stage. One of the most effective uses comes to mind in connection with a recent masterly presentation of Wagner's Die Meistersinger von NiXrnberg on a German stage with acting and staging as perfect as the singing. "There is some hope that the chapter on this head may be ready for the completed work. But there BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 49 It may be said here simply that an examination of even such ma- terials as now are known shows a stage plastic to the play in hand in all particulars, a stage of real and individual existence, diflferent in certain essentials from the ratiocinative results of studies hitherto made, in which plays of private and public the- atres have been in judicially thrown together to make a sort of universalized or theoretical stage that has no historical basis. ^ It seems hardly necessary to add that the rooms, galleries, and pit of Blackfriars were all provided with seats.^ As already pointed out, the Great Hall of Blackfriars was about half the size of the Globe or Fortune.^ Its capacity for accommodating spectators was also not far from half. is nothing sure about it. Not all evidences are available which are necessary in putting out a final statement of the facts. I have con- fidence from the definite clues un- earthed that ultimately I shall reach documents giving schedules of the furnishing and equipment of Black- friars stage and theatre, as also of the Globe. It is merely a question of time and means. ■^For a late example, based upon and supporting Professor Brandl's alternation theory, see Cecil Brod- meier. Die Shakespeare-Buhne nach den alien Biihnenanweisungen (Diss. Jena, 1904). This work takes the plays of Shakespeare per- formed at "The Theatre," the Cur- tain, Globe, and Blackfriars, and constructs of those four dissimilar stages a single composite. More commendable in theory and generally combative of Brodmeier's position is the recent work of G. F. Reynolds, Some Principles of Eliz- abethan Staging, in Modern Philol- ogy, April and June, 1905, later reprinted in separate form (Diss. University of Chicago). It is unfor- tunate that the author did not from the first follow the plan he leaned toward, and use his masses of ma- terial in studying the individual the- atres to which the respective plays belonged, — as he must ultimately do. Instead he has followed up one sin- gle stage-feature after another in plays ranging through Elizabeth's reign and into the period of James I, which were presented at various theatres or not presented anywhere (e. g., the Percy plays), and tried to establish or disestablish there- from certain principles of staging or facts of stage structure and equipment for the dissimilar thea- tres throughout that long time. In both these works there is the impairing spirit of "proving" some- thing and of establishing history by deductive argument. With the great industry displayed and the splendid collection of materials in each study, it would be high satis- faction to find one new fact of dra- matic or stage history brought to light or one point of debate placed beyond controversy. It must not be expected however that any study of stage-directions or other internal evidence can ever be final in mat- ters of stage-history. Such a study at best can be but corroborative, never determinative of data, and may thus rightly serve to illuminate and enliven placid realities. ''A schedule of seats was at- tached to the lease of Burbage to Evans. See supra, 36*. 'Cf. supra, 39. The outside dimensions of the Fortune were 80x80 = 6400 sqft. The inside dimensions of Blackfri- ars auditorium were 66 x 46 = 3036 sqft 50 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS To exhibit at once the size, capacity, and general features in a single view, I have inserted a suggestive plat of the seating capacity of the Blackfriars, and another of the Fortune, side by side, — the only two theatres whose dimensions are exactly known. Both are drawn to a scale of Y,g"=:i'. In the absence of exact data as to size, number, and arrange- ment of seats, I first experimented with several conceivable modes of seating before allowing these plats to stand. If, for example, De Witt was correct in saying the Swan held 3000 people, then the Fortune, certainly considerably more capacious, must have accommodated more than 3000. But no method of arrangement, without reducing the seats to an impossible size, filling up the aisles, and standing the audience of the yard like corpses packed on end would make even the Fortune accommodate 3000. Since this larger theatre could not contain 3000, Priest De Witt's dec- laration that the smaller Swan could may be laid to rest for all time as an over-enthusiastic and very inaccurate guess.^ From the many thousands of contemporary documents I have examined, directly bearing upon the life of the times, I am more and more convinced that the people of the time of Elizabeth and James were as solicitous for means of comfort as we are today. Quite contrary to the ill-founded notion commonly circulated by 'Some farther conception of the Boston, monstrousness of De Witt's estimate Hollis Street Theatre . . 1640 may be gained by a comparison of Park 1277 the size of modern theatres. As Tremont 1405 America boasts some of the largest Colonial .... 1653 of the world, I quote certain sta- Chicago. tistics on seating capacity as pre- Illinois 1385 sented in Julius Cohn's Official The- Powers 1113 atrical Guide (1907), XII, passim. Garrick 1400 But it will be noticed that the best Grand Opera House . . 1700 of these theatres are not the largest. The Studebaker .... 1549 Great music halls, auditoriums, col- Chicago Opera House . 1700 iseums, gardens, &c., are left out Auditorium (largest in the of the lists. world) 4079 New York. These are representative exam- Belasco's theatre . . . 950 pies. An examination of official Criterion 1100 statistics shows the seating capacity Daly's 1150 of the majority of American thea- Empire 1100 tres ranges from less than 1000 to Garrick (Ch. Frohman) . 910 about 1500, — approximately a third New Amsterdam . . . 1675 to a half De Witt's reported size of Lyceum (Dan Frohman) . 909 the Swan. Wallack's 1274 BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 51 writers on stage-history that audiences put up with woeful dis- comforts simply to see a great play well enacted, it would seem that reasonable consideration was given the tastes of different classes of patrons, and that those in the choicer parts of the house were charged the higher prices on account of the better accom- modations as well as the better view. The theatre was then a larger centre of social contact than now, — a spirit still somewhat preserved in parts of Europe, but wholly lost to the amusement- loving theatre-goer of America. The best boxes or rooms were patronized by lords, nobles, and other gentlemen used to the best at home and in society, and it is unlikely that they should have gone in such numbers if discomforts had been so great as to cause them to do penance while watching the play. The Black- friars especially was frequented by the London elite, both gentle- men and ladies, in the wake of Queen and Court, who must have found ample provision for comfort there, in seats not too crowded to accommodate farthingale and puffed trunk-hose. Thomas Platter of Basel, who visited London in 1599, in speaking of cer- tain unnamed theatres, mentions the fact that the higher priced seats there — costing but 3 d. however — were provided with cush- > ions.^ All this is suggestive that if the common art of upholster- ing of the time may not have contributed even more to the com- fort of seats ranging up to a shilling in price, at least the general comfort was satisfactory. In finally drawing these plats of Blackfriars and the Fortune, such width and arrangement of seats has been indicated as would reasonably provide for the comfortable and safe care of the audi- ence. In both plats all rows of seats in all galleries are 30 inches apart from heel to heel, and each seat in the side galleries is 22j^ inches wide, while in the rear galleries of the Fortune they are 19 and of the Blackfriars 18 inches wide.^ The width of aisles and all other dimensions are sufficiently indicated in the plats. ^" . . . begeret er aber am lustig- Prof. Gustav Binz, "Londoner The- esten ort auf kissen ze sitzen, ater und Schauspiele im Jahre da er nicht allein alles woll sihet, 1599," in Anglia (1899), XXII, 459. sondem auch gesehen kan warden, 'In modern theatres the seats so gibt er bey einer anderen thiiren are generally 30 inches apart from noch 1 Englischen_ pfennig." — heel to heel and from 18 to 20 Thomas Platter's Reisebericht, ex- inches wide. Theatre managers tell tracts of which are published by me they provide the wider seats in 52 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Blackfriars pit is seated with an allowance of i8 x 30 inches for each person. Ample aisle space is allowed for handling the audience. The Fortune )'ard was used only as standing room. It is possible for average men to stand on a space 18 x 20 inches or, by closer crowding, tS x 18 inches. But comfortable space for two or three hours' endurance requires as much as 24 x 24 inches, as allowed. It is generally supposed that the audience stood on all three sides of the public theatre stage. Indeed the Red Bull picture of 1672 seems to indicate this. Such may have been the condi- tion earlier at the Globe, Fortune, and others, but it is doubtful. The entrance to the first gallery, the narrowest of the three gal- leries at the Fortune,^ seems to have been from the inside. In fact the Van Buchell — De Witt sketch of the Swan shows this en- trance in the passage at right and left of the stage. It is unlikely that the yard-crowd was allowed to block the passage to the gen- tlemen's rooms, or to bob and sweat between these privileged places and the stage. Contrary to the common impression that the stage was in the middle of the yard, with the audience fairly distributed on three sides of it, any sort of plat is serviceable in showing that very little of the audience could have been at right and left of the stage, even with the aisles packed, and that the major portion of it was in front in similar relation to the stage as in the present day. On a conservative and reasonable basis therefore the Fortune, probably a little larger than the Globe, could accommodate 1320 spectators, while the suggestive plat of Blackfriars shows besides the habitues of the stage a capacity of 528, or a total of ca. 558 to 608. There is no known picture of Blackfriars theatre.^ the more expensive sections of the '^ Professor G. , P. Baker has re- house. But the majority of seats cently published a picture, which he are about 18 inches. believes to be authentic, in Beau- 'The entrance to the two upper mont and Fletcher's The Maid's galleries is indicated in the Fortune Tragedy and Philaster (ed. A. H. contract as from the outside. It is Thorndike, 1906, Belles-Lettres Se- probably on account of the need ries, ed. G. P. Baker) frontispiece; of wider rear passageways to and and again in his The Development from these outside entrances that of Shakespeare as a Dramatist the two upper galleries were con- (1907), 78. In the latter work (p. structed ten inches wider than the 44) he says in a note, "The print lower gallery. seems to have been lost sight of, BLACKFRIARS THEATRE BUILDING 53 The extensive alterations necessary to convert the Blackfriars building into a theatre such as the preceding pages show, re- quired time. The property was purchased February 4, 1596. In November following, the work of reconstruction was under way. The petition to the Privy Council in that month declares the owner meant "very shortly" to convert the building into a play- house.^ It is not likely that James Burbage finished the work, for he died the following February, and the property came into the hands of his son Richard, the famous Shakespearean man- ager-actor. There is slight probability and no evidence that the new theatre was occupied prior to about September, 1597. The cause of this delay was doubtless, first, the expiration of leases to tenants before work could begin; second, the death of James Burbage; third, the extent of the remodeling required; fourth, time necessary for Gyles and Evans to assemble and train the Children after the enabling royal commission to Gyles in July, 1597- It has generally been supposed that work was delayed by act of the Privy Council. This supposition is based upon the state- ment twenty-one years later in the presumptuous and futile order of the Corporation of the City of London to stippress the Black- friars. It is there stated that the Privy Council in response to the petition of November, 1596, "then forbad the use of the said house for playes."^ But I find upon personal examination that the original Privy Council Registers, preserved at the Privy Council Office, Whitehall Palace, giving all the official acts of that body, record no such order. It is certain therefore that the statement of the City Council in i6i8-[i9] is in error. The City but Mr. Gardiner [the owner] and be most glad to believe. The doc- antiquarians to whom I have sub- uments show it differs in all essen- mitted it believe it genuine." tials from the Blackfriars theatre. I have not seen the original, nor ^ Supra, 17°. do I know the basis of this con- "Order for Suppressing the elusion. The documentary evi- Blackfriars Theatre by the City dences, which this chapter attempts Council "xxi° die Januarij 1618- to assemble, disprove the relative [19]." — Original in the Guildhall proportions, shape, height, roof, &c.. Archives, Repertory 34, fol. 386. as shown in the picture. I fear Printed in Halliwell-Phillips, op. therefore that the print may not be cit., I, 311. Cf. supra, 17°. so authentic as I especially should 54 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS was simply trying to substantiate its long-contended claim,^ and in doing it, assumed evidence that did not exist.^ It may be noted in this connection that, beginning with 1597 and extending to the close of Elizabeth's reign, the Privy Coun- cil directed numerous severe orders against the public theatres, but not one against Blackfriars. These cases will be considered in a subsequent chapter.^ The reasons for this attitude become clear when we know the Queen's relations to Blackfriars, and the Gty's contention.* Whether James Burbage intended the Blackfriars building thus altered to replace "The Theatre," the lease to the grounds of which was just expiring in 1 596, or whether a "theatrum anglice Stage" was set up in it for the Children of the Chapel on the Queen's initiative, as the Diary of the Duke of Stettin might seem to indicate," will be taken up in later paragraphs.' "See supra, 21, 16lS and infra, *Infra, 126-29, 148-62. 153-54. "Infra, 106-7. "See infra, 154", 16l\ 'Infra, 112, 128''-29, 151, 152. 'Infra, 148-62. CHAPTER II THE BLACKFRIARS STAGE.— ITS STRUCTURE, ARRANGE- MENT, AND FURNISHINGS' 'Treatment of materials in this chapter reserved for the complete work. CHAPTER III ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS THEATRE UNDER OFFICIAL GRANTS The first and only lessee of the Blackfriars thus fitted up for a private theatre was one Henry Evans.' He took it for the pur- pose of exercising one branch of the Queen's Children of the Chapel in the acting of plays under certain official documentary assurances^ that allowed him the privilege of private profit from rehearsing them publicly. The date of Evans's first contract with Burbage is difficult if not impossible at present to determine. Certain considerations indicate a very early date. The statement in the Diary of the Duke of Stettin^ concerning the Queen's establishing this theatre for the special training of the Children, taken in connection with the fact that Evans had certain official assurances concerning the exercise and employment of these Boys theatrically, suggests a possible date prior to the purchase and refitting. On the other hand, the statement of the Burbages in the Globe-Blackfriars '"The pleas in the lawsuit of theatre was established in 1597. (6) 1635 show that the Burbages, the Th^se last three items, as also that owners, leased the Blackfriars The- of the "long term of years" are atre after its establishment in 1597 shown not by the 1635 suit {cf. for a long term of years to the pertinent part in full, infra, 57'), master of Sie Children of the Chap- but in two suits of 1613, — Evans vs. el."— Sidney Lee, A Life of Wil- Kirkham (G.-F. 210-23) and Kirk- Mom Shakespeare (5th ed. 1905), ham vs. Painton (G.-F. 333-51). 209. [Since making this note on the pub- The above sentence contains cer- lished documents containing the tain errors of fact overlooked by above items, I have discovered sev- Mr. Lee: — (1) The pleas in the eral others containing the same 1635 suit show none of the items items, — but not yet published, — mentioned, and (2) they do not those on the Blackfriars (m. s., 36*), name or otherwise mention the and those which give the origin master of the Children of the Chap- of "shares" in London theatres and el (Nathaniel Gyles) but do name Shakespeare's financial interest Henry Evans as lessee. (3) The from the first in the Globe and Blackfriars was owned, at the time Blackfriars («. s., ix-x, 34°, 44'°, of the lease, by Richard Burbage 45')]. alone who (4) was the lessor to 'Infra, 81-82. Evans (5) before, not after, the 'Infra, 106-7. ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 57 Share-papers of 1635^ points to a date "after" the refitting was completed. This no doubt refers to the long-term lease of 1600, but it seems also inclusive of the first lease or tenancy prior to 1600. From the documents in the case of Evans vs. Kirkham,^ as also from various documents in the suit of Kirkham vs. Painton,* and likewise from numerous recently discovered documents not yet published,* it is learned that Evans on Sept. 2, 1600, leased the Blackfriars for a period of twenty-one years, term to begin Michaelmas, — i. e., Friday, September 29, — at 40 /. per year, giv- ing bond of 400/., with Alexander Hawkins, his son-in-law, as security, for payment of the rentals. But he had possession and was conducting the theatre long before this date. In his Bill of Complaint against Kirkham, May 5, 1612, Evans in connection with the twenty-one-year lease of 1600, speaks of the Blackfriars as "Then or late in the tenure or occupation of your said orator."" Richard Burbage in his own behalf replying to Kirkham in the suit of Kirkham vs. Painton" substantiates this fact. In explain- ing why he as owner and lessor exacted a bond of 400 /. as se- curity for payment of the lease, he says he considered that "ex- cept the said Evans could erect & keepe a companye of Playinge boyes or others to playe playes & interludes in the said Playhouse in such sort as before tyme had bene there vsed, that he was lyke- lye to be beli[ind with] the said rent of fortie pounds."'' The words I have italicized indicate the theatre had been in operation for some time. Also, Evans was making a financial success and had previously met his payments of rent. Since ^"Now for the Blackfriars, that ^Cf. supra, 36*. is our inheritance; our father pur- "See document, G.-F., 211o. chased it at extreame rates, and 'In G.-F., 333-51. made it into a playhouse with great 'In G.-F., 234a. The statement charge and troble; which after was in the document just preceding leased out to one Evans that first this that "Henrye Evans . in- sett up the boyes commonly called tended then [i. e., when lease was the Queenes Majesties Children of made] presentlye to erect or sett the Chappell." — In Halliwell-Phil- vpp a Companye of boyes . . . lips. Outlines of the Life of Shake- in the same" is of course made with speare (9th ed. 1890), I, 317. strict legal reference to the opera- ^See documents in G.-F., espe- tions of the twenty-one-year lease, cially 21I0. The lease is not retroactive and 'See documents in G.-F., espe- takes no account of what preceded cially 223C-2240, 230fc, 239c-240o. it 58 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Evans and no one else was in possession both immediately and for some time prior to the lease of 1600, there seems no uncer- tainty that he was in possession when Ben Jonson's The Case is Altered was first presented there by the Children in 1597, ca. Sept.— Oct.i We have no record of any earlier play at the new theatre. Also, there are no other known documentary statements as to the date of its first occupancy. It is quite possible that the long-term lease, dated Sept. 2, 1600, with term to begin at Michaelmas, was taken by Evans at or near the expiration of his rental year. If so, the date of his first occu- pancy would be about Sept. 1597, — approximately two to three months after Nathaniel Gyles was granted the royal commission that enabled these two men to unite in carrying out the Queen's purposes.^ Nathaniel Gyles,^ a musician graduated from Magdalen Col- lege, Oxford, was sworn Gentleman of the Chapel Royal and Master of the Children June 9, 1597,* three days after the death of his predecessor, William Hunnis. The appointment was made by the Queen through the Lord Chamberlain,^ Lord 'See "Plays," in vol. II, of com- plete work. ^It is hardly probable that boys could be taken up and put into condition for singing and acting in less time. It is noteworthy here that the Canons of Windsor al- lowed to this same Nathaniel Gyles in their Commission of Oct. 1, 1595, "the space of three months" for col- lecting a similar company of boys for singing and acting. See infra, 'Nathaniel Gyles (1559-1634, Jan. 24): Mus. Bac. June 26, 1585; Mus. Doc. 1622 ; Mastei" of the Chil- dren of St. George's Chapel, Wind- sor, Oct. 1, 1595, to Jan. 24, 1634, and Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal June 9, 1597, to Jan. 24, 1634. The inscription over his grave in the aisle adjoining St. George's Chapel gives 49 years as Master of St. George's, and 38 years as Master of the Children of his Majesty's Chapel Royal. But the 49 years is an error for 39, as above dates show. The same inscription allots him 75 years. Between 1597 and 1626, Gyles was the recipient of at least nine royal grants. The chief ones are con- nected with the present history and are printed or sufficiently noticed in the pages of this and succeeding volumes. *"1597. William Hunnis died the 6th of June, Master of the Children, and Na- thaniell Giles sworne gent and Master of the Chil- dren in his place the 9th of the same, from Win- sore." — The Old Cheque- Book or Book of Remembrance of the Chapel Royal (ed. E. F. Rim- bault, for The Camden Society, 1872), 5. ° "1597 June. The Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine, upon the 9th day of June, commanded me, Bartholomew ES'i ABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 59 Hunsdon.^ This is Gyles's first connection with the Qiildren of the Chapel.^ July 2, 1597, the Queen issued her Privy Seal for a Patent to Nathaniel Gyles as Master of the Children and Gentleman of her Chapel. The Patent was issued accordingly July 14.' Mason, Substitute at Greenwich, to sweare Nathaniell Gyles Gentleman of her Majestes Chappell (being be- fore extraordinary), whoe accord- ingly receaved his oth as other gen- tlemen before him hath done, in the presence of us whose names are subscribed." — Idem, 37 [fol. 34]. 'See supra, 36'. ^"The Children of the Chapel, who disappeared when their play- place was shut up early in 1583, are met witii again in 1581, as acting at Croydon, under N. Giles, their master, before the Queen." — F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage (1890), 81. Fleay is mistaken here concern- ing Gyles. Hermann Maas, Die Kindertrup- pen (Diss. Gottingen, 1901), 8, ac- cepts Fleay's error seriously and adds a worse one. He refers to John Nichols, Progresses, &c., of Queen Elisabeth, III, 134, 327, as proof that the Children of the Chap- el under Gyles acted before Eliza- beth at Croydon in 1591. Maas takes these references from Fleay, op. cit., 78 (to which also he refers for his proof), but gives them as his own, although he had certainly not seen Nichols's work. On the pages referred to, Nichols deals with a different matter, — the pres- ence of the Queen in Windsor in 1593, to which indeed Fleay prop- erly refers. But Maas in appropri- ating Fleay's references mistook them as referring to the first point rather than the last in the sentence in which Fleay has given them. 'Both these documents I have found in the Public Record Office. Neither seems ever to have been published. The Privy Seal can be reached by consulting Privy Signet Index, under July, 1597. The Pat- ent is obtainable under the index "Duodecima Pars Patentium de Anno XXXIX. Elizabeth Regina." As in all such cases, the Patent is engrossed from the Privy Seal, and is identical with it in wording of the grant, except where the en- grosser has erred or has spelled differently. I quote therefore here and in all similar cases from the Privy Seal as of prior authority. The pertinent part of this docu- ment provides for the instruction and care of only twelve children, — a point of significant interest in the succeeding history. The Privy Seal (the many signs of abbreviation ex- panded into italics however) with the customary memorandum (in a separate hand) of the date of the Great Seal to the Letters Patent follows : — ■ Memorandum quod xiiij die Julij Anno infra scripto istud brez/e delibsj-atum fuit domino Custodi magni Sigilli Anglio^ apud Wtstmonasterium exe- quendum. Elizabeth dei gracia Angliae Fran- ciae et Kihermae Regina fidei de- fensor &c Prodikcfo et fideli Con- siliario ncr^ro Thomoe Egerton militi magni Sigilli tiostri Anglioe Custodi ssAutem Vobis mandamus quod sub dicto Sigillo nostra vestra. existente custodia Utieras ncsJras fieri faciat patentes in forma se- quente Regina &c Omnibus ad quos &c Salutem Sciatis quod nos de gracza nostra sp^ciali ac ex certo sciencjo et mero motu noi^ris dedimus et concessimus ac per praesentes pro nobis hertdibus et successon6M.r nos- tris damns et concedimus dilecto Servient nostra Nathanieli Giles officiuw Magistri puerorww Capelloe 60 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS July 3, 1597, the next day after the issue of the Privy Seal for his appointment as Master of the Children of the Chapel, the Queen granted under her signet a warrant for a Commission to Gyles for taking up children for her service. The patent fol- lowed July 15.^ nostrae Regiae heredum et succes- sorum nostrorum Quodquidem offi- cium Wilk/mMs Hurmis iam de- funct«j nuper habuit et exercuit ac rorione mortis eiusdem Willeimi Hunnis in manibus ac disposicjo«e nojiris existit HABENDMm occupan- dum et gaudendwm officiu»t praedic- tum eidem Nathanieli Giles per seipjMm a tempore mortis praedicti Wille/mi Hunnis durante vita sua naturali Damus etiam et per prae- sentes pro nobis htredibus et suc- cessoribus nostris concedimus prae- fato Nathanieli Giles vada siue feoda quadraginta librarum sterling Percipiendo annuatim a tempore mortis praeisAi Wilk/mi Hunnis pro eruditione duodecew puerorMwi eius- dem Capelloe nostroe ac pro eorwm convenient^ exhihicione vesrituros et lectuorw de thesauro no^siro he- redum et successorum nostrorum ad Receptwm Scoccorij nostri West- monasterii per manus Thesaurarit et Camerarii eiusdem pro tempore existence ad quatfuor Anni terminos videlicet ad festwm Natalis domini An«unciaczo»is b^otoe Marioe vir- ginis Sancti Joho»nis Ba.ptistae et sancti Micho^Zis Archangeli equa/i- bus porcjonibwj solvenda vnacuw omnibus et om»imodu alijs vadw feodij proficubus JurisdiccjoMibMj aucthoritatff priuilegijs commodita- tibus regardu et advantagiw quibus- cxmque eidem officio quoquo modo debitij pertinen*i&Mj siue incumben- tibus aut impostum debendij siue spectandjj in tam amplis et con- similihus modo et forma prout Ri- cardus Edwards vel dictus Willed mMs wiper defunctMj aut aliquis alius officiuOT praedictum hoftuit ex- ercuit vel gauisMJ fuit ho&ere exer- cere vel gaudere debuit Ac insuper de ampliori gracio no^sira ac ex cer- to sciencio et mero motu nojiris pro nobis heredi&M.s et successon'ftMJ nostris per praesentes damus et con- cedimus praedicto Nathanieli Giles locum siue officium illud vnius ge- nerosorum nostrorum dictae Capel- lae nostrae Regioe quod praedictus Wille/mMs Hunnis nuper hoftuit vna- cum feodo seu anrauali reddit» tri- ginta librarum bonoe et legalis monetoe Anglioe per Annum Ha- BENDMm tenendum gaudendMw et exercendwOT locum siue officium illud praedictum duran*^ vita sua naturali Necnon percipiendum dic- tum \a.dum siue annuidem redditwm sibi vel assignoft'j suis consimili modo et forma et ad tales terminos in quibMj ceteri generosi dictoe Cap- ellae nostrae Regiae solui consueue- runt vnacum omnibus alijs com«o- ditati&Mj priuilegiu praeeminencibus ac emoluments quibuscunqwa eidew loco siue officio quoquo modo spec- tantibus siue impost^ruw spectandj^ Eo quod &c. In cuius rei &c Datum nostro sub priuato Sigillo apud ManerjMw nostrum de Green- wich secundo die Julij Anno Regni nostri tricesimo nono Will Parker [engrosser] The Patent begins with "Regina &c," and continues from there on as a copy of the above Privy Seal, with varied orthography and abbre- viations however, ending with the "In cuius rei &c." Instead of the closing "Datum nostro," &c., of the Privy Seal, the Patent closes with the attestation and date of final is- sue thus: — Teste Regina apud Westmontw- terium xiiij° die Julij per brez/e de priuato Sigillo. 'Hitherto the only generally ac- cessible source of information as to the date, contents, and powers of this Commission has been Henry Clifton's Complaint to the Queen ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 61 So far as we know, this Commission to Gyles is the earliest recorded document in the long history of the Children and their influences begun at Blackfriars. It is possibly the foundation in the Star Chamber Proceedings preserved at the Public Record Of- fice. (Discovered by Mr. James Greenstreet, and published by him in The Athenaeum, Aug. 10, 1889, 803-4. Reprinted in F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1890, 127-32.) The Commission has never been printed. But more than a hundred years ago its existence was merely indicated in Daniel Lysons, Envi- rons of London (1796), I, 92. Both Privy Seal and Patent I have found in the Public Record Office. The former is enrolled in Privy Signet Index and is preserved in a bundle of parchments labeled "Privy Seals 1597 July." A further enrolment is in State Papers, Do- mestic, Elizabeth, Docquets, I597~S, made "quarto die Julij 1597," — the day following the issue. My transcript of the Privy Seal, dated at the close 3 July, 1597, with head memorandum of Patent date, is as follows (most signs of con- traction and abbreviation, however, expanded into italics) : — yLemoranAum qwod xv'° die Julij Anno infra scripto istud breve delib^ratum fuit Aomino Custodi magni Sigilli Anglioe apud 'Westsnonasterium exe- quendMM. Elizabeth by the grace of god quene of England ffrance & Irland De- fendo' of the faithe &c. To o' right trusty and welbeloved Councello"' sr Thomas Egerton knight keeper of our greate Seale of England for the tyme being greeting. We will and comwaunde you that vnder our said great Seale ye cause o' leWres pat- ents to be made forth in forme fol- owing Elizabeth by the grace of god &c To all Maio" shirifs bail- ifs Constables, & all other o' Offi- cers greeting, ffor that it is meete that o' Chappell R'oyall should be furnished with well sittging Chil- dren from tyme to tyme: We haue and by these presents doo authorise o' welbeloved servant Nathaniell Giles m' of o' Children of our said Chappell, or his Deputie being by his bill subscribed and sealed, so authorised, and having this o' pres- ent Comission w*" him. To take suche and so many children as he, or his sufficient Deputie shall thinke meete, in all cathedral! collegiat, parishe Churches Chappells or any other place or places aswell w*in libertie as without w'in this our Realme of England whatsoeuer they be. And also at all tymes neces- sary horses, boates. Barges, Cartes, Carres, and waggens for the con- veyance of the said Children from any place, w'" all manner of neces- saryes apperteyning to the said Chil- dren by lande or water at suche reasonable prises, as by the discre- tion of him, or his said Deputie shalbe thought sufficient And also to take vpp sufficient lodging for him and the sayd Children, when they for our service shall remove to any place or places. Provided also, y' if our said servant, or his Deputie, or Deputies bearers hereof in his name cannot forthw" remove the Childe or Children when he by vertue of this our Commission hath taken him or them That then the said Childe or Children shall re- mayne there vntill suche tyme as our said Servant Nathaniell Giles shall send for him or them. Wher- fore we will and commaunde you and eu'y of you to whom this our Commission shall come, to be help- ing ayding and assisting to the vt- termost of your powers, as you will answer at your vttermost pmlls. In witnes wherof &c Gevin vnder our Privy Seale at o' Manno' of Grenewich the thirde day of July in the nyne and thirtieth yeere of our Reigne. Will Parker [engrosser] 62 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS upon which this brilliant career was begun and is, not only for that reason but mainly for other reasons that appear in the se- quence, of supreme value in understanding the significance of events. Upon first reading and upon comparison with earlier similar documents, the Commission seems an ordinary provision for the Queen's Chapel according to ample precedent. Since the days of Richard III and perhaps even earlier, it had been the custom to impress men and boys by royal authority into service as Chapel choristers. Although research will probably yet reveal similar commissions to Henry Abingdon,^ Gilbert Ban- ester,^ or still earlier Masters of the Children, at present the first known authorization for such impressments is the commission from Richard III to John Melyonek, i6 September, 1484.^ The Patent is under the index, "Nona Pars Patentium de Anno XXXIX. Elizabeth," and is found in that roll on membrane No. 7, dorso. It was engrossed from the above Privy Seal, and begins ac- cordingly after the words "in forme folowing" with "Elizabeth," &c. The engrosser repeated the words "ffor that" after "greeting." Ab- breviations and especially orthogra- phy in the two documents differ widely, — a condition universally prevalent in the thousands of such records. Otherwise the wording of the grant is the same. The closing sentence of the Privy Seal begin- ning with "Gevin" is replaced in the patent by "witnes our self at Westminster the xv'" day of Julie per brei^^ de priuato sigillo etc." 'Patent, May, 5 Edw. IV (1465), "for the fynding, instruction," &c. of the children. Protected by Act of Resumption in his stipend of 40 /. per year, 13 Edw. IV (1473-74). ^Protected by Act of Resump- tion, 22 Edw. IV. (1482-83) in his salary of 40 /., for "the exhibition, instruction, and governaunce of the children of the chapelle." 'Placed in wrong historical per- spective and printed with expanded and sometimes modernized spell- ings, inserted punctuations, and a few omissions and other changes in J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage (1831), I, 34-35; second ed. (1879), I, 40. Reprinted with fewer variations in The Old Cheque-Book or Book of Remembrance of the Chapel Royal, from 1561 to 1744 (ed. E. F. Rimbault for The Cam- den Society, 1872), vii. Both pub- lications omit the last line (the date) of the document, and Rim- bault misdates it as 1485 instead of 1484. The original document is pre- served in Brit. Mus., Harl. MSS. 433, fol. 189, from which the fol- lowing transcript is made (with the more difficult abbreviations, how- ever, expanded into italics) : — MeU-Vic &c To all & eu^ry o' sub- ""giett"' aswele s-piritueU as tem- porell thise o' lettrcs hering or seeing greeting We let you wite that for the confidence & trust y' we haue in o' trusty and welbe- loued s^ruont John Melyonek oon of ye gentilmen of o' Chapell and knowing also his expert habilitie and connyng in ye science of Mu- sique haue licenced him and by thise present" licence and geue him auctorite y' w'in all plac" in this o' reame aswele Cathedral ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 63 It is not yet known whether or not William Cornyshe^ and William Crane^ were likewise empowered by their respective sov- ereigns Henry VII and Henry VIII. But sixty-six years after the grant to Melyonek by Richard III, Edward VI employed the same means to the same ends in a commission to Philip Van Wilder.^ Two years later, June, 1552, Edward VI gave another authorization of similar nature to Richard Bower, Master of the Children of the Chapel.* Previous commissions had provided for the taking up of both children and men as choristers. But in the present case and in all succeeding cases, to the termination of the churges coliges chappells houses of relegion and al oy'' [other] franchisee! & exempt plac" as elliswhere o' colege roial at Wyndesor res^rued & except may take and sease for vs and in o' name al suche singing men _& childre being expart i° the said science of Musique as he can finde and thiiik sufficient and able to do vs s^ruice Wherfor &c yeuen &c at Nottinghom the xvj" day of Septemb"' A° secundo A° domini 1484 A° 3° [Richard Ill's reign began June 26, 1483. His second year therefore is June 26, 1484— June 25, 1485. Hence Sept. 16, 2 Ric. Ill, is Sept. 16, 1484, not 1485 as Rimbault («. s.) has it. Richard III died 22 Au- gust, 1485.] ^William Cornyshe (Cornish) is first heard of as Master of the Chil- dren in 1493, in Henry VII's Privy Purse Expenses. ^The date of William Crane's succession is not known. He is first heard of as Master of the Children of the Chapel in 1526, in the House- hold Book of Henry VIII. 'The patent is to Philip Van Wilder, Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, Feb., 1550, and empowers him "in anie churches or chappells within England to take to the King's use, such and as many sing- ing children and choristers, as he or his deputy should think good." — The Old Cheque-Book {u. s.), viii. *J. P. Collier, op. cit. (1831^), I, 142; (1879"), I, 140', notes the is- suance of this warrant of authority, with acknowledgements to Strype, Eccl. Mem., II, 839, which I cannot verify. But John Strype, Ecclesias- tical Memorials (1822), II, ii, 285, quotes under erroneous date of June, 1551, from King Edward VI's Book of Warrants. I have not yet found either Privy Seal or Patent. But I quote the following from the original MS. record : — "June vj°E vj A commission to Rich- [1553] ard Gowre M' of the Comision Children of the K. Chap- pie to take vp from tyrtie to tyme as many chil- dren to serve in his sayde chappie as he shall thinke mete. — Brit. Mus., MS. Reg. (18. c. 24.), fol. 332, entitled "The Note to all the Bills signed by the King and Councel from Oct. 19, 4 Edw. VI. to the 7 Edw. VI." The name here is distinctly writ- ten "Gowre." But in the Latin pat- ent to him by Elizabeth, 13 April, 1559, as printed in Thomas Rymer, Foedera (1713), XV, 517, it is "Bower." It is likewise "Richard Bowre" in the Latin Patent to Bower as Master of the Children of the Chapel, 28 April, 1547, in the Public Record Office, Patent Rolls, 1 Edw. VI, Part 9. Never yet printed. His salary is fixed at 40 /. per year. See also infra, 64'. 64 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS practice, except the one of 1559- [60] next noticed, only children were to be impressed.^ In Elizabeth's second regnal year, she issued a Privy Seal prohibiting the taking of singing men and boys from Windsor, Paul's, or the Chapel Royal, but empowering the bearer, not named, to take such from any other chapel.^ It is not known what this special provision was made for, but it seems quite certainly a commission to the master of the children at Windsor for supplying vacancies, and not for the Chapel Royal. In 1562 the 1552 commission to Bower is reported to have been renewed by Elizabeth, authorizing him "to take up well singing boys, for furnishing the Queen's Chapel."^ I have not been able to find this commission, and I suspect the report is not true ; for Bower died 26 July, 1561,* and Richard Edwards was appointed to the office the same year.'' Chalmers in reporting this has either confused it with the commission to Richard Edwards of Dec. 4, 1561,° or overlooked the natural chronology of a document that fell between the date of Elizabeth's reappointment of Bower, 30 April, 1559, five months after the beginning of her reign,^ and the date of his death, 26 July, 1561. In either case there is a mis- dating. 'There was little further need ed. 1833), I, 81, from Ashmolean for impressment of men-choristers; MSS. 1113 (Bodl. Lib.); also in for so many wanted the position of J. P. Collier, op. cit. (1879), I, 170. Gentleman of the Chapel that there ^Cf. George Chalmers, An Apol- seem sometimes, during the reign ogy for the Believers in the Shake- of Elizabeth and of James I., to speare Papers (1797), 359. have been more gentlemen extraor- *Cf. The Old Cheque-Book (it. dinary, — that is, applicants in line s.), Notes, for promotion to active service as 'Infra, 65'. choristers, — than gentlemen ordi- 'Infra, ibid. nary. See The Old Cheque-Book 'Officers of Edward VI or of (m. j.) 62ff., passim, particularly Queen Mary holding over under the strict regulations of the chapter Elizabeth had their authority val- against using influence on the Lord idated by reappointment. Accord- Chamberlain in securing such ap- ingly a new patent was granted to pointments, idem,., 64, under date Richard Bower as Master of the Dec. 2, 1592. Children of the Chapel, dated "xxx 'The Privy Seal dates 8 March, Aprilis" in 1 Eliz. (1559). This 1559-[60]. It closes thus: "and we document provides for instruction give power to the bearer of this to and keep of twelve boys, for which take any singing men and boys Bower is allowed 40 1, per year, — ■ from any chapel, our own house- just the same as earlier given to hold and St. Paul's only excepted." him, Abingdon, Banester, and other — Printed in full in John Nichols, masters of the children, and later The Progresses and Public Proces- to his successors, Edwards, Hunnis, sions of Queen Elizabeth (second and Gyles. The latter part of the ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 65 Very soon after the death of Richard Bower, Elizabeth empow- ered his successor, Richard Edwards, with a commission for tak- ing up children under date of 4 Dec, 1561. This document served as a model for the later commissions to Hunnis and Gyles. All three are almost identical. As the commission to Edwards throws much light upon the present history by its identity in purport and near likeness in wording, and has never before been published, it is here subjoined.^ patent specifies that these condi- tions and the powers granted are all as formerly enjoyed by the same Bower under Henry VIH, Edward VI, and Mary. — Public Record Of- fice, Patent Rolls, 1 Elizabeth, Part 9, membrane 5. See also supra, 63*. ^I have found both the Privy Seal and the Patent of this com- mission in the Public Record Office, and publish, as usual in such cases, from my transcript of the Privy Seal as of prior authority over the engrossed Patent The Privy Seal bears date 4 Dec, 1561, and the execution 10 Jan. next succeeding. MemorandMMJ quod x° die Jan- uarii Anno infra scripto istud brez'? deliheratum fuit domino Custodt magni Sigilli apud Westmonasterium exequendMwt Elizabeth by the grace of god Quehe of England fraunce & Ire- land defend' of the faythe &c. To o' right welbeloued & fajrthfull Counsaylo' S' nicholas Bacon knight keper of o' great Seale of Englande, commaundinge yo° that vnder o' great Seale aforsayd ye cause to be made o' \ettres patent" in forme followinge. To all Mayo" sherifs baylief' constables & all other o' officers gretinge. For that it is mete that o' chappell Royall should be furnyssTied w well sing- ing children from tyme to tyme we have & by these present" do au- thorise o' welbeloued s^rvaunt Rich- ard Edward" m' of o' children of o' sayd chappell or his deputie be- inge by his bill subscribed & sealed so authorised, & havinge this p' presente comyssion w'" hym to take as manye well singinge Children as he or his sufficient deputie shall thinke mete in all Chathedrall & Collegiate Churches aswell w^in libertie as w"'out w"in this o' Realme of England whatsoever they be And also at tymes neces- sarie, horses, boat", barg". Cart" & Carres, as he for the conveyaunce of the sayd Children from any place to o' sayd chappell Royall. w*" all maner of necessaries apperteynyng to the sayd Children aswell by lande as water at o' prices ordynarye to be redely payed when they for o' service shall remove to any place or plac" provided also that if o' sayd Servaunt or his deputie or deputies bearers hereof in his name cannot forthw'" Remove the chyld or children when he by virtue of this o' Commyssyon hathe taken hym or them that then the sayd child or children shall remayne there vntill suche tyme as o' sayd S"vaunt Rychard Edward" shall send for him or them Wherfore we will & cpnuMaunde yo" & everie of you to whom this o' Comyssion shall come to be helpinge aydinge & assistinge to the vttermost of yo' powers as ye will answer at yo'vttermoste peryll". In Wytnes wherof &c. Geven vnder o' privie Seale at o' Mano' of St James the fourthe daye of Decembre in the fourthe yere of o' Raigne. R. Jones [engrosser of Patent. Name written in same ink as the memorandum at top]. The Patent is found in the Pub- lic Record Office, Patent Rolls, 4 Eliz., Part 6, Membrane 14, dorso. 66 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Immediately after the death of Edwards the last of October, 1566, William Hunnis was appomted in his place as Master of the Children of the Chapel. Within six months thereafter, namely in April, 1567, Hunnis was in like manner commissioned to take up children. This commission is modeled upon the preceding one to Edwards, with additions of a few words and one new provision as to lodging the children. Thirty years later the Hunnis com- mission became in turn itself the model from which the commis- sion to Gyles, already quoted,^ was copied word for word. The use later made of the commission to Gyles, as dealt with in succeeding pages of the present history, raises into peculiar im- portance the precedent commission to Edwards and especially this commission to William Hunnis.^ The wording of the grant part of the Privy Seal is copied in the pat- ent as is usual, with varied orthog- raphy, however, and the direction to the Keeper of the Great Seal is of course omitted in the Patent. The last sentence beginning "In witnes" is replaced in the Patent by the date of its issue, "In wittnese &c yeoven the tenth daye of Janu- ary per breej^ de priuato Sigillo &c.'' ^ Supra, 60\ ^I have found both Privy Seal and Patent of Hunnis's commission in the Public Record Office, and publish, as in all similar cases, from the Privy Seal, as of prior author- ity over the Patent engrossed from it. The Privy Seal and patent were executed by the Queen in person. Hence the omission of the usual introductory paragraph of the Privy Seal to the Keeper of the Great Seal, and the substitution at close of the Patent of "per ipsam Regi- nam" in place of the customary authority "per breve de priuato Sigillo." The Privy Seal bears Elizabeth's signature near the top of the parchment in her usual tall, strong, individualized separate characters. The customary date-line at close of the Privy Seal is omitted. But the execution is recorded as 18 April, 1567. Memorandwm quod xviij° die Aprilis Anno Regni Reginae E : nono ista billa dliberata fuit Domino Custodi magni Sigilli apud Westtnonasterium exe- quendo. tlizabeth Si [signature] Elizabeth by the grace of god &c To all maiors Sheriffes Bayliffes Constables and all other o' officers greatinge For that it iss mete that oure Chappell Royall shulde be fur- nysshed with well singynge Chyl- derne from tyme to tyme. We Have and by these presence do auc- thorice o' welbeloued servaunte Williom Hunnys master of o' Chil- derne of o' saide Chappell or His deputie beinge by His bill sub- scribed and sealed so aucthorised, and Havinge this o' presente com- «yssion w Hym, To take suche & asmany Childrne as He or His suf- ficiente deputie shall thinke mete in all Cathedrall Collegiate porishe Churches Chappells or any other place or places aswell w'^in Libertie as w"'out w'^in this o' Realme of Englande whatsoever they be and also at all tymes necessary Horses Boeates barges Cartes Carres and waggens for the conveyaunce of the saide Childerne from any place, w" all maner of Necessaries appertayn- ynge to the saide Childerne, by ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 67 The practice of impressment was not confined to supplying the Chapel Royal. April 26, 1585, Queen Elizabeth granted to one Thomas Gyles,^ Master of the Children of Paul's, a warrant under her signet, for the taking up of children to be used in her service whenever she might call for them.^' Lande or water at such Reasonable prises as by the discretion of hym or his saide deputie shalbe thought suflficiente and also to take vpp suf- ficient Lodgynge for hjmi & the saide Childerne when they for o' service shall Remove to any place or places Prouided also that if o' saide Servaunte or his deputie or deputies bearers Hereof in His name cannot forthw'" Remove the Childe or Childerne when He by vertu of this o' comyssion Hath taken hym or them, That then the saide childe or Childerne shall re- mayne there vntill suche tyme as o' saide servaunte willjom Hunnys shall sende for Hym or them Wherefore we will and commaunde yo" and every of yo" to whome this o' commyssion shall come to be Helpinge aydinge and assistinge to the vttermoste of yo' powers as yo° will answere at yo' vttermoste per- ils In witnesse whereof &c The Patent may be found in the Public Record Office in Patent Rolls, 9 Eliz., Part 10, Mem. 19 (16), dorso. With the exception of orthography, it is an exact copy of the Privy Seal. At the close after "In witnesse whereof &c" is added simply, "Witnes our self at Wtsttninster the xviij" daye of Aprill per ipsam Reginam &c." 'In no way connected with Na- thaniel Gyles of the Chapel Royal and Blackfriars theatre. ^This document is printed in full in J. P. Collier, op. cit., (1831'), I, 265; (1879"), I, 258-59, but mis- dated by him as 1586. It is also misdated as 1584 by A. Albrecht, Das EngUsche Kindertheater (Diss. Halle, 1883), 31, with reference to John Nichols, The Progresses, &c., of Queen Elizabeth (1823), II, 432, where Nichols erroneously prints "26th" for "27th" in the last line of the document, giving the year. Reprinted, with correct date, in The English Drama and Stage (ed. Haz- litt, Roxhurghe Library, 1869), 33- 34. Hazlitt was unable to find the original document in the Public Record Office. The reason is, it is in the British Museum, Sloane MS. 2035&, fol. 73 {Album of George Willingham, 1585-1650), from which I offer the following transcript as an accurate copy. At the top, below the words "By the Queene," Elizabeth has placed her signature with her usual tall, clear, sharply individualized sepa- rate letters. By the Queene. tlizabeth \9^^^\ Whereas we haue authorysed our servaunte Thomas Gyles M' of the children of the Cathedrall Churche of St Pauls within our Cittie of London to take vpp suche apte and meete Children as are most fitt to be instructed and framed in the arte and science of musicke and singinge as may be had and founde out within anie place of this our Realme of England or Wales, to be by his education and bringinge vp made meete and hable to serve vs in that behalf when our pleasure is to call for them. Wee therefore by the teno' of these present"' will and require you that ye permitt and suffer from henceforthe our saide servaunte Thomas Gyles and his deputie or deputies and every of them to take vp in anye Cathedral or Collegiate Churche or Churches and in everye other place or places of this our Realme of England and Wales, suche Childe and Children as he or they or anye of them shall 68 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS In 1595 she issued a similar commission it seems to Nathaniel Gyles, then Master of the Children of St. Georges Chapel at Windsor.^ These precedents all provided for the taking up of children for singing. But the Chapel Children had been employed in dramatic representations apparently as early as Edward IV,^ and possibly finde and like of and the same Childe and Children by vertue here- of for the vse and service afoure- saide, with them or anye of them to bringe awaye, withoute anye yo' lett" contradicdons staye or inter- ruptions to the contrarie Charginge and commaundinge you and everie of you to be aydinge helpinge and assisting vnto the aboue named Thomas Gyles and his deputie and deputies in and aboute the due ex- ecucJon of the premisses for the more spedie effectuall & bettar ac- complisshing thereof from tyme to tyme as you and everie of you doe tendar our will and pleasure and will aunswere for doinge the con- trarye at yo' perill"' Youen vnder our Signet at our Mano' of Grene- wich the 26th Day of Aprill in the 27th yere of our reign. To all and singules Deanes, Provostes, Maisters and War- dens of Collegies and all Ec- clesiasticall persons and myn- isters and to all other o' officers mynisters and sub- iect" to whome in this case it shall apperteyne and to everye of them greetinge 'This document has not yet been discovered. But from the reference to it in the Appointment of Na- thaniel Gyles by the Dean and Can- ons of St. George, coupled with the fact that Gyles served at Windsor accordingly for thirty-nine years {cf. supra, 58°), it was doubtless granted. The Appointment of the Dean and Canons of St. George is a rare document in that it recognizes the acting-function of the choir-chil- dren. It also throws a side-light on the present history. "The Dean and Canons of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, by deed dated 1 Oct. 1595, nominate Na- thaniel Gyles, B. M. to be Clerk in the Chapel, and one of the players on the organs there, and also to be master, instructor, tutor, and crean- sor, or governor, of the ten chor- isters, agreeing to give him an an- nuity of 81 1. 6 J. 8 d. and a dwelling-house within the Castle, called the Old Commons, wherein John Mundie did lately inhabit, with all appertenances, as one Rich- ard Farrante enjoyed the same. The stipend to be paid monthly by the treasurer, over and besides all other gifts, rewards, or benevo- lence that may be given to the chor- isters for singing of ballads, plays, or the like: also such reasonable leave of absence as the statutes al- low, e.xcept when Her Majesty shall be resident, or an installation or funeral of any noble person shall be solemnized: on condition that the said Nathaniel Gyles shall pro- cure meet and apt choristers within the space of three months after avoidance (Her Majesty's Commis- sion for the taking of children be- ing allowed unto him), and that he shall find them sufficient meat and drink, apparel, bedding and lodging at his own costes within the New Commons lately appointed for them; and that he shall find a sufficient deputy during the time of sickness and absence." — Bodl. Lib., Ashmolean MSS., No. 1125-33; printed in The Old Cheque-Book (u. s., 63'), 198. ''This statement has no surer foundation than the known dra- matic activity of the Master of the Children, Gilbert Banester, author of The Miracle of St. Thomas, and the possible use of the Boys by him ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 69 even earlier. Certainly they were used as actors within seven years of our first known notice concerning Banester's connection with them.^ Henry VII employed them at the Christmas festiv- ities of 1490 in a pageant of pantomime and song,^ and apparently at other times during his reign in pageant presentations.' Henry VIII frequently employed them in the presentation of plays,^ as did also Edward VI.^ The boys taken up for Paul's, Windsor, in acting. See J. P. Collier, op. cit, % 33 ; =1, 40 ; Thomas Warton, op. cit.. Ill, 132. ^ Supra, 62^; infra, 69". 'See Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. No. 69, under "The tenth Chapter of the disportes," &c., fol. 34&. It is there declared that the boys, dressed as mermaids in this song and pan- tomime, were the Children of the Chapel. All eight were used, — ^the full number at that time kept. On use of the Men of the Chapel as actors at this period, see extracts from the Household Book of Henry VH in J. P. Collier, op. cit, % 44ff; 'I, 50ff. 'This conclusion is based solely on the preceding evidence and the fact that the Household Book of Henry VH {u. s., 69'), shows pay- ments for these pageants to Wil- liam Cornish, then Master of the Children, successor to Banester. 'See extracts from The Kynges Boke of payments during the first twelve years of Henry VIII, in Col- lier, op. cit. (1879), I, 76-79, from which are taken the first four no- tices here quoted: — 8 H. VIII.— Jan. 4. To Mr. Cor- nisshe and the children of the chap- ell that played affore the king, 6 /. 13 .f. id. 10 H. VIII.— Jan. 2. To Mr. Cornishe, for playing affore the king opon newyeres day at nyght with the children of the kings chap- ell, 6/. ns. id. 11 H. VIII.— Jan. 6. To Mr. Cornisshe, for playing afore the king this Cristemas with his chil- dren, 6 /. 13 s. 4 d. 13 H. VIII.— Jan. 6. To master Cornisshe for his play, 6 /. 13 J. 4 d. The following additional notices indicate Henry VIII employed the Children extensively as actors throughout his reign: — The Interlud was callyd the tryumpe of Love and Bewte, and yt was wryten and presentyd by Mayster Cornyshe and oothers of the Chappell of our soverayne lord the Kyng, and the chyldern of the sayd Chapell, &c. — From a roll of the items of the Revels, Christmas, 1514-[15], in Collier, op. cit., I, 69. Item, to Maister Crane, for play- ing before the King with the Chil- dren of the Chapell, in rewarde — From the Household Book of Henry VHI, in the Trevelyan Pa- pers (ed. Collier, for The Camden Society, 1857), 146. Under date of New Year's day, 1529. Item, to Mr. Crane for playing be- fore the King with the Children of the Chappell, in reward vj" xiij' iiij* —Idem, 161. Under date of New Year's day, 1530. Item to M' Crane, for playing before the Kinges grace, with the childerne of the Kinges chapell... — Idem, 174. Under date of New Year's day, 1531. 30 Henry VIII.— Dec. 30. Itm to the children of the chapell by way of the King's rewarde, 6 /. 13 s. id.—]. P. Collier, op. cit., I, 116, from the King's Books of Payments. 31 Henry VIII.— Jan. 1. Itm to Mr. Crane, for playing before the King with the children, 6 /. 13 s. 4 d. — Idem, 117. "Item, to Richard Bowre, for playing before the King's majestic 70 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS and the Chapel Royal had under Elizabeth likewise often been used in play-acting, although this function was not specified in the commissions/ It accorded however with the Queen's pleasure. The above comparative view of the commission to Gyles and its precedents shows that the commission to Gyles, out of which arises much of the history of the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, instead of being peculiar in its provisions differs in no essential features from its immediate precedents, and is even word for word identical with the commission to Hunnis. Whether the commission to Hunnis or the model of it to Edwards was read two ways or not, each at least could have been if occasion had arisen. The only difference between these precedents and the commission to Gyles seems to be that under Gyles's regime occa- sion did arise, and his commission consequently was given in practice a double interpretation. The commission to Gyles can be read and was read two ways, each with perfect consistency. Henry Clifton in his complaint to the Queen, as we shall see, read it in the strictest sense as a direct provision for supplying the Chapel with choristers. Gyles read it thus, and also very differently. We are forced to con- clude from events that the Queen and her Court of Star Chamber with the Children of the Chappell, brecht. Das Englische Kinderthea- in rewarde vj" xiij' iiij" ter (Diss. Halle, 1883), makes a — From the Household Book of Ed- very brief presentation. F. G. ward VI, 1547-[48], in The Tre- Fleay, A Chronicle History of the velyan Papers (ed. Collier, for The London Stage, &c. (1890), gives Camden Society, 1857), 301. a superficial general view, and is Item to Richard Bower, M' of followed by Hermann Maas, Die the Children of the Kinges Chap- Ktndertruppen (Diss. Gottingen, pell, for playinge before the Kinges 1901), m a few sketchy paragraphs. Majestie with the saied Children The field widens with investigation vj" xiij° iiij'' ''^d includes, besides the Children — From r^e Kinges Booke of Re- of the Chapel, Windsor choir, and ceyptes and Paymentes, in The Paul's boys, also several schools for Trevelyan Papers (ed. Collier, for boys,— as Westminster, Merchant The Camden Society, 1863), II, 20. Taylors, Oxford, Eton, &c. Not Under date of New Year's day, all of these of course provided 1547-1481 Court-entertainments, but they were 'Examples of this practice under "l^d at least in private theatricals. Elizabeth prior to her action in es- No thorough treatment has ever yet tablishing the Children of the been made. The field, though not Chapel at Blackfriars in 1597 are richly promising, awaits an investi- too voluminous to quote in the gator. Certain pertinent materials, present small work. J. P. Collier, old and new, will be included in op. cit. (1831', 1879"), I, passim, my succeeding complete work. assembled some materials. A. Al- ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACKFRIARS 71 agreed with Gyles's interpretation, and that he read it thus in carrying out the Queen's wish. In this sense the commission required Gyles to provide children for the Chapel, but allowed him wide liberty. He could take up as many children as he pleased, although the Latin patent issued just the day before specifically provided that he should be re- quired to instruct but twelve for the Chapel Royal. He could remove them whither he would, if he could not at once make use of them at the Chapel, and could board them and lodge them at the royal expense. He might remove them to the Chapel when he thought them suitable for use there. There was no compul- sion for his ever taking them thither. The disposition of the children was left wholly within the discretion of Gyles. This wide liberty was used as follows: Gyles or his deputy took up numerous children, and delivered them to Henry Evans at the Blackfriars theatre. Here they were boarded and lodged by Evans at the royal charge. They were taught singing, play- acting, dancing, and other arts, besides grammar-school subjects. For this purpose, "the Scholehouse" at the theatre was used and certain musici and praeceptores employed. The children acted plays publicly at least once a week. Their performances were attended by nobles, members of the Court, and the Queen herself. The following pages furnish the evidence of these conditions, and show that this liberal interpretation of the commission was not only in accordance with the Queen's knowledge, but was the carrying out of her will. These powers to Gyles were supplemented by official conces- sions to Henry Evans that enabled him to rent the Blackfriars theatre and train the Queen's Children of the Chapel there, with remunerative privileges. The documentary proof of this is con- nected with events occurring four years later, and is therefore taken up in subsequent pages.^ Whether the concessions to Evans bore earlier or later date than the Commission to Gyles cannot yet be determined. The testimony of Qifton's Complaint to the Queen'' indicates the the- atre was established solely on the basis of the latter. But Clifton IS making out a case against this commission, and, whether he ^ Infra, 81-83. ''Infra, 73flf., 77ff. 72 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS knew of them or not, does not mention any documents to Evans. We are compelled to be satisfied for the present with knowing that it was under these unusual powers to Gyles and special grants to Evans that the two men united in 1597, — Evans providing the theatre, and Gyles supplying it with children-actors. Although Gyles is not known in the management, it is possible that at least for a time he had some share in the profits ; for on May 31, 1601, he was paid 15 /. for the two Court-performances of January and February of that year.^ 'See Plays at Court, complete work, vol. II. CHAPTER IV ACTORS AND SINGERS.— THE TWO FUNCTIONAL DIVISIONS OF THE CHILDREN There were two sets of the Children of the Chapel from 1597 to the death of Elizabeth in 1603, all maintained at the royal charge, and all intended primarily or ultimately for the Queen's service. Of this condition there is ample evidence. From the earliest history of the Chapel Royal, the children had been lodged and boarded in or near the palace, in close con- nection with the Chapel.^ There can be no doubt that the twelve boys provided for in the Latin Patent to Gyles^ were still thus maintained. The allowance of 40 I. to Gyles is a provision for this maintenance and is based specifically upon the same provi- sion to his predecessors, William Hunnis and Richard Edwards.' With this set of children we have here nothing further to do. The boys who acted were maintained at Blackfriars under Evans. The liberal interpretation which the Queen allowed to be put upon the English Commission, as already noticed, shows this condition fully provided for. Qifton in his Complaint to the Queen says it was at Blackfriars that his son was "delivered & committed" by Gyles and his deputy James Robinson "vnto the custody of the sayd Henry Evans,"* and that he was "as a pris- oner committed to the said playe howse amongste a companie of lewde & dissolute mercenary players."^ The Complaint was ^See The Old Cheque-Book (ed. the various documents quoted or E. F. Rimbault, for The Camden referred to in chapter III, was the Society, 1872), iii; also for various sum allowed to each of the known accounts of expense for their keep, Masters of the Children of the J. P. Collier, History of English Chapel from Edward IV to James Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the I, — namely, Henry Abingdon, Gil- Stage (1831"), I, 20ff; (1879'), I, bert Banester, William Cornish, 37ff. Also see Sir John Hawkins, William Crane, Richard Bower, A General History of the Science Richard Edwards, William Hunnis, and Practice of Music (new ed., Nathaniel Gyles. 1853), I, 272, 358. * Athenaeum (10 Aug., 1889), 204; ^ Supra, 59". G.-F., 131. 'This amount, 40 I., as shown by "Athenaeum, ibid.; G.-F., 130o. 74 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS made primarily to stop this use and maintenance of the Queen's Children, and is therefore full of information to the same effect. Specific quotations may be seen under later headings.^ The dec- laration of Evans's Answer in the suit of Kirkham vs. Painton concerning "the dietting and ordering of the Boyes vsed about the plaies there"^ is further evidence of the fact. The Diary of the Duke of Stettin^ accords with these established data, and adds definite statements as to maintenance of the Children at Blackfriars by the Queen, provisions for instruction, &c. "The Scholehouse" at the theatre, the room above it fitted up for the boys "to dine & sup in," and the newly built apartments above the Great Hall, where the boys probably lodged, show the mate- rial provisions for these conditions. Whether Gyles ultimately took to the Chapel Royal any of these lads who proved good singers, or whether he may occa- sionally have used some of the twelve Chapel singers in the special music programmes at Blackfriars, there is no present evi- dence to show. Although he had ample power, there was prob- ably no occasion for doing the latter. He may have done the former in carrying out the provisions for supplying the Chapel; for the Blackfriars was, at least ostensibly by the commission, a sort of preparatory school to the Chapel Royal. From the names of the Boys known to us, and from Clifton's Complaint, it seems the provision may have been "more honour'd in the breach, then the obseruance."* It is with the Blackfriars division of the Chapel Children that this history is concerned. They are important in themselves, and also as the source from which the several later Children of the Revels companies spring. The division of the Children dates from the Latin Patent and English Commission to Gyles, and is based upon the double func- tion of singing and acting previously performed by one body of Chapel Boys. In this functional division of the Children lies the source of the ultimate segregation of the two bodies under James I.° The number of Boys at Blackfriars under Elizabeth caimot '■Infra, 78', 79-82, 101', ;13', 126, 'Infra, 106^'. 159. 'Hamlet (1623 folio), I, iii, 3570. "Infra, 98. "Infra, vol. I, part ii. ACTORS AND SINGERS 75 have been less than twenty-five, and most probably reached thirty. Some of their plays show twenty characters on the stage at once, while other requirements in certain cases increase this number. All their plays have from twenty to thirty roles. It seems rea- sonable of course that certain minor parts in all these were doubled, or given to substitutes. But even then it is impossible to get below twenty, with the probabilities as more nearly twenty- five as a minimum. I subjoin a list of the undoubted plays of the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars showing these and other^ data in a general way.^ From Clifton's Complaint and from Ben Jonson's 1616 folio we know the names of fourteen of the boys taken up from 1597 ^The dates of the various plays time. The evidences are solid and and their consequent chronological in most cases final. See vol. II order are here given for the first under "Plays." 'Compare this list with the list under James I, infra, vol. I, part ii. NO. CHARAC- TERS IN PLAY NO. ACTORS REQUIRED ON STAGE AT ONE TIME TAe Case is Altered (ca. Sept.— Oct., 1597) . . Cynthia's Revels (ca. Apl., 1600) Sir Giles Goosecap (ca. fall, 1600) Poetaster (ca. Apl., 1601) The Gentleman Usher (ca. sum., 1601) Monsieur D' Olive (ca. Oct. — Dec, 1601) May Day (ca, May, 1602) The Widdowes Teares (Sept. 18, 1602) . . The Dutch Courtezan (fall— wint., 1602). The Malcontent (spring, 1603) 35 -|- servants 23 19-|-musicians 25 -|- "lictors, equites, etc.,' and "maids." 31 + 24 21 + 23 18 + pages(3), gentlemen, servants, maskers, con- stables (3), officers. 21 15 + servants (V, iv.) 20 (V, ii.) 15 (V,ii.) 18 + lictors (IV, iii.) 22 or more (counting two each for "Pages," "At- tendants," and "others.") (V.iii.) 11 (V,ii.) 16+ (V.) 18+ (V, V.) 11 + "hal- berds'' and "officers" (V, iii.) 20 (V, iii.) 76 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS to i6oi. As young Thomas Clifton did not act, we can count but thirteen known members. But CHfton does not pretend to name all,^ and Jonson names only the principal actors in Cynthia's Revels^ and Poetaster.^ ■ AH the boys here named, as well as those not named, were at the time of their impressment probably from nine to thirteen years of age.* *The list given by Clifton (c/. infra, 80^) : John Chappell, John Motteram, Nathan ffield, Alvery Trussell, Phillipp Pykman, Thomas Grymes, Salmon Pavey, Thomas Clifton. ' "The principall Comoedians were, Nat. Field. ) floh. Vnderwood. Sal. Pavy. \ \ Rob. Baxter. Tho. Day. ) (loh. Frost." — The Works of Beniamin Jonson (1616). "In the Poetaster list (idem), Baxter and Frost are replaced re- spectively by "Wil. Ostler" and "Tho. Marton." The rest are the same. 'This is the usual age of boy- choristers. Clifton gives the age of his son as about thirteen at the time of impressment in 1600. Field (1587-1633) was then thirteen. Underwood, Ostler, and the boys mentioned by Clifton as taken up from the various Grammar-schools and apprenticeships were also prob- ably ten or over at taking up. Jon- son's tender epigram on Sal. Pavy, who died apparently soon after act- ing in Poetaster, indicates he must have been near the age of his fel- lows. CHAPTER V STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE USE OF THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AS ACTORS For about three years (i 597-1600) the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, with Henry Evans as theatrical proprietor and master in play-acting and Nathaniel Gyles as master in music, presented plays and music entertainments without hindrance. But possibly the need for boys of particular excellence as actors and certainly the confidence of unquestioned security of privileges led to an overreaching of authority in impressing lads against pa- rental wishes. Had Evans, who seems mainly at fault, conducted himself more circumspectly in this matter, it is likely we should lack one of our valuable sources of information as to this chil- dren's company, their theatre the Blackfriars, and how it was established and managed. In 1600 this indiscretion of impressment on the part of the management led to a complaint to the Queen,^ which was later acted upon by her Court of Star Chamber. On December 13, 1600,^ James Robinson, acting as deputy under the Commission "^ Preserved in the Public Record although pardoned, had not been Office, Star Chamber Proceedings, received into favor." [Sid] Elizabeth, Bundle C 46, No. 39, The statement, put always in Clifton vs. Robinson and others, connection with a calendar date, is Discovered by James Greenstreet, merely a definite dating event in and published by him in The Ath- her Majesty's reign to show the enaeum (10 Aug., 1889), 203-4. Re- offense charged is not barred from printed from Greenstreet's tran- trial, since it followed the last gen- script in F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle eral pardon, — which in this case is History of the London Stage not true. The same or similar ex- (1890), 127-33. pression is used often in legal doc- ' Three times in his petition to uments of the time. See for ex- the Queen Clifton says in connec- ample this dater in the suit con- tion with this date "since your Ma- cerning the removal of the timbers jesty's last free and general par- of "The Theatre" (Dec. 1598 — Jan. don." Fleay (,op. cit., 124c) found 1599) for use in building the Globe material in this to explain why the "about the eight and twents^th daye Children of the Chapel did not play of December in the one and fortyth at court till 1601, — ^that is, he says, yeere of your Highnes raygne, and Gyles had offended the Queen "and sythence your highnes last and gen- 78 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS to Gyles, impressed and carried off to the theatre young Thomas Clifton, son and sole heir of Henry Clifton, a gentleman of some importance from Norfolk, who M'as temporarily residing in Lon- don to educate his boy at a grammar-school in Christ Church. Mr. Clifton complains that on the above date Robinson waylaid his son on the way to school and carried him off by violence.^ Even in the presence of the father, who had at once come to take his son away, and in defiance of him or any other nobleman whose sons they claimed a right to take at will, the boy was turned over to Evans, given a scroll of paper containing parts of a play to learn, and commanded with threats to set about his task.'' Failing to secure his son, Clifton immediately appealed to Sir John Fortescue,'* Chancellor of the Exchequer and member of the Privy Council,* probably a personal friend. Upon Sir John erall pardon." — Court of Requests Proceedings, Elizabeth, Bundle 87, No. 74, Burbage vs. Alleyn, Bill of Complaint In Public Record Of^ fice. See extracts in J. O. Halli- well-Phillips, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (9th ed. 1890), I, 360. In lieu of a fixed statute of lim- itations, it was customary for the sovereign at irregular intervals fixed at will to wipe out all offenses ex- cept the graver ones of treason, murder, &c., by a general pardon. By such pardon, action against any one who had previously committed any of the offenses it covered was forever barred. But this had noth- ing to do with future offenses. Hence the declaration in actions in court that the offense charged was committed "since" the last general pardon, to show that action is not barred. In the Jatter half of Elizabeth's sovereignty, not to go farther back, such pardons were issued in the following years of her reign:— 23, 27, 29, 31, 35, 39, 43. James I is- sued general pardons in only three years of his reign, 3, 7, 21. — See Statutes of the Realm, "General Pardon," under the various years indicated. The case of Burbage vs. Alleyn concerning the Theatre and Globe (m. j.) refers to the act by which all offenses before 4 Aug. 39 Eliz. (1597), except treason, murder, &c., were pardoned. Similar cases can be cited by the hundreds. But the case of Clifton is pecu- liar in its reference. The offense charged was committed 13 Dec, 1600, the year before the Queen's act pardoning offenses committed prior to 7 Aug. 43 Eliz. (1601). This pardon by right debarred ac- tion. Yet the complaint was filed over four months after the pardon, i. e., Dec. 15, 1601, with the declar- ation three times that the offense of Dec. 13, 1600, was committed "since" this last pardon. Just why this false statement is made is not clear. '" . . . the said James Robinson . . . the sayd Thomas Clifton \y"' greate force & vyolence did seise & surprise, & him w'" lyke force & vyolence did, to the greate terror & hurte of him the sayd Thomas Clifton, hall, pull, dragge & carry awaye to the said playe howse in the blacke fryeres aforesayd," &c. — Athenaeum (10 Aug. 1889), 204; G.-F., 129. 'Athenaeum, ibid.; G.-F., 131. ^Ibid. *Cf. Public Record Office, State STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS 79 Fortescue's peremptory order, the boy was released within twenty- four hours after seizure. Nothing further seems to have been done in the case of these violent proceedings until about a year later,^ Mr. Clifton, nurs- ing his hurt and collecting evidences of seven other seizures^ to- gether with important information as to how the Commission to Gyles was being interpreted in practice, then laid before her Maj- esty a Bill of Complaint. He recites in detail all the circum- stances and conditions of the seizure of his son, along with facts, implications, and erroneous statements touching the history of the organization under "Gyles, Evans, Robinson and others." It is later made even more baldly evident than here appears that he wanted not merely to punish the offenders for the injury that still rankled, but mainly to suppress the Blackfriars theatre.' The Bill shows not a little animus, and very strong puritanical opposition to plays and playhouses. Hence its statements, though touching vital facts, must be considered with caution. Some of them are substantiated by evidences in later pages, while others prove ut- terly false. Clifton aims chiefly to show in his Complaint that the Commis- sion to Gyles was procured simply as a blind to secure apparent royal endorsement of a base and wicked practice; that in fact "the said Nathaniell Gyles, confederating himself with one James Robinson, Henry Evans and others* ... by cullour of your ma"^° said letters patents & the trust by your highnes thereby to him the said Nathaniell Gyles committed . . . they the said confederates devysed, conspired & concluded, for theire owne corrupte gayne and lucre, to errecte, sett vpp, furnish and mayn- teyne a play house or place in the Blackfryers."" To substantiate this charge of abuse of authority and trust, Papers of 1600-1601, passim; also, find later (98-101) includes prima- Acts of the Privy Council, i6oo- rily the Yeoman of the Revels, Ed. i6oi (ed. Dasent, 1906). Kirkham, who as official of the ''Clifton dates the impressment of Queen furnished the stage-apparel his son as Dec. 13, 1600, "about one for the Children, and made large yere last past, & since your ma""' weekly "disbursements" for their last free & generall pardon." — G.-R, maintenance at Blackfriars. It is 1290. possibly intended to include other 'Infra, 80'. officials. But this remains yet to 'Infra, 159. be worked out. ^This general word "others" we "G.-R, 127; infra, lOll 80 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Clifton cites other specific cases of seizure, and declares that the boys so taken could not sing and were not taught to sing.^ This may be true of the particular boys or not. But as applying to the whole set of boys it is, as we shall see later, false. He de- clares also that the boys mentioned as well as those not named were taken up "against the wills of the said children, their par- ents, tutours, masters & governours.^ — Which seems wholly unlikely.^ Other evidences to be examined later both in Clifton's own Complaint and in other sources only add to the proof that the general conduct of the theatre was in accordance with and not contrary to authority, as Clifton would here show. It is, how- ever, true that from the time Evans enters as a factor in the career of the Children of the Chapel, a large actuating spirit is private gain-getting.* Clifton has grounds for his charge that the Boys were used "to the mercinary gayne & pryvat comoditie of them the said Nathaniell Gyles, Henry Evans, James Robinson, & other theire said confederates, "° if we temper the animus out of his ^Amongste w"' nombers, soe by the persons aforesaid & theire agents soe vniustlie taken, vsed & employed, they have vnduly taken & soe employed one John Chappell, a gramer schole scholler of one M' Spykes schole neere Criplegate, London; John Motteram, a gramer scholler in the free schole at West- mister; Nathan ffidd, a scholler of a gramer schole in London, kepte by one M' Monkaster ; Alvery Trus- sell, an apprentice to "oneTEomas Gyles; one PhilH£_Pykman and Thomas Grymes, apprentices to RIcfiar3"aiia^eorg Chambers; Sal- mqn Pa.vey, apprentice to one PeercejTemg childeren noe way able or fitt for singing, nor by anie the sayd confederates endevoured to be taught to singe, but by them the sayd confederates abusively em- ployed, as aforesayd, only in playes & enterludes. — Athenaeum (10 Aug. 1889), 203-4; G.-F., 138. 'Ibid. 'I have recently found a contract between the Blackfriars manage- ment under James I and the mother of a certain boy for his employment there as an actor, in which it is de- clared that the employment is agreed to upon the frequent and earnest solicitation of the mother. (Published in full in vol. Ill of complete work.) This was for mere acting. When to that was added also the honor of chorister, at least by name if not in practice, in the Chapel Royal, it may be doubted whether all parents felt such antipathy to having their chil- dren at Blackfriars during those brilliant years at the close of the reign of Elizabeth, as Clifton here declares. 'The Burbages, father and sons, Henslowe, and AUeyn were illus- trious examples of commercial suc- cesses in managing companies and theatres. Such sudden and easy wealth may easily explain in a measure the present venture and the spirit in it so far as Evans the lessee and manager of the theatre is concerned. 'Athenaeum (10 Aug. 1889) 203; G.-F., 127. STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS 81 words. In his notion of "conspiracy," "confederacy," "corrupt gayne and lucre," &c., his animus leads him to overstate his case. He substantiates the point of private profit by showing that in reply to his remonstrance concerning the forcible taking and de- taining his son to "be employed in that vyle & base manner of a mercynary player in that place, & in noe other sorte or manner,"^ these men "did then & there vse theis speeches, that were yt not for the benefitt they made by the sayd play howse, whoe would, should serA^e the Chappell w'" children, for them."^ In spite of the coloring Clifton wishes to give this declaration, it is clear that it is simply a plain business statement to the effect that so far as using the children, for private profit was concerned, they had ample authority. Incidentally also the statement indi- cates that the Blackfriars Boys were taken up to be prepared for the Chapel, and that as a reward these private advantages were allowed. So far as private profit was made in accordance with the aitthority granted and privileges allowed, it >was legitimate. Cause for royal displeasure and the Court's severity in acting upon Clifton's Complaint lay elsewhere. The case was acted upon by the Queen's Court of Star Cham- ber. Unfortunately the records among which this decree was filed seem long ago to have perished.* Our sole knowledge of the nature of the decision is in Edward Kirkham's Replication in his suit in Chancery against Painton, 1612.* It seems based wholly upon Clifton's showing of forcible impressment against parental wish, and fell solely upon Evans. It is likely that Kirkham's attorney, Stephen Price, had the decree before him as he wrote ; for after stating the main points in it, he refers the court to the document for the particulars in verification. From this we learn that "the said Evans in or about the three and ffortieth yeare of the raigne of the late Queen Eliz- abeth was censured by the right honorable Courte of Starr-Cham- ber for his vnorderhe carriage and behauiour in takinge vp of '■Athenaeum (u. s.) 304; G.-R, Bird, Assistant Keeper of the Pub- 1310. lie Records and Secretary of the ^Ibid. Public Record Office, Guide to the °"None of the Orders or Decrees Public Records (3nd ed. 1896), 198. of this Court [Star Chamber] are *G.-F., 248c; infra, 81-83'. known to exist."— S. R. Scargill- 82 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS gentlemen's childeren against theire wills and to ymploy them for players, and for other misdemeanors in the said Decree conteyned and ffurther that all assureances made to the said Evans con- cerninge the said house or playes or Interludes should be vtterlye voyde, and to be deliuered vpp to be cancelled as by the said De- cree more at large it doth and may appeare."^ This decree was rendered simply upon the presentation of the side of the prosecution. No ''Bill of Answer," "Replication"' or "Rejoinder" was apparently allowed.^ Had there been, we should expect to find these additional records filed with the Bill of Com- plaint, as is the custom in such cases in most English courts of the period. Although Clifton declared that not only his boy but all the other seven he names as well as those not named were unwill- ingly, forcibly, and "vniustlie taken, vsed & employed,"^ it seems quite likely that if it had not been for Court-influence, possibly through Sir John Fortescue, in enforcing the really minor claim of personal injury to Clifton's feelings, the case might not have been entertained. For the decree by no means accomplished what he aimed at, the suppression of Blackfriars theatre, and fell only upon the chief offender against him. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the decree was based wholly upon "the taking up of gentlemen's children," — a statement which, so far as can be determined, fits only Clifton's case.* It is further strengthened by the fierce satire in act V, scene v, of Chapman's The Widow's Tears (September, 1602). This is the first known new play that could have been wholly composed and written after the decision, and is bitter in its attack upon one-sided justice, in which neither "replications" nor "re- joinders" are allowed, and only two persons are heard in the case, with judgment rendered "at first sight," &c.^ It cannot be de- clared with the certainty of documentary statement that the satire was meant for this case. But as we have documentary evidence that The Widow's Tears containing this satire was acted in Sep- tember, 1602, it is difficult to see how the Blackfriars audience 'G.-R, 248c. 'Cf. supra, 80'; infra, 180", 180'. 'Cf. infra, 82', 86-87'. "See further under "Plays" in 'Athenaeum (10 Aug., 1889), vol. H of forthcoming work. 305; G.-F., 128. STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS 83 familiar with the status and conduct of that theatre could have been prevented in the fifth act from thinking of the Star Chamber case thus recently aimed at their playhouse. The effect of the decree was to inhibit the Blackfriars under Evans's management, absolutely prohibiting his use of the Chil- dren of the Chapel in future. It did not shut up the theatre nor prohibit the Queen's Children from being employed in plays at Blackfriars thereafter, under a new management. Nor did it in any way affect Gyles in his official position, which he continued to hold the rest of his life. The Queen's Court seems to have found no fault in him, and he continued thereafter as formerly to supply the children of her Majesty's Chapel for both singing and acting. His furnishing of the children as actors and singers at Blackfriars was upon this and numerous other evidences within the powers of his Commission. Nor did the decree affect the Yeomen of the Revels, Ed. Kirk- ham, who as official of the Queen had furnished apparel and dis- bursed money weekly for the maintenance of the Boys at Black- friars; for he continued to do the same throughout the rest of Elizabeth's reign, and even became a partner in the management and sharer in the profits.^ In the judgment of the Court Evans alone had transgressed his privileges and abused the trust reposed in him. Certain other phases of the Clifton case and the Queen's atti- tude in it will be taken up later.^ ^ Infra, 87-94. 'Infra, 126, 159. CHAPTER VI DATING EVENTS, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MANAGEMENT^ The exact date of Clifton's Complaint and the Decree of the Court would be of value in placing events in proper chronological order. Both are determinable approximately, at least by year and court-term. Evans after three successful years, finding the venture profit- able enough to make it the business of his life, as already noted, leased the Blackfriars of Richard Burbage September 2, 1600, for a period of twenty-one years. ^ This was three and a half months prior to impressing young Thomas Clifton, Dec. 13. The Com- plaint to the Queen as we have seen, was made "about one yere"^ after the offense; i. e., in the fall or winter of 1601.* Circum- stances lead to the feeling of some certainty that if the bill was not exhibited in court early in the Michaelmas (Oct.-Dec.) term, 'This chapter was prepared for the press three years ago. Since then I have discovered certain doc- uments and data settling definitely some of the points in question. The corroborative and final nature of these gives some hope for the other items, when the field is fully worked out. Had I come upon the new materials earlier, the chapter would not have taken its present form. But the matter is allowed to stand, with some security that the items dealt with will not hereafter be thrown into admired disorder as they have been in the past by dif- ferent writers. The whole chapter serves as an example of the severe process of elimination and exhaus- tion that I have had to follow in occasional parts of chapters where the sterner authority of documen- tary declaration failed. "See supra, 57'-57*. °See supra, 79\ * Since writing these first five paragraphs, I have examined Clif- ton's original Bill of Complaint at the Public Record Office. It bears no date on its face. But as is the case with all bills in Star Chamber, the date of filing is recorded on the back of the parchment. The date of trial is endorsed below this. "Marti decimo Quinto Decem- bris Anno xliiij Elizabeth Regine Willm Mill p octab Hillar" Mr. James Greenstreet, who dis- covered this document, failed to note its date when he published it in The Athenaeum, 10 Aug., 1889, 203-4. Dependence upon his publi- cation as accurate long led me to suppose the document undated. DATING EVENTS— NEW MANAGEMENT 85 knowledge of the forthcoming charges reached Evans in some other way in October. For Evans, on the importunity of his wife, deeded everything,^Blackf riars lease, household goods, and all, — to his son-in-law, Alexander Hawkins, on the twenty-first of that month. Doubtless as a result of infomiation or intimation of Clifton's charges, fearing the case might go hard with him and entail financial loss, he put his property thus out of his hands, as men do yet, to save it.^ The Decree fell between the date of this transfer of property and April 20, 1602, when Evans circumvented its inhibitions against his using the Queen's Children by entering into certain Articles of Agreement.^ As the Easter term of 1602 did not open until May i, the Decree, causing this new arrangement, fell in either Michaelmas or Hilary term.* Kirkham's attorney in the ^ Evans in his Answer in the case of Kirkham vs. Painton (G.-F., 345o) declares he made this assign- ment solely to indemnify Hawkins on his 400 /. bond to Burbage as security for the rent of Blackfriars {supra, ST^-ST*), and that he did "vpon the earnest and ymportunate request of his this def" wife, graunt & convey vnto him the said Alexander Hawkins, who married this def" daughter, all his goodes chattels and leases implem" hows- hold-stuff, wares, comodities, & all his goods. Notw"standing w™ graunt this def kept the said orig- inall Lease made by the said Rich- ard Burbadge, and hath ever since enioyed and contynued the posses- sion aswell of all his said goodes, leases, implements & other the premises," &c. It does not seem to have oc- curred to Hawkins or Evans or the wife that such security was needed when a year ago the lease was made. The cause of the present act cannot lie in lack of prosperity. For the Children at Blackfriars were never more popular than in this year of 1601 (see, for example on Hamlet, infra, 176-77) and doubtless the plays brought Evans more money than formerly. The sudden anxiety of all parties concerned, — especially of the wife, — the wholesale nature of the assignment, and the fact that in spite of the transfer {non bona fide) Evans still kept and enjoyed all, coupled with the circumstance that Clifton about this time pre- sented his case in Star Chamber, seem conclusive circumstantial evi- dence. [Later. — As shown supra, 84', Clifton's Bill was filed Dec. 15, 1601, seven weeks after this transfer. This does not alter the probability that Evans had learned of the impending danger, but rather strengthens it. For had Evans not made the transfer until after the filing of the complaint, his act would have been held in law as an attempt to defraud.] 'Infra, 87-91. "Court terms of this period un- der Elizabeth and James I : — Michaelmas term begins 9 or 10 Oct. Hilary term begins 23 or 24 Jan. Hilary term ends 12 or 13 Feb. Easter term begins 17 days after Easter. Trinity term begins Friday after Corpus Christi day (June). — ^See John J. Bond, Assistant Keeper of Public Records, Handy- Book of Rules and Tables for veri- fying Dates with the Christian Era, &c. (1869). 86 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS replication already quoted from,^ dates it "in or about the three and ffortieth yeare" of Elizabeth/ Her forty-third year ended November i6, 1601. The "in or about" might mean, — since Kirk- ham is giving purposely a twist to events, — either the closing of the forty-third year or opening of the forty-fourth, and therefore fit either Michaelmas or Hilary term. Also, the Kirkham docu- ments in this suit assign to forty-third Elizabeth certain other events closely connected with Clifton's Complaint and the Star Chamber Decree, but belonging in April, 1602.^ It may be there is similarly here in Kirkham's dating the Decree an error of two or three months in the regnal year. There is strong probability then that the Decree fell in Hilary term (Jan.-Feb.) 1602. Other considerations are contributive to the same conclusion. It is not likely that the new arrangements in management were held in suspense from October to the following April. The new partners were eager to join Evans, ^ and Evans himself could not openly continue in personal charge. The briefer interval, from Hilary to April 20, seems the more probable one for making new arrangements. Also, the evidences are convincing that the Decree fell after Hamlet was on the stage. Both Hamlet and the Decree are an- swered from the Blackfriars stage in this order. In his May Day, acted in the spring of 1602, Chapman ridiculously parodies some of the striking parts of Hamlet, as the "To be" soliloquy, "What a piece of work is man," &c., with numerous other scrappy satiric drives, all of which sound as if Chapman had heard the new trag- edy a time or two while his May Day was in progress and had caught just enough to serve as basis for absurd take-offs.* May Day seems thus Chapman's and the Children-company's laughing answer to Shakespeare's and the Globe's strictures in Hamlet on the Blackfriars establishment. But in Chapman's next play, The Widow's Tea/rs, seen on the Blackfriars stage Sept. 18, 1602, doubtless the opening play of the season, is the sharp satire, as already noticed,* apparently aimed at results of the Star Chamber "^ Supra, 81*-83\ *See infra, 168. ^ Infra, 89. "See infra, 106, 115, 118', 120. 'Infra, 87-88\ 'See infra, 83-83. 5 DATING EVENTS— NEW MANAGEMENT 87 case. It seems quite likely that the satire is directed not merely at the Decree, but also at Lord Hunsdon's consequent driving Evans into the country in May, 1602.^ It would be comforting to know exactly whether the Queen's attendance at a play at Blackfriars Dec. 29, 1601,^ preceded or followed the Decree. It was certainly [cf. 84*, 96*] later than the Complaint. I should be glad to believe if probabilities would al- low, that it was subsequent also to the Decree ; for that would give an added item in the Queen's determination with reference to Blackfriars. However, as the Queen seems to have been accus- tomed to attend plays there, the discovery of the exact date of the Decree as antecedent to this single event would probably do no more in the present regard than reenforce our knowledge of the favor and support she gave in the theatrical use of the Chapel Boys. The slight probability that the Decree preceded is out- weighed by the stronger probability, as shown above, that it fell in Hilary term.^ After the Decree, the concessions for use of the Chapel Chil- dren were apparently granted to Kirkham,* Rastell, and Ken- dall.^ But Evans still held the lease. So these men came to him ^See infra, 93. the Revels at Court, ed. P. Cun- 'See infra, 95-96°. ningham, Shakes. Soc. Pub., 1843, 'This latter probability is made 175). Kirkham's name appears a certainty by the dates of filing thereafter under Tyllney and Buck, and trial endorsed on the back of Its first appearance is to the report Clifton's Bill of Complaint, discov- of [Oct. 31]— Feb. 14, 1582-[3]. ered since writing these paragraphs, (Idem, 187.) He was still Yeoman as noted supra, 84\ 84^ The last under Buck in 1615 (Public Record line of the endorsement, "p octab Office, Declared Accounts of the Hillar," indicates the trial was in Pipe Office, Roll 2005). He was Hilary term (Jan.— Feb.). There granted letters patent for his office was no postponement. Easter term 28 April, 38 Eliz. (1586). (Pub- in 1603 did not begin until May 1, lished in A Collection of Ancient but the Decree had already been Documents Respecting the Office of rendered prior to April 30, 1602, Master of the Revels, &c., ed. J. O. when Evans through consequent ne- Halliwell, 1870. Only 11 copies cessity entered into new arrange- printed. Quoted in part, infra, 99'. ments for the conduct of the Black- But he had already been occupying friars. This settles the Decree as the place for at least three years, in Hilary, i. e., between Jan. 33 as shown above, and Feb. 13, 1603. Kirkham was Yeoman during the * Edward Kirkham succeeded whole existence of the children- Walter Fyssche as Yeoman of the companies. In their history, he Revels. Fyssche's name is signed through his official position is even for the last time to the report of a more important factor than Evans, the Master of the Revels, Ed. Tyll- "From various newly found doc- ney, Oct. 31, 1581. (Extracts from uments touching the managers per- 88 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS and "earnestly labored with and entreated"^ him with the result that on iVpril 20, 1602, Articles of Agreement were entered into between Evans and his son-in-law Hawkins on the one side and these three men on the other to form a copartnership and share expenses and profits half-and-half.^ That the new partners felt they had valuable concessions which, however, were dependent upon a place of acting and which Evans as lessee of the theatre might easily injure if not bound in a penal sum, is shown by the fact that they exacted of Evans and Haw- kins a 200 /. bond^ of even date for the faithful performance of the contract, but gave none in return. Apparently to circumvent the Star Chamber decree, a separate agreement was entered into by which the new men were to pay Evans eight shillings a week, evidently as salary for managing the theatre,* for the carrying out of which they gave Evans a bond under the same date for 50/.^ Evans could not be known openly in the management." So by the new arrangement his son-in-law Hawkins and these three men became nominally the Masters, while he was their hired manager, although he still held chief control. — And the Children of the Chapel continued at Blackfriars practically as before. Since the company was operated under these Articles until its termination in 1608, it seems worth while to settle once and for sonally as well as in their conduct Kirkham, Bill of Complaint, G.-F., of the Blackfriars, particularly un- 211&. der James I, William Rastell was That these solicitations came a London merchant who, however, from the new men, not from Evans, had no large part in the manage- is admitted by Kirkham in replying ment, and Thomas Kendall was a to the above paragraph : — "true yt haberdasher, who later, under James is that he this def" and the said L, became the Blackfriars manager. William Rastell and Thomas Ken- See further, complete work, vol. I, dall in the bill likewise named did and vol. HL treate and had communication w"" ^"And he your said oratour be- the said compl' to such end and inge soe possessed one Edward purpose as in the bill is set forthe, Kyrkham of London gent' William and that thervpon it was agreed Rastell and Thomas Kendall late and concluded," &c. — Evans vs. of London deceased ernestlye la- Kirkham, Answer, G.-F., 216o. bored w" and entreated your said 'Infra, 89', 92^ oratour that he your said oratour ^Infra, ibid. would suffer them to have and en- "C/. infra, 98, 103-4. ioye some parte of the demised "Infra, 102'. premisses wherevppon it was agreed 'Cf. infra, 93. and concluded," &c. — Evans vs. DATING EVENTS— NEW MANAGEMENT 89 all the date above stated. Except for this reason and certain items of essential reference, the rest of this chapter might better be omitted. Kirkham puts the date of the Assignment^ and Articles to- gether "in or about" 43 Elizabeth,^ declaring that the assignment of one-half of the lease was made by Evans to Hawkins in trust for the new partners, Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall, in consid- eration that they "would disburse about the premises the summe of ffouer hundred pounds,"^ — all as a part of the Agreement.* But Kirkham's dating throws both Assignment and Articles to- gether, — which proves erroneous. The statement, "in or about" 43 Elizabeth, is general enough to fit the known dates of late 1601, or early 1602 (44 Eliz.). His dating is further vitiated by proofs that he fabricates both the transfer of the lease" and the 400 /. expenditure^ stated in connection with it. ^ Supra, 85. ^Kirkham vs. Painton, Bill of Complaint, G.-R, 224. Ubid. *The bond including the terms of these Articles proves his conten- tion false. See infra, 92^ "Kirkham vs. Painton, The Joint and Several Answers of Heminges and Burbage, G.-F., 234-39. Sup- ported by Painton's Answer, G.-F., 230-32 ; Evans's Answer, G.-F., 243 ; and Decision of the Court, G.-F., 250. "If the lease had been assigned in trust as claimed, it would have required Burbage's knowledge and consent in order to be legal. But Burbage knew of no such transfer. (See reference, u. s., note '). The decision of the court («. j. note ") settles it that tfiere was no such assignment, by declaring, '"yet neu- ertheles the said conveyance was never perfected and sealled." The assignment of lease and all prop- erty and goods by Evans was, as we have seen {supra, 85), solely to Hawkins. 'Since the building itself was but recently refitted, of course no such expenditure "about the premisses" was required. [Recently I have found documents giving the full ex- tent of repairs in detail with their cost as 11 /. 2 d, paid 8 Dec. 1603, by Henry Evans alone. See docu- ments in vol. Ill of complete work.] Burbage and Hemings show {u. s., 89°; G.-F., 236) that no such sum as Kirkham claims was thus ex- pended. They say that if any sum was spent, it was, as they think, for "playinge apparell & other im- plements & properties touchinge & concerninge the furnishinge & set- tinge forth of Players & Plays," and seem by their "if" to cast doubt upon outlay even for these. But as shown in later chapters (vol. I. of complete work), no sum was spent for apparel, &c., by the com- pany until the reign of James I. Kirkham is never reliable. His present claim (July 1, 1612) is 400 ;. (G.-F,, 224), but in a suit two months earlier (May 5, 1613) it is, for the same expenditure, "three hundred pounds at the leaste" (G.- F., 2170). His statements concern- ing "disbursements," taken with the rest of the history, make one feel there is something in what he says, though not as he would have the Court believe. In his official ca- pacity as Yeoman of the Revels, he 90 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS It is sure that the Assignment was Oct. 21, 1601, and was made to Hawkins alone. Painton gives this date/ and Evans declares the conveyance, drawn solely to indemnify Hawkins, his surety on the 400/. bond to Burbage, was made "long tyme before any communication had between this def and Alexander Hawkins on the one partie, and the compl', Rastall, and Kendall on the other partie."^ This puts the Articles later than the Assignment. Evans him- self dates them April 20, 1602.' Painton also declares the date of "certayn articles" was April 20, 1602.' But Painton mentions only one item contained, the acknowledgment of the absolute as- signment to Plawkins, for that alone concerns him. Evans, how- ever, says these Articles contained not only this item," but were "the said Articles of Agreement" . . . mencioned in the said bill.'" In the same document, he claims the operation of these Articles up to the termination of the company in 1608.' His statements here are simply an expanded (partly verbatim) copy from his Replication in a suit" two months earlier, in which both he^" and Kirkham^^ agree the Articles in question (the date of continued as formerly, during the the gist of much else agreed to. remaining year of Elizabeth after Kirkham's Bill- in this suit was the 1602 contract with Evans, to ''absolutely dismissed" by the Court furnish the necessary supplies of (G.-F., 251). — Which is a final apparel, &c., — even to superabun- commentary on the merits of his dance (infra, 99^ 106^), — ^but at the claim. Queen's expense. He seems to be 'Kirkham vs. Painton, Painton's claiming now (1612) personally Answer, G.-F., 230. what he had expended officially. 'Idem, Evans's Answer, G.-F., Of course by the terms of the 244. lease (G.-F., 212 and 241) Evans 'Idem, 245. was bound to keep the building in ''Idem, Painton's Answer, G.-F., repair. Hence, when he took in 231. Kirkham et al., who were to share 'Idem, Evans's Answer, G.-F., expenses and profits half-and-half 243o. with him, he exacted their share in "Idem, 345c. this also. {Ibid. Also infra, 92l) '7. e.. Bill of Complaint in Kirk- Although Burbage and Hemings ham vs. Painton, to which he is an- show (m. s., G.-F., 334-39) this pro- swering. vision in their contract was not the "Kirkham vs. Painton, Evans's basis of the 400 /. expenditure, it Answer, G.-F., 245-46. seems to be the only basis Kirk- 'Evans vs. Kirkham (May 5, ham could show the Court in the 1612), Replication, G.-F., 221-22. Articles for his fictitious claim. ^"Idem, Evans's Bill of Com- The Articles are not known to ex- plaint, G.-F., 211 ; and Replication, ist. But doubtless the coincident G.-F., 231. Obligation or 200/. bond (G.-F., ^Idem, Kirkham's Answer, G.- 211-12; 240-41; [and infra, 92']) F., 317. give this provision fully, as well as DATING EVENTS— NEW MANAGEMENT 91 which is not there mentioned) were the ones under which they began the copartnership.^ There was then but one set of Articles under which the com- pany was operated till its termination in 1608, and these bore date of April 20, 1602. This is unequivocally settled by the identifi- cation of the Articles by both Kirkham and Evans in the earlier suit with those of the later suit; the declaration of both Evans and Painton as to the date; Evans's willingness to bring the Ar- ticles into court; and the fact that the Court had the Articles before him in rendering a decree against Elirkham's petition in the later suit.^ [Since writing the above, I have found two separate copies of the 200 1, bond, each under date of April 20, 1602 ; also one copy of the 50 1, bond under same date. Both were made on the same day as the Articles merely as security for fulfilment of the con- tract. This settles the question of date. These two bonds are valuable in many respects. The 50 /. bond is quoted and discussed later. The 200 /. bond is especially valu- able as containing the terms of the Articles of Agreement. By these it is seen that the partners were to share the profits and expenses. But the only expenses provided for are rent and re- pairs. No mention is made of the chief items of expense, — as maintenance of the company, apparel, and furniture.' This is suggestive in itself and is corroborated in its significance by other 'In reading the forty pages of 211-12; 240-41). [Also infra, 92l] documents in these two suits, it is Another bond was given at the difficult to keep apart the Articles same time by Kirkham et al. to of Agreement and the 300 1. Obli- Evans for 50 /. But there is no gation based on them. Hence I danger of confusing it with the Ar- note here that the Articles were tides. It is taken up in proper or- drawn up by Evans (G.-F. 245&) der under James I. [But cf. also with date of April 20, 1602 {ibid.), infra, 102^] and "concluded" or agreed to by ''It would not seem necessary to all (G.-F., 211&, 316a). Kirkham give such elaborate proof were it and partners in their behalf drew not that F. G. Fleay, op. cit., 132- up a 200 /. bond or "Obligation" 33, 209, by his misdating has thrown (G.-R, 311c, 2I60), which was events into confusion, and led later signed by Evans and Hawkins as writers in the field into gross error. a guarantee to carry out the Arti- Also in reading the documents pub- cles. The two instruments were lished in his work, one should first coincident. The Obligation seems of all blot out the dates he has in- to recite much of the Articles, and serted. is given substantially twice (G.-F., 'Cf. infra, 101-2, 113, 128-29, 178. 92 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS documents that these wero provided by the Queen/ and were not therefore matters of charge to be shared. Consequently they are not mentioned among the company's items of expense in either Articles or bond. The Condition of the 200 /. bond as giving these significant terms of the Articles of Agreement on which the new manage- ment was established is here subjoined.-] ^Infra, 101-3, W&\ 136-29, 148f. ^ (Marks of abbreviation are translated into italics.) The suits in which this document is enrolled occurred under James L Hence the date of the Obligation is given as "vicesimo die Aprilis Anno regni dominoe Elizabeth nnper Reginoe Anglioe quadragesimo quarto." The Condicion of this obligacion is such That Whereas Richard Bur- bage of the ponshe of S' leonard" in Shorditch in the Countie of Mid- dlesex gentleman by his Jndenture of lease bearinge date the second day of September in the t-wo and fortith yere of the raigne of our soueraigne ladie Elizabeth the Queenes Ma"° that now is hath leased and to farme letten vnto the within bounden henrye Evans all that greate hall or Roome with the roomes ouer the same in the said indenture mencJoned scituai? with- in the pr^cincte of the blackfriers london to hold vnto the said henrye Evans his executors and Assignes from the feast of S" Michaell Tharkangell next ensuinge after the date of the saide Jndenture vnto the ende and tearme of one and twentie yeares from thence next en- suinge fullie to be compleated and ended yealdinge and payinge there- fore yearley duringe the saide terme vnto the said R'ichard Burbage his heires and Assignes fortie poundej of lawfull money of England att fowre feastes or tearmes in the yeare that is to saye att the feast^J of the birth of our lord God than- unciacJon of the blessed virgin Ma- rie the Nativitie of S' John Bap- tist & S* Michaell tharkangell by even and equall porcions to be payd if now the within named William Rastell Edward kirkham and Thomas kendall and euerie of them their and eume of their executors administrators and Assignes shall or may from henceforthe duringe the continuance of the said lease have the ioynte vse occupacjon and profytt together with the within bounden henrye Evans & Alexander hawkyns their executors Adminis- trators and Assignes and euerye of them of and in the said greate hall or Roome and other the premisses without the lett or trouble of the saide henrie and Alexander their executors Administrators and As- signes or any of them or of any other person or persons by their or any of their meanes or procurement they the saide William Edward and Thomas their executors administra- tors and Assignes or any of them payinge vnto the said henrie and Alexander their executors or As- signes or to some or one of them from henceforth yearlie duringe the continuance of the said lease the moyetie or one halfe of the saide yearlie rente att the fewer vsuall flfeastes in the yeare or within one and twentie dayes next after euerye of the saide feastej by even por- cJons and also bearinge and pay- inge of the moytie of such Chardges as from tyme to tyme shalbe laide out or disbursed for in or aboute the reperacJons of the premisses by and accordinge to the purporte and true meanynge and liraitacJons of the said lease And alsoe permit- tynge and suffringe the saide henrie & Alexander their executors and Assignes and euerye of them to have ioynte vse occupacion and DATING EVENTS— NEW MANAGEMENT 93 Another minor item affecting the management now becomes clear and at the same time has contributive value in showing that the Queen's Court of Star Chamber had aimed its judgment solely at Evans, in no way interfering with the theatre as such, but rather protecting it. Evans was forced to "departe into the Countrye"^ within a month after signing the Obligation and Articles. This compul- sory departure shows a close connection with the Decree. Evans says he had to leave because of evidence given by his new part- ners.^ Doubtless upon the Lord Chamberlain's investigation as to whether the Court's order was being obeyed or not, these men gave testimony of the new arrangement showing Evans retained at least half proprietary interest. But by the Decree, Evans could not enjoy half the privileges from the Queen's Children any more than he could enjoy all. The theatre however was to be continued, but not by him. Hence Lord Hunsdon's peremptory order to "avoid and leave the same." Open contempt of this order would have meant summary pun- ishment. So Evans made another shift. Just as previously in anticipation of danger in the suit of Clifton he had put his prop- erty opportunely out of his hands to save it, so now to escape the penalty imposed and make it appear he was obeying abso- lutely, he turned over his share of the active management also to Hawkins, who was in fact, as the documents show, merely to act for him, and got himself safely out of London. How long he remained away does not affect the history of the company. His claim of losing 300 /. by his enforced absence is an undoubted fiction, as his son-in-laws seems fully to have guarded his interests. profytt together with them the said '"And the Compl* further for William Edward and Thomas their Replicacion saith that he was, by the executors Administrators and As- def and his said Associates vpon signs and eume of them of and in false informacion made to the late the saide greate hall and premisses Lord Hunsdon, late Lord Cham- without their or any of their lett« berlain, against this Compl', com- troubles and interrupcions That aunded by his Lo" to avoyd and then the present obligacion to be leave the same, for fear of whose voide and of none effect or els it to displeasure the Compl' was forced stand in full force and vertue. to leaue the Country, and lost in For document in extenso from want of not looking to his proffitt which this is taken, see complete there and Charge otherwise neere work, vol. III. . three hundred pounds," &c. — Evans 'Evans vs. Kirkham, Bill of vs. Kirkham, Evans's Replication, Complaint, G.-F., 312c-313o. G.-F., 230(r. 94 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The theatre was in no way interfered with. The Queen's con- tinued favor to the last and the constant popularity of the Chil- dren are shown in later pages. CHAPTER VII QUEEN ELIZABETH AT THE BLACKFRIARS The history of the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, with the influences under which they became a large factor in the lit- erary and social life of London and the conditions that made them the source of widely ramifying influences from late Eliza- beth to the Restoration, throws much of the stage and dramatic history of the period into a new perspective. This arises pri- marily out of the Queen's attitude. From the fact that her Majesty's Children of the Chapel were used at Blackfriars to present plays, every student of the drama has for a long time felt she extended to them special favor. But just what part she had in their establishment and maintenance and what interest she took in their performances has been made possible for us to know only through a study of original records, plays, and other contemporary evidences. These I have attempted to assemble in the present work. Important testimony has al- ready been adduced. But valuable records and other materials are yet to be examined in the following eight chapters. The Queen's attendance at Blackfriars theatre Tuesday, De-' cember 29, 1601, has already been mentioned incidentally.^ On that date Sir Dudley Carleton in a gossipy letter of Court-news to John Chamberlain wrote: "The Q: dined this day priuatly at my L* Chamberlains; I came euen now from the blackfriers where I saw her at the play w*"" all her candidae auditrices."* -^ ^ Supra, 26, 87. There are five pages of the orig- ' Transcribed from the original Jnal MS., gossipy, but nothing fur- MS. in the Public Record Office, ther on Blackfriars or Elizabeth's State Papers, Domestic Series, Eliz- attendance there. The letter is abeth, CCLXXXIII, No. 48. [The dated at the close, "29 of deceb' Calendar of State Papers, Dom. 1601." On the back it is addressed Eliz., 1601-3, 136, prints this part "To my very louing frend John of the letter, but with incorrect Chamberlain these at Kjiebworth." wording and spelling.] 96 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS This authoritative record associated with the rest of the present history has significance/ Those famihar with the voluminous letters of Dudley Carleton are aware that an unusual event at Court or concerning the Queen receives some dilation, while the customary or ordinary doings or mere news items, if mentioned at all, are passed with a sentence or two, as in the present five- page document, making his letters almost as gossipy and discon- nected as the local column of an American country-newspaper. When one examines this record from every possible stand- point, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the Queen at least occasionally attended the Blackfriars. Also, as this was only one in a series of such attendance, there is no reason to suppose it the last. This conclusion harmonizes with items in other documents touching the conduct of the theatre, and insofar as it involves her attitude toward the Blackfriars, not only is supported by cir- cumstances and declaration, but also itself adds support and clear- ness to others. Among other things, it becomes evident why the Blackfriars Children were not more than one season at Court," although they were Elizabeth's own company, and enjoyed the most fashionable and aristocratic patronage of London.^ It be- comes clear also from this particular occasion of attendance after the filing of Clifton's Complaint,* — just a fortnight after, — that she was steadfast in her support of Blackfriars, and was willing in the face of opposition to proclaim by her presence her purpose of continued support.'' Numerous other occurrences and condi- tions also grow clearer. — But an analysis here would merely anticipate conclusions that come of themselves through examining other documents. So we may pass this record for the present, with noting the at- tendance also of the ladies of the Court and hazarding the sup- position that the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Hunsdon, with whom 'I find that A. W. Ward, His- the document itself that the Queen tory of English Dramatic Litera- attended the Blackfriars theatre. ture (1899''), I, 445', notes the ''.Infra, 112, 115^ 121-23', 157'. existence of this record, with a ref- 'Infra, 113, 124, 138, 164-66, 176- erence to the Calendar of Stale Pa- 77. pers (u. s.). But he gives no hint * Supra, 84*, 87. of its connection or significance, be- '^ Infra, 159-61. yond the mere fact contained in QUEEN ELIZABETH AT BLACKFRIARS 97 the Queen dined, the gate to whose mansion adjoined the south entrance to the theatre,'^ did himself the honor likewise to attend the same performance. This is the only known record of Elizabeth's attending a the- atre,^ and is the first known instance of such attendance by any sovereign.^ "^ Supra, 26'-26*. ""Neither Elizabeth nor King James the First, nor Charles the First, I believe, ever went to the public theatre." — E. Malone, Shake- speare Variorum (ed. Boswell, 1821), III, 166. Some one who has made pains- taking marginal notes in the copy of the above volume of Malone in the Hof- und Stadts-Bibliothek, Miinchen, says against Elizabeth's name here, "She went, however, to the Blackfriars in Cynth. Revels." There are reasons to believe she did. Proof of it would be most gratifying. On the evidence of the play itself, the masque in Cynthia's Revels if not the whole play seems written in compliance with the Queen's requirements in the train- ing and use of the Children. (In- fra, 122'). But this does not prove she saw the play. On page 504 of the above volume, the sig- nature "Dibdin" to a note would seem to indicate not an author quoted, but the author of the mar- ginal comments. — But which "Dib- din"? 'It has hitherto been supposed, as Malone (u. s.), J. P. Collier, op. cit. (1831^), II, 64; (1879"), I, 489; F. G. Fleay, op. cit., 313, and the rest, have taken it, that Queen Henrietta, wife of Charles I, was the first person of royalty to attend a theatre. She attended the private theatres of Blackfriars, Phoenix (Cockpit), and Salisbury Court. But this record shows Elizabeth in priority. CHAPTER VIII THE QUEEN'S MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILDREN AT BLACKFRIARS The next record touching the Queen's relations to Blackfriars is a single paragraph in Evans's Answer in the suit of Kirkham vs. Painton/ seemingly unimportant at first sight. It deals with one item arising out of the 1602 Articles and touches the conduct of the theatre both before and after. It reads thus : — "And towching the Eight shillings weekely to be paid," . . . this def saith that there was a bond of ffiftye powndes made by the said compl' and his said partners condicioned for paiement of the said some of eight shillings weekely vnto this def because after the said agreements made, the compl' and his said Partners would at their directions haue the dietting and ordering of the Boyes vsed about the plaies there, w"" before the said Compl* had, and for the w"'' he had weekely before that disbursed and allowed great Somes of monie."* This looks like a trivial paragraph merely "towching the Eight shillings." No one has hitherto found it significant.* But what is meant by "the said Complainant"? For several months, before I had thoroughly worked the field, I was puzzled to understand this paragraph. I could make noth- ing of it except that it dealt with eight shillings to be paid for some unknown reason, and that there was an apparent clerical error in "the said Complainant" for "this defendant." It seemed ^ Supra, 89". Painton, The Aunswere of Henrie ^See the 50/. bond for the pay- Evans, genf, &c). My transcript ment of this amount weekly, infra, of the paragraph from the original 102'. See also the paragraph (infra, document as here printed differs 1.04') in Kirkham's Bill of Com- only slightly (in the spelling) from plaint, to which Evans is here an- the print of Mr. Greenstreet's tran- swering. script as it appears in F. G. Fleay, 'Public Record Office, Chancery A Chronicle History of the London Proceedings, James I, Bills and An- Stage (1890), 244o. swers, K 5, No. 35 (Kirkham vs. 'Cf. infra, 104*. MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILDREN 99 to make sense thus, for then it meant that Evans had made the outlay. — Which I erroneously then took to be the case. But no one has a right to declare a document incorrect upon assumption. There mvist first be proof of error. I examined the original document in the Public Record Office, and accepted it as it stood. Taken thus it meant that Kirkham, "the said Complainant," had made the disbursements and allow- ances weekly. But Kirkham had nothing to do with either the. taking up of the Children or the personal management of the the- atre prior to the 1602 Articles referred to. Moreover, no other document mentions him as having any connection with the Black- friars Children prior to that date. I knew he was the Queen's Yeoman of the Revels, but I could not see how that had anything to do with the point. With the discovery of new materials and a consideration of all evidences in every aspect, the field cleared. The Decree of the Court of Star Chamber showed that Evans had official papers, and the Clifton Complaint suggested the same. The Commis- sion to Gyles and the practices under it, with the Queen's attend- ance at the theatre, were indubitable testimony of more than mere official countenance. The Diary of the Duke of Stettin, dis- cussed in the next chapter, was clear-cut declaration. All the numerous evidences in fact, a summary of which is given later,^ thrust upon me conclusions as incontrovertible as new. They were a harmonious unit in revealing an official conduct of the theatre hitherto unguessed. Among other statements in the Diary of the Duke of Stettin is the one that the Queen furnished these Children for their the- atrical performances with a "superabundance of rich apparel."* This helped explain the paragraph in question. All the Queen's theatrical apparel was in the care of the Yeoman of the Revels who, by virtue of the letters patent of his appointment, was in- dependent of the Master of the Revels in administering his office.* '^ Infra, 126-39. of all and singuler our Maskes ''Infra, 106-7, 123*-34^ 178-79'. Revells and disguiseinges and alsoe °"Wee doe ordeyne constitute of the apparrell and Trappers of and make the same Edward Kirk- all and singuler our horses or- ham by theis presentes yeoman or deyned and appointed or hereafter keeper of our Vestures or apparrell to bee ordeyned and appointed for 100 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS It was he who had charge over expenditures in the "setting out" of plays at Court.^ It was through him, then, that this "super- abundance of rich apparel" was furnished the Blackfriars Chil- dren. And as the Queen maintained this division of the Children of the Chapel as actors, it was through him, from some account yet to be discovered, that the weekly expenditures were made. "The said complainant,'' then, meant the Yeoman of the Rev- els, Edward Kirkham, who as the Queen's official had, prior to any personal connection with the management, "disbursed and allowed great Somes of monie" for "the dietting and ordering of the Boyes vsed about the plaies there." Both the expenditures^ and the furnishing of appareP were official. The possibility of surreptitiousness by "confederacy" or "conspiracy" is precluded by the nature of the case. Clifton's charges of illegitimate conduct of the theatre under color of au- thority, with his implication in the word "others" by which he our iustes and Turneys," &c. Also he is "to have and enioye one suf- ficient house or mansion as here- after shalbe assigned vnto the said Edward Kirkham for the suer bet- ter and safe keeping of our said Vestures apparrell and Trappers," &c. — From the Patent creating Ed- ward Kirkham Yeoman for life, dated 28 April, 28 Elizabeth (1586). Printed in A Collection of Ancient Documents Respecting the OfRce of Master of the Revels, &c. (ed. J. O. Halliwell, 1870. Only 11 copies printed. No. 11 in British Mu- seum.) 'The respective duties of the Master and the Yeoman of the Rev- els are not exactly known. But an examination of the Revels Accounts indicates that the Yeoman of the Revels, agreeable with the Patent, had full charge over purchase and use of apparel required in Court entertainments, while the Master's duties related to the larger func- tions of providing appropriate en- tertainments, plays, masques, &c., and especially for the "rehersinge and choise makinge" of plays, in- terludes, and masques. — See Ex- tracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court (ed. P. Cunning- ham, Shakesp. Soc. Pub., 1842), passim. Cunningham here gives only part of the accounts. See fur- ther the original documents, u. i., 101\ ^Expenditures for board and lodging of children-actors through- out the year are new to the close of Elizabeth's reign. But tempo- rary board and lodging for several days at a time were given different sets of children during their re- hearsals and on their journeyings to and from the place of acting, as shown by various items in the ac- counts relating to such. See for example under year 1573, "Item for the diettej & Lodging of dyvers childre at saint Jones whiles thay Learned theier partes & Jestures meete for the Mask in w"' ix of them did serve at Hampton Coo'te xxxiij" iiij V — Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court (ed. P. Cun- ningham, 5". 5". Pub., 1842), 73. Here the amount would indicate about ten days maintenance. 'Infra, 106-7, 178. MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILDREN 101 seems to mean at least the Yeoman of the Revels, have no basis in fact. It is not certain to what account these expenditures were charged. If they went through the Office of the Revels they passed under the signatures of Kirkham and the Master of the Revels, Ed. Tilney, thence to the Audit Office where they v/ere allowed. Or if they passed through any other office or set of accounts, the amounts in any case had to be allowed in like manner by some official near the Queen.^ Such expenditure as also the furnishing of apparel and the fact of allowing the Children to act in her name, to say nothing of the grants to Gyles and Evans and the attendance of Queen and Court at the theatre, settles the conduct of the Blackfriars as be- ing under the knowledge and sanction of Queen Elizabeth. Additional proof of the official conduct of the theatre is con- tained in Clifton's own statement of its surreptitiousness, which is here added.^ Standing alone this would not be valuable testimony. But it is 'The discovery of the record containing these allowances would be a valuable contribution to Elizabethan-Jacobean stage-history. Among the records of the Office of the Revels preserved at the Public Record Office, from which Mr. P. Cunningham published merely Ex- tracts (m. s., 100^) and some of them incorrectly, are Declared Ac- counts, Audit OMce, Bundle 2045- 2046, years 1573-1670 ; and Declared Accounts of the Pipe OMce, Roll 2005, years 1603-38. I have gone through these with hope of some evidence. But in both sets of ac- counts the records of Oct. 31, 1588 — Oct. 31, 1603 are wanting. There are numerous other gaps in the rec- ords. I have likewise examined the Accounts of the Exchequer and the Queen's Household Accounts with- out results. The working out of the vast field of the Revels I have been glad to leave to a fellow-researcher. Pro- fessor A. Feuillerat of the Univer- sity of Rennes, France, who for some years has been collecting all records and documents of the Office of the Revels in this period for publication. Prof. Feuillerat tells me he has found no account among these records that might cover such expenses as were incurred in main- taining the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars. But there are other classes of accounts yet to be searched. ^"But soe yt is, moste excellent Soveraigne, that the said Nathaniell Gyles, confederating himself w"" one James Robinson, Henry Evans, & others yet vnto your ma*'" said subiecte vnknowne howe [= who], by cuUour of your ma""' said let- ters patents & the trust by your highnes therby to him the said Nathaniell Gyles committed, endev- ouring, conspiring & complotting howe to oppresse diuers of your ma*"" humble & faythfuU subiects, & therby to make vnto themselves an vnlawfull gayne and benefitt, they the said confederates devysed, conspired & concluded, for theire owne corrupte gayne and lucre, to errecte, sett vpp, furnish and mayn- teyne a play house or place in the Blackefryers." — Clifton's Complaint, G.-F., 127. 102 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS in harmony with all other evidences. Qifton says here that under color of the Commission to Gyles the theatre was set up, fur- nished, and maintained. With the malignity pared away, this can mean but one thing, — that the establishment and furnishing of the theatre and the maintenance of the Children taken there was under official sanction. Other declarations in Clifton's Complaint are cited elsewhere^ as showing the unwitting admission of the same fact. Kirkham's intimate and official connection with the Blackfriars theatre prior to 1602 explains why after the Star Chamber De- cree he and associates, having apparently secured concessions to themselves, came to Evans and "emestly labored w"' and en- treated" him "that he . . . would suffer them to have and enioye some part of the demised premises wherevppon it was agreed and concluded.'"' The 50 1, bond referred to in Evans's paragraph was an essen- tial part of this "agreement and conclusion" as a guarantee for the payment of the "eight shillings." The "eight shillings" pro- vision is important here not for itself, but insofar as it shows the "ordering" of the boys after the 1602 Articles. This comes out more clearly in Evans's paragraph than in the bond itself, which is here inserted.* '^ Supra, 79-81; infra, 126. ten when & soe often as anye en- ''See supra, 88\ terludes plaies or showes shalbe " (The more difficult abbrevia- playde vsed showed or published in tions to put into type are expanded the greate hall and other the into italics.) The suit in which Roomes scituat in the Blackfriers this document is enrolled occurred london or any parte thereof men- under James L Hence the date is cJoned to be demysed by one Rich- given as "vicesimo die Aprilis Anno ard Burbage gentleman to the with- regni dominoe Elizabeth nupey Re- in named Henry Evans in and by ginoe Anglioe quadragesimo quar- one Indenture of lease bearinge date to," — the day on which the Articles the second daye of September in and the 200 /. bond (supra, 88-92) the twoe & fortith yere of the raigne were signed. of our Souereigne ladye Elizabeth the Queenes Maiestie that nowe ys The Condicion of this obligacton or els where by the children or any ys suche That yf the within bound- called by the name of the children en William R'astell Edwarde Kirk- of the queenes Maiestw Chappell ham and Thomas Kendall or any or by any other children which by of them theire or any of theire ex- the consent of the sayde Willtom ecutors administrators or assignes Edward Thomas Henrie and one everye weeke weekly on Saturdaye Alexander Hawkins gtntleman duringe the space of fifteene yeres theire executors or Administrators next ensuinge the date within writ- or any three of them wherof the MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILDREN 103 The bond is peculiar in that it does not state why the sum of eight shilHngs weekly is to be paid. The fact that the consider- ation is left out may not be highly significant. But may it be be- cause there was the sense of the need of noncommittal on a vital point in this circumvention of the Star Chamber order? So long as Evans conducted the theatre alone the problem was simple. He and his family lived in apartments or chambers there, and the Boys were boarded and lodged by him, allowances there- for being made through the Yeoman of the Revels, as above.^ But in the new arrangement under the 1602 Articles, Evans, al- though still retaining the lease and maintaining chief control, did not dare be known in the management. Hence special provision had to be made for this feature. The Boys were still kept at Blackfriars at the Queen's charge, but under the "direction" of the new partners. So Evans was allowed as a part of the agree- ment eight shillings a week, presumably for stewardship over the Boys, rehearsals, and other duties of theatrical management.* 38 Elizabeth, in op. cit., u. s., 99'. Also, in the same publication by Halliwell, pp. 3-3, see Patent to "Edmundo Tilney" as Master of the Revels for life from 34 July, 21 Elizabeth [1579], at a salary of 10/. per annum. Of course he too, as we know from other sources, had house-rent and the perquisites of his office. But the actual cash sal- ary to him was less than to Evans in the present case. A still more suggestive contem- porary item on salary may here be appended. In 1610 one John Fletch- er was sued by the brewery firm of Rolfe & Thurgood for breach of contract. Fletcher was hired as "clerk of the drays," his duties be- ing that of solicitor, collector, and general overseer of their beer-prod- uct The point of interest here is that his contract provides that he shall be paid "the some of eight shillings of lawful! money of Eng- land every Saturday weekely dur- ing the tyme of his service for and in respect of his sallarie or wages." — Public Record Office, Court of King's Bench, Hilary, 8 James I, membrane mccii. saide Henrie or Alexander theire Executors or Administrators to be one shalbe dyetted kepte or re- tayned for the exercize of the saide exAerlndes or playes doe and shall well & trewlie paye or cause to be paide vnto the saide Henrie 'Evans his Executors or assignes att or in the saide greate hall the somme of eighte shillinges of lawfull money of England The first payment thereof to begynne and to be made on Saturdaye beinge the fower & twenteth daye next commynge of this instant Moneth of Aprill with- in written That then this present obligacion to be voide & of none effect Or els yt to stande in full force and vertue. — For document in extenso from which this is taken, see complete work, vol. III. "■Supra, 40-41, 71-74, 99-100. 'This amounts in present money to approximately three or four pounds weekly. It is nearly twice as large a salary as Kirkham was allowed by the Queen as Yeoman of the Revels. He was to receive but "Sixpence by the Day," besides house-rent and perquisites of his office.— See Patent to him 28 April, 104 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Kirkham as Yeoman of the Revels would of course and did con- tinue^ to make disbursements and allowances "weekly," not to Evans, but to himself and partners who in turn were to pay Evans as a private not an official arrangement. For this pay- ment of eight shillings they gave Evans the 50/. bond just quoted.^ How long they kept up the payment, and what came of the bond will be noticed later/ This brief paragraph by Evans, treated in the present chapter, insofar as it shows the official conduct of the theatre, is one of the most important parts of all the eleven documents in the two Chancery suits brought to light by Mr. Greenstreet.* Five months after the new arrangements in management the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars were still acting with re- markable popularity, and were still being abundantly provided for by the Queen. Not only this is made clear from the record next to be examined but also how extensive the Queen's require- ments were in the matter of their training and how the new management was carrying out her provisions. "■Cf. infra, 106-^, 123-24, 178-79, the said Rastall or Kendall, or one 184. of them; and likwise for the con- ^The paragraph in Kirkham's siderac[ion] of 52/. X.J. paid to Bill of Complaint, to which Evans's the said Evans by the said Haw- "eight shillings" paragraph is a re- kins" [cf. infra, ibid]. — G.-F., 225a. ply, becomes clear in the present °See under "Children of the connection and may here be Queen's Revels at Blackfriars, 1603- quoted: — 1608" in complete work, vol. I. "And for further consideracion *The paragraph was omitted by of said agreem' [1602] the said the discoverer, Mr. James Green- Evans, his executors and assignes, street, from the running extracts in was weekly to receive of your said The Athenaeum, April 21, 1888, 509. orator, the said Rastall and Ken- A note by the editor says that the dall, and the survivour of them, omissions are unimportant. But un- and of the executors of the sur- fortunately some of the most im- vivors of them, the somme of eight portant parts are in the omissions, shillinges weekely duringe the saide this among them. F. G. Fleay, op. terme, the which somme was paid cit., 210-51, printed all eleven docu- to the said Evans accordingly [cf. ments in extenso from Mr. Green- infra, 104°] by your said orator, street's transcripts. CHAPTER IX STATUS OF THE BLACKFRTARS CHILDREN.— THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS One of the most valuable documents yet discovered in revealing the relations of Queen Elizabeth to the setting up and maintenance of her Chapel Children as actors at Blackfriars, as well as illu- minating their whole history, consists of two paragraphs in the Diary of Philipp Julius, Duke of Stettin-Pomerania, under date of September i8, 1602. The statements there, taken with the documents and evidences offered in other chapters, change all previous conceptions not only of this company and the Black- friars theatre, but also of the relations of the children-companies under Elizabeth and James to the dramatic and theatrical history of the times. A word therefore seems necessary on the value of the present record as evidence. Minor but essential details I subjoin in a note.^ Other considerations throwing light upon the present history follow the quoted record. 'Philip Julius, Duke of Stettin- Philippi Gulii Herzogen zu Stettin, Pomerania, Prussia, in his eigh- Pommern, etc., Reise durch teenth year (1602) was sent on a Deutschland, Engelland, und Italien, grand tour of tlie chief states of 1602. Europe for the purpose of com- The MS. of this Diary is now pleting his education, shaping his in the library of Count von der character, and preparing him for the Oaten of Plathe, Pomerania, and duties of government in his own has never yet been fully published, country. One of the important Only a part of it is the original members of his retinue was Fred- MS., according to the doubtful eric Gerschow, former tutor to the statement of the recent publishers. Duke, and later (1605-35) Profes- In 1892, Dr. Gottfried von Biilow, sor of Law at the University of Superintendent of the Royal Ar- Greifswald. In accordance with the chives in Stettin, assisted by Mr. Duke's command to write down ac- Wilfred Powell, English Consul in curately, day by day, everything Stettin, published in Transactions they saw or heard on the journey, of the Royal Historical Society Gerschow kept a careful diary from (New Series,' 1892), VI, 4-67, all the day of departure, Feb. 1, 1602, that part of the Diary pertaining to the day of return, under the head- to the journey in England. They ing: — ■ give also an English translation Der Durchlauchtigsten Herrn page for page with the German text. 106 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The original record runs as follows:^ "i8. [Sept., Samstag, 1602] . . . Von dannen [i. e., von einer Kunstkammer] sind wir auf die Kinder-comoediam gangen, welche im Argument iudiciret eine castam viduam, war eine his- toria einer koniglichen Wittwe aus Engellandt. Es hat aber mit dieser Kinder-comoedia die Gelegenheit: die Konigin halt viel junger Knaben, die sich der Singekunst mit Ernst befleissigen miissen imd auf alien Instrumenten lemen, auch dabenebenst studieren. Diese Knaben haben ihre besondere praeceptores in alien Ktinsten, insonderheit sehr gute musicos. Damit sie nun hofliche Sitten anwenden, ist ihnen- aufgelegt, wochentlich eine comoedia zu agiren, wozu ihnen denn die Konig- in ein sonderlich theatrum erbauet und mit kostlichen Kleidern zum Ueberfluss versorget hat. Wer solcher Action zusehen will, From this portion of the Diary we learn that the Duke and retinue landed at Dover Friday, Sept. 10, 1603, and reached London on the 12th where they remained eight days. They spent the next two weeks in the country, including ris- its to Cambridge and Oxford, and finally sailed from Dover for Calais Oct. 3 on a Man of War specially provided by Queen Elizabeth. During this three-weeks visit in England, they met the leading of- ficials, statesmen, and scholars, and had every facility for learning facts recorded. Friday, Sept. 17, they dined with the Lord Mayor of Lon- don. On the same day in the after- noon they were entertained at the Royal Palace, Whitehall, though the Queen was absent, and were shown into the privacies of her Majesty, — her library, bedroom, prayer-book written in her own hand, &c., &c. Those who entertained them, though not named, must have been officials close to the Queen. On the following day, Saturday, Sept. 18, they went to the Chil- dren's theatre at Blackfriars, and Gerschow wrote down the two par- agraphs concerning it. 'From Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (New Series, 1893), VI, 26, 28. The editors publish an English translation on parallel pages. But as they certainly missed the mean- ing in places, I offer the follow- ing:— 18 [Sept., Saturday, 1602] . . . From there [i. e., from an Art-mu- seum] we went to the play at the Children's Theatre, which in its plot deals with a chaste widow. It was the story of a royal widow of England. — But with reference to this Chil- dren's Theatre this' is the state of affairs : The Queen maintains a number of young boys who are re- quired to devote themselves ear- nestly to the art of singing, and to learn to perform on various sorts of musical instruments, also at the same time to carry on their studies. These boys have their special pre- ceptors in all the various arts, and in particular excellent instructors in music. Now, in order that they may practice courtly manners, it is re- quired of them to act a play every week, for which purpose indeed the Queen has established for them a special theatre and has provided them with a superabundance of rich apparel. THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 107 muss so gut als unserer Miinze acht sundische Schillinge geben, und findet sich doch stets viel Volks auch viele ehrbare Frauens, weil nutze argumenta und viele schone Lehren, als von andern berichtet, soUen tractiret werden ; alle bey Lichte agiret, welches ein gross Ansehen macht. Eine ganze Stunde vorher horet man eine kostliche musicam instrumentalem von Orgeln, Lauten, Pan- doren, Mandoren, Geigen und Pfeiffen, wie denn damahlen ein Knabe cum voce tremula in einer Basgeigen so lieblich gesungen, dass wo es die Nonnen zu Mailand ihnen nicht vorgethan, wir seines Gleichen auf der Reise nicht gehoret hatten." This document is here given for the first time in its relation to the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars,^ and is as new in its significance to dramatic and stage history as if it had never before been printed. All details so fit into the history of the Chil- dren of the Chapel at Blackfriars that any attempt at demon- strating the identity would be gratuitous.^ Whoever wishes to be a specta- tor at one of their performances must pay as much as eight shill- ings of our [Pomeranian] coinage [fa. 12 d.]. And yet there is al- ways present a large audience, in- cluding many respectable women, because entertaining plot-develop- ments and many excellent teach- ings, as we were informed by oth- ers, are expected to be presented. All their performances are acted by candle-light, which Droduces a fine spectacular effect. For a whole hour preceding the play one listens to a delightful mu- sical entertainment on organs, lutes, pandorins, mandolins, violins and flutes, as on the present occasion, indeed, when a boy cum voce trem- ula sang so charmingly to the ac- companiment of a bass-viol that un- less possibly the nuns at Milan may have excelled him, we had not heard his equal on our journey. 'Dr. A. W. Ward, History of English Dramatic Literature (1899''), I, 453, discussing the im- pressment of children for the choir of St. Paul's by royal warrant of 1585 {cf. supra, %^'), subjoins a translation of this document. While admitting he anticipates the date rather too much, he neverthe- less holds the "curious passage" to be illustrative of the Paul's plays of 1585!! But Dr. Ward makes no special claim to a knowledge of stage-history, depending very frank- ly in such matters mainly upon the Rev. Mr. Fleay, except where, as here, Fleay has not written. Had he given the subject personal in- vestigation, he would have seen that this Diary has nothing to do with Paul's even in 1602, much less sev- enteen years earlier. ^Numerous commentators and reviewers have seen that this record meant the Queen's Children, for the document says thus much. But no one of them has recognized that it meant the famous organization of the Children of the Chapel at Black- friars. No analysis of its historical relations has hitherto been made, and no statement of its significance exceeds a single sentence. The rec- ognition and analysis of its value is confined to the adjectives, "cu- 108 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Much of the document by its clear-cut authoritative declara- tion substantiates conditions already examined. A few items are found in no other record. These so harmonize with the entire history and so substantiate logical conclusions and are so sup- ported by certain conditions that the authoritativeness of the rec- ord on the whole may be regarded as final. Other considerations are significant, strongly suggesting con- ditions not declared outright in any document. The Duke and his retinue visited the Blackfriars the next day after dining with the Lord Mayor and being entertained at the Queen's Palace at Whitehall. Gerschow wrote a brief history and description of this Children's theatre, while in the case of two plays seen at the public theatres he passes them with bare mention, — one, no doubt at the Globe, with two lines ;'■ the other. rious," "remarkable," "auffallend," "merkwiirdig," and "wertvoll." Herman Hager in Englische Stu- dien (1893), XVHI, 315, reprints the English translation from Trans- actions of the Royal Historical So- ciety (m. s., 106'). After quoting from F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle His- tory of the London Stage (1890), 135, 133, on the place of acting by the Children of the Chapel and by Paul's Boys, he concludes, "I can- not find any reference to a theatre specially built for such a company by the Queen." Since its first appearance in the parallel German-English publication in Transactions of the Royal His- torical Society («. s., 106'), the German has been printed again from the original MS. by Professor Binz, of the University of Basel, in Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung (Miinchen, Aug. 23, 1902). Dr. Binz erred in giving this out "als ein ineditum." He prefaces his print of it by a single generalizing sentence, but gives no hint as to the contributive value of the document. C. F. Meyer in an article Eng- lische Komodianten am Hofe Phil- ipp Julius von Pommern-Wolgast, published in Jahrhuch der Deutsch- en Shakespeare-Gesellschaft (1902), XXXVni, 196-211, reprints the document but says nothing of its significance. Edward Engle, Shakespeare in Pommern, in National- Zeitung (Berlin, Sept. 27, 1903), reviewing Meyers's article (m. s.), again prints the document. He regrets that the Duke of Stettin did not instead attend the Globe. — Which however he certainly did do. Be- sides recognizing it as "einen wert- vollen Beitrag," Engle says no word on its value. Numerous other publications have given the matter mention. '"13 [Sept. 1602].— Den 13. ward eine comedia agirt, wie Stuhl-Weis- senburg erstlich von den Tiirken hernacher von den Christen wie- derum erobert." — From the Diary in Transactions of the Royal Histori- cal Society (New Series, 1893), VI, 6. As the visitors had all opportu- nity to inform themselves, and also saw the chief sights of London, — the Temple, Exchange, Tower, Westminster, St. Paul's, Whitehall, &c., — there is reason to conclude that they visited, not the minor, but the chief theatres. The Globe and the Fortune were the two public theatres of chief importance in 1603. On the 14th, the company attended a play at the Fortune {u. i., 109'). THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 109 the play of Samson at the Fortune, with a line and a half/ A bear- and bull-fight, of course at the Bear Garden, gets four lines. With no other evidence than the comparative length of notices given to Blackfriars on the one side and the Globe, Fortune, and Bear Garden on the other, we should be justified in concluding the relative weight of impressions the visitors carried home with them. But the important evidence more than bearing out this conclusion is the action taken by the Duke in establishing a the- atre at his own. court shortly after returning to Germany. In 1604 Duke Philip was declared of age, and took charge of the government of the dukedom of Pommem-Wolgast. Within two years we find a theatre of "etliche und zwantzig Englander"^ established and maintained at his court at heavy expense.^ It seems unlikely that this company traveled, as other English actors in Germany did. There is no evidence of it. Nor do we It is hardly likely that they visited the same theatre twice. They were doing the sights. There is no known case of repetition on the whole journey. So I take it as practically certain that this notice of their first visit to a theatre re- fers to the more famous Globe. If the play they saw could be identi- fied, that would probably make the conclusion final. '"14 [Sept. 1603]. — Auf den Nachmittag ward eine tragica co- moedia vom Samsone und dem halben Stamm Benjamin agirt." — Idem, VI, 10. The play of Sampson was then new. It is identified by the fol- lowing :— "Lent vnto Samwell Rowley & edwarde Jewbe to paye for the Boocke of Samson the 29 of Julye 1602 the some of. ..vi"" — Henslowe's Diary (ed. W. W. Greg, 1904), 169. This play was never published. "Sampson. Play, by Edward Jubye, (assisted by Samuel Row- ley). Acted in 1602. N. P."— D. E. Baker, Biographia Dramatica (1812), II, 232. Jewby belonged to the company playing at the Fortune, in which Henslowe was interested. It is therefore established that the visitors attended the Fortune Sept. 14, 1602. "See full notice in Hausbuch des Herrn Joachim von Wedel auf Krempzow Schloss und Blumberg Erbgesessen, first published by J. von Bohlen Bohlendorf in Die Bib- Uothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart (1882), CLXI, 535. Quoted by C. F. Meyer in Shake- speare-! ahrbuch (1902), XXXVIII, 199. 'The establishment of the thea- tre, particularly the purpose on a festival court occasion to act in the church at Loitz, the home of the Duke's mother, roused the Court Preacher, Gregorius Hagius, to strenuous opposition. Of seyen let- ters written by Hagius to the Duke and his mother between the 25 and 28 of August, 1606, three are preserved. They are published in Shakespeare -T ahrbuch (1902), XXXVIII, 200-207, by C. F. Meyer, and make a contrilsution more val- uable, I think, than even Herr Meyer believed. no CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS know how long it was maintained. But judging from the infor- mation at hand, it seems different from any other English troop in Germany, as a brief notice may suffice to show.^ The first English company of actors came to Germany under Robert Brown^ in 1592. This organization developed by segre- gations and accretions into other companies. In 1594 one of these player-troops received the patronage of Landgraf Moritz von Hessen-Cassel. Another, possibly about the same time, was patronized by Herzog Heinrich Julius von Braunschweig, who himself through influence of English actors was stirred to write ten dramas. In 1604 another company was patronized by Markgraf Christian von Brandenburg. These com- panies for several years and their offsprings for three-quarters of a century wandered over Germany presenting English plays or plays modeled after them, on the market square, in the town hall, or other temporary place, and laid the foundations for the modern German theatre and drama.^ 'Conclusions on the English act- ors in Germany in the paragraphs here, and later under the Children of the Queen's Revels at White- friars, are based upon an examina- tion of the original documents as published in the following; — ■ — Albert Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany (1865). — Karl Goedeke, Grundriss zur Geschichte der Deutschen Dichtung (3 Auflage, 1886), n, 524-43 (Materials assem- bled in chronological order) . — Archiv fiir Litteraturgeschichte, XIH-XV (Trautmann ; Cruger ) . — Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare Gesell- schaft, XVIII (Menzel); XIX (Meissner) ; XXI (Cohn) ; XXIII (Bolte); XXXVIII (Meyer).— E. Menzel, Geschichte der Schauspiel- kunst in Frankfurt (1882). — Jo- hannes Meissner, Die Englischen Komodianten zur Zeit Shakespeares in Oesterreich (Diss. Wien, 1884). — W. Creizenach, Die Schauspiele der Englischen Komodianten. Ein- leitung. (J. Kiirschner's Deutsche National-Litteratur, XXIII, 1889). — Zeitschrift fiir Ver^leichende Litteraturgeschichte und Renais- sance Litteratur (Neue Folge. Ber- lin.), I, (Konneke); VII, (Traut- mann). — Emil Herz, Englische Schauspiele und Englisches Schau- spiel aur Zeit Shakespeares in Deutschland (Teil I, Diss. Bonn, 1901. Vollstangige Arbeit in Litzmann's Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen, Heft XVIII, 1903). ''As Brown, Kingman, Jones, and Reeve, who have much to do with these beginnings of the modem German theatre, were later active in London in establishing the Chil- dren of the Queen's Revels at Whitefriars (1610), they are no- ticed sufficiently in that connection. — See complete work, vols. I, II. "See further in complete work, vol. I, on German imitations of "English comedians" after ca. 1660, when the Davenant-Killigrew the- atrical monopoly of London throt- tled competition and aspiration in the art of acting in England, and so made the organization of addi- tional English companies at home or abroad from that time on im- possible. THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS HI The patronage of the companies named was modeled after the patronage extended to companies in England by the nobility un- der Elizabeth. Indeed, the patents by Landgraf Moritz to Brown and Kingman^ read like Elnglish commissions adapted to German conditions. In a word, then, these traveling troops of English actors in Germany were established on the general plan of the patronage extended to the companies playing in the London pub^ lie theatres. These public-theatre companies of this period were composed of actors. There was among them only an occasional dancer, and a rarer musician. On the other hand, the company set up at the court of the Duke of Stettin, composed of actors, musicians, and dancers, and apparently not traveling about like the other English-German troops, but remaining at the court, not patronized moreover merely by a protecting commission but maintained at court as a charge on the ducal exchequer, seems modeled more after the private establishment of Blackfriars. Whether the Duke brought the troop directly from London, as seems not unlikely from Ha- gius's calling them "die von E. F. G. bestellte Comedianten,"^ or whether he took up with actors, musicians, and dancers already on the continent, a point of difference from the other instances is that he intended them for and, as Hagius's letters show, used them for the pleasure and entertainment of his court and friends. It looks like the case of a small prince overdoing great royalty, — such as those numerous, almost universal, European exaggerated imitations in dress, language, and customs inspired half a century later by the dazzling court of Louis XIV. I think Herr Meyer quite right, so far as he goes, in saying that the Duke acquired while in London a special fondness for the English theatre.' But from the chief theatrical interest of the Duke as shown by the Diary and from the kind of company ^Published by Konnecke in Zeit- dass der Herzog eine lebhafte Vor- schrift fur Vergleichende Littera- Hebe fiir das englische Theatre turgeschichte und Renaissance Lit- fasste, die ihn dann spaterhin ver- teratur (Neue Folge. Berlin.), I. anlasste, englische Komodianten "See letter published by C. F. und Musiker an seinen eignen Hof Meyer in Shakespeare-Jahrbuch zu ziehen und mit grossem Kosten- (1902), XXXVIII, 300, with Mey- aufwand lange daselbst zu unter- ers's view, 301. halten. — C. F. Meyer, Englische 'Zur Zeit dieses Londoner Auf- Komodianten am Hofe des Herzogs enthalts geschah es denn wohl auch, Philipp Julius von Pommern-Wol- 112 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS he established as a result, it is clear that this fondness turns not upon the public theatres, but upon the Queen's establishment of the Children at Blackfriars. There are good grounds for concluding that Elizabeth intended the establishment of the Children of her Chapel as actors at Black- friars not merely to give the Boys polish of manners, but also to pleasure herself and entertain the Court. Her own presence there in company with her court-ladies, the testimony from other sources that lords attended, and that my fine gentleman took up the fashion while the better paying part of the audiences at the public theatres correspondingly dwindled, all indicate that this was at any rate the result, if not the original intention. I have already pointed out that this probably accounts for the Children's not being oftener at Court from 1597 to 1603.* The high price of admission also indicates the aristocratic na- ture of the audience. If a shilling was, as it seems from the Diary, the lowest admission, the prices of the choicer seats, par- ticularly in the lords' rooms, must have been considerable. In general, the admission fee so far as known seems to have been from two to twelve times as great as at any other theatre of the period.'' gast, in fahrbuch der Deutschen fered also in part among themselves. Shakespeare Geselhchaft (1902), It is not a fruitful field, but such XXXVIII, 198. as it is it should be reworked for ^ Supra, 96'. what it may yield, with regard to ''It seems remarkable that con- definite periods and conditions of temporary literature offers no state- each theatre considered, ment of the price of admission at Known examples allow the fol- Blackfriars for the period in hand, lowing tentative conclusions for No proper study of entrance fees 1597 to 1608. Admission to the to London theatres, however, has yard and upper gallery of the pub- ever been made. Malone, op. cit., lie theatres was one penny. There III, 73ff., assembled numerous ex- were also two-penny galleries, or amples ranging over about three- two-penny rooms, in the Globe, For- quarters of a century. Collier, op. tune and others. So far as known, cit., Ill, 146ff., reworked these, with the best rooms there were a shill- a few additions and omissions. The ing. The price at Paul's was six- conclusions of both Malone and pence. There are no known rec- CoUier melt time and individual ords as to Whitefriars fees for the theatres into a single composite, period. At Blackfriars the lowest But clearly the prices and condi- price in 1602 was a shilling. But in tions of, say, 1640, are not those 1607 under very different conditions of 1600, much less of 1576. Private during the reign of James I, it theatres are all classed together as seems sixpence. The boxes and having simply higher prices than rooms were doubtless dear. Gal- the public theatres. But they dif- lants who sat on the Blackfriars THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 113 The provision, noted by Gerschow, for the training of the Boys in singing, instrumental music, play-acting, and other arts, as well as in general culture, accords not merely with the material condi- tions and provisions of an ample instructorate, school-house, the- atre, apparel, and financial expenditures. It accords most par- ticularly with Elizabeth's passion for the drama and her special loves and liberal-mindedness toward all means that make for broader living, — characteristics which make her age the era of unprecedented progress, and for which the world of letters and arts has long done her honor. The entertainment attended by the Duke of Stettin was, as the Diary lets us know, of the usual sort. From this it is made clear that the new management under Kirkham and associates was carrying out requirements to the Queen's wish. The chief train- ing of the lads that could be practiced or exhibited on the stage is shown, — their skill in singing, instrumental music, acting, and dancing. It may be concluded that the other requirements were being complied with equally. The stage directions of the Blackfriars plays during Elizabeth, though admittedly meager, are nevertheless corroborative of the Diary's statements on these heads. Still more, they show that these requirements were complied with from first to last, under Evans alone as well as under the Evans-Kirkham company, and that the plays were specially written to fit the company and meet these conditions. The evidence becomes more emphatic by com- paring with the same company's plays under James. There we find comparatively little singing, dancing, and instrumental mu- sic.^ It is of importance also that the combined evidence wholly disproves Clifton's charge before the Star Chamber to the effect that the boys taken up under the commission to Gyles could not sing and were not taught to sing," but were abusively used solely stage paid besides the admission fee way able or fitt for singing, nor by an additional sixpence to a shilling anie the sayd confederates endev- for a stool there. oured to be taught to singe, but by ^See The Children of the Queen's them the sayd confederates abus- Revels at Blackfriars in complete ively employed, as aforesayd, only work, vol. I. in playes & enterludes." — Supra, 80^. ''Having named seven of the boys This is the spirit of the Com- besides his own (m. s., 80*), Clif- plaint and its basis throughout. The ton continues, "being childeren noe virulent animus is too apparent. 114 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS as "a companie of lewde & dissolute mercenary players."^ The proof is vital, and is given below.^ It empties Clifton's complaint of all but the one minor item that his son was taken up against parental will. At the same time it corroborates other evidences on the conduct of Blackfriars. I give in foot-notes the evidences of singing, instrumental mu- sic, and dancing, in the known plays of 1 597-1603. Plays pos- sibly belonging to Blackfriars in this period but not unequivocally so known or demonstrable, as Contention between Liberality and Prodigality, are omitted from these lists.' The Children were especially taught singing.* Their training, as even the meager examples in the plays show, covered choral, quartette, duet, and solo practice. Their singing always aimed at entertainment, and is generally artistic. It ranges from light touches of a line or two to "silver song" in a masque, and spirit voices of an enchanted chorus. '^ Supra, 73°. ^ Infra, 114*-16. °For all evidences on which are based the dates of plays in the suc- ceeding lists see complete work, vol. II, under Plays. *The Case is Altered {ca. Sept. — Oct., 1597).— I, i opens with Juni- per singing. Ill, i, Angelo sings. IV, iii opens with Juniper singing. Cynthia's Revels Xca. April, 1600). — (ed. Gifford-Cunningham), I, i, p. 151a, Echo sings. II, i, p. 154, Prosaites sings. Ill, iii, p. 170, Asotus sings and dances. IV, i, p. 177, Hedon sings. IV, i, p. 178, Amorphus sings to the lyre. V, iii opens with "music accompanied. Hesperus sings." V (end), Pali- node, sung in pairs, then chorus after each pair. V (end). Mercury and Crites sing. Sir Giles Goosecap (ca. fall, 1600).— I, iv, a song to the Violls. II, i, Enter Winnifred and Anabell "with their sowing workes and sing." Ill, ii, "Sing good Horatio, while I sigh," &c. Canto; "Sing one stave more, my good Horatio." Canto; "Your third staunce sweet Horatio, and no more." Canto. V, [ii], "In form whereof first daunce, faire Lords and Ladies, and after sing, so we will sing and daunce. The Measure Now to the song and do this gar- land grace." Canto. Poetaster (ca. April, 1601).— (ed. Gifford-Cunningham), II, i, p. 2216, Crispinus sings. Ibid., Her- mogenes sings, accompanied. IV, i, p. 238&, Crispinus plays and sings. IV, iii, p. 2430, Albius sings. IV, iii, p. 243a, Hermes sings. The Gentleman Usher {ca. Sum. 1601).— (ed. Shepherd, 1873), I, i, p. 82a, Lasso, hearing "Re, mi, fa, sol, la," says, "Oh they are prac- ticing; good boys, well done." I, i, p. 82&, Enter Enchanter, with spir- its singing. II, i, p. 87a, Bassiolo gives the boys directions concern- ing their singing. II, i, p. 87&, Broom-man, Rush-man, Broom- maid, Rush-maid, "with silver song" in a masque. II, i, p. 88&, Male Bug and Female Bug sing, in a masque. Ill, i opens with "the song." V, i, p. 105a, song. Monsieur D'Olive {ca. Oct. — Dec, 1601). — No singing indicated. May Day {ca. May, 1602).— (Ed. idem), I, i, preceded by "Chorus THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 115 But the songs in the plays are not the only nor the chief evi- dence that the requirements for the vocal training of the boys was specially emphasized and fully carried out. Under the mas- tership of Gyles the Children presented before her Majesty at Court "a shqwe w'" musycke and speciall songes prepared for y* purpose on Twelfth day at night,"^ — Monday, Feb. 6, i6oo-[i]. This was the same year in which the Queen attended Blackfriars, and within two months after Clifton's son had been taken up, — the very time when Clifton declares to the Queen that the Children did not and could not sing and were not taught to sing.^ Hamlet in the same year testifies to their singing, and suggests that they are maintained as actors only so long as they can sing, as if their singing were the basic consideration of their employment and their acting but consequential.' Within a year after these two testimonies and within six months after the Evans-Kirkham re- organization of the management consequent upon the Star Cham- ber Decree against Evans, the present Diary of the Duke of Stet- tin, September, 1602, says this provision is carried out and shows by an example how extensive the training must have been. So charmingly sang one of the Boys cum voce tremula that unless juvenum cantantes et saltantes. II, iii, 85, "Cantat" [Mulligrub, all [Exeunt saltan." Ill, i, p. 290a, lathered with shaving-suds, here The "Chimney-sweep" song by Lo- seems the singer]. Ill, i, 3, Bea- renzo. IV, i, p. 296a, Quintiliano trice sings. Three lines of song sings. given, then "&c." IV, v, 70-83, The Widow's Tears (Sept. Cockledemoy disguised as the Bell- 1602). — I, i, "He dances and sings." man sings rather than speaks a [This is the only direction for sing- rhymed ribald cry. V, i, 19, ing in the play. Yet it was this "[Franc] Cantat saltatque cum play that was preceded by a musi- cithera." V, ii, 35, Freevill sings; cale of an hour's duration, with the 36-43, the song, charming singing, as reported by The Malcontent (spring, 1603). — the Diary of the Duke of Stettin. — I, i, A song. II, iii, A song within. cf. infra, 115-18\] While the song is singing, enter The Dutch Courtezan (fall — Mendoza, &c. Ill, ii, Song by sec- wint., 1602). — (ed. 1633, and Bui- ond and third pages. V, ii, Enter len, 1887), I, ii, I. 213, Enter from opposite sides Malevole and Franceschina with her lute ; 219, she Maquerelle singing. [On the omis- sings to her lute; 220-27, the song. sion of the music elements of this II, i, Enter Freevill, pages with play as originally presented at torches, and gentlemen with music. Blackfriars, see infra, lieM?.] Then at 1. 8, a serenade of music and ' See complete work, vol. II, song under Beatrice's window. II, Plays at Court. Also cf. 112\ 121'- i, 68, The nightingales sing. II, ii, 23\ 157*. 55, "[Franc] Cantat Gallice." II, ii, 'Supra, 80S 1]3'-14. 61-65, Franceschina sings, with al- 'Infra, 180. ternating comments on the lines. 116 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS the nuns at Milan might be compared with him, the travelers felt they had not heard his equal in Germany, Italy, or France. Training in instrumental music"^ was also extensive, requiring an acquaintance with the principal instruments of the time, — or- gan, lute, bandora, manolini, violin, bass-viol, 'cello, flute, and cornet. But the plays give necessarily slight indications of the music. The Malcontent, for example, as it has reached us, is pretty well shorn of this attraction, as the Induction declares.^ The delight- '^The Case is Altered (.ca. Sept. — Oct., 1597).— I, i, "A flourish" pre- cedes the opening. I, ii ends with "a tucket." Cynthia's Revels {ca. April, 1600 ) . — ( ed. Gifford - Cunningham) IV, i, p. 178, Amorphus sings to the lyre. V, ii, p. 186&, Music Idem, 187a, charge; flourish. Idem, 189, charge (twice) ; flourish (twice). Idem, 1936, charge; flour- ish. Idem, 1946, charge; flourish. V, iii opens with "Music accompa- nied. Hesperus sings." V, iii, p. 200o, Music. A dance by the two masques, &c. Idem, 2006, Music. Second dance. Idem, Wlh, Music. Third dance. Sir Giles Goosecap {ca. fall, 1600).— (ed. Bullen) I, iv, p. 21, Enter Clarence, Musicians. Idem, 22, A song to the Violls. Idem, 23, Exeunt Musicians. Poetaster {ca. April, 1601). — (ed. Gifford-Cunningham), II, i, p. 2316, Hermogines sings accompa- nied. IV, i, p. 3386, Crispinus plays and sings. IV, iii, p. 243o, Music. Albius sings. IV, iii, p. 343a, Mu- sic. Hermes sings. The Gentleman Usher {ca. sum. 1601).— (ed. Shepherd, 1873), II, i, p. 87a, Music. Monsieur D'Olive {ca. Oct. — Dec, 1601.) — No music indicated. May Day {ca. May, 1602).— (ed. Shepherd, 1873), III, iv, p. 2956, "Tapster, call us in some music." IV, i, p. 2956, Enter . . &c., with music. Quintiliano. — "Strike up, scrapers." Idem, 296a, Qu. — "(strike up fiddlers)"; and farther on, "Farewell, scrapers," &c. The Widow's T^ow (Sept., 1603). — (ed. Shepherd, 1873), III, ii, p. 3356, Music. Two lines farther on, "Music. Hymen descends" &c. [See comment supra, 115, col. 1.] The Dutch Courtesan (fall-wint., 1603).— (ed. 1633 and Bullen, 1887), I, ii, 1. 313, Enter Franceschina with her lute; 219, she sings to her lute. II, i. Enter Freevill, pages with torches, and gentlemen with music. Then at 1. 8, a serenade of music and song under Beatrice's window. V, i, 1. 18 "[Franc] Cantat saltatque cum cithera." The Malcontent (spring, 1603). — I, i. The vilest of out-of-tune mu- sic being heard, &c. II, iii. Music within. Ill, ii. Cornets like horns within. IV, i. Cornets sound with- in. — Amelia. — "We will dance: — music ! — we will dance." Amelia calls for "music" five times in this scene, for the dance of the inter- rupted masque. IV, i, Cornets flourish. V, ii, " . . Peace! cornets !" V, iii, "The music !" i. e., for the masque. Ibid., "cornets, cornets !" V, iii. Enter Mercury with loud music. Ibid., "Cornets: the song to the cornets, which play- ing, the mask enters." Ibid., "the cornets sound the- measure" (first dance). Repeated, in second dance. Ibid., "Cornets, a flourish." Re- peated at close of play. ^The Malcontent was first played at Blackfriars in the spring of 1603. During the unsettled state of affairs of that year {cf. Children of the Queen's Revels at Blackfriars, 1603- 1608, in complete work, vol. I) it fell into the hands of the Burbage THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 117 ful concert of instruments and voices^ preceding the play and lasting an hour was, as the Diary informs us; the customary pre- lude. It was no part of the play, and is not mentioned, therefore, company, who cut out the music elements, in the main, because that company could not present them, as the following from the Induction spoken in 1604 from the Globe stage indicates : — "Sly. What are your additions? Burbage. Sooth, not greatly needful ; only as your salad to your great feast, to entertain a little more time, and to abridge the not- received custom of music in our theatre." 'It is likely and seems as nearly certain as circumstantial evidence can render it that Blackfriars pop- ularized the vocal-instrumental con- cert. A few years later (1609), special provision is made for con- certs as well as for plays in the articles of agreement by the com- pany at Whitefriars called Children of the King's Revels, — a company modeled after Blackfriars. {cf. in- fra, 121'.) If the activity of Blackfriars in producing such concerts while car- rying out the Queen's requirements and wishes did not cause a corre- sponding (and the first known) ac- tivity of musicians in collecting and publishing suitable songs and scores for such vocal and instrumental concerts, then it must be considered as at least remarkable that the two activities, each closely related to the other, sprang up independently and simultaneously. The earliest known English books of songs with accompani- ments on the chief musical instru- ments used at Blackfriars were published about 1600. Thomas Morley, one of the gentlemen of the Chapel Royal, published "The first book of Aires or little short Songes to sing and play to the lute with the bass viol, London, 1600." About the same time, John Dow- land published "The first booke of Songes or Ayers of foure Parts with Tablature for the Lute." In 1600 he published a second book of "Songes and Aires" for "the lute or Orpherian, with the viol de gam- ba" (entered on Stationers' Regis- ter 15 July, 1600), in which he styles himself lutenist to the King of Den- mark. His third work appeared in 1603 with the title, "Songs or Aires to sing to the lute, Orpharion, or Violls." Philip Rosseter, lutenist, whom we later (1610 ff., complete work, vol. I) find an important figure in the history of the Children of the Queen's Revels at Whitefriars, pub- lished in 1601 "A Booke of Ayres set foorth to be song to the Lute, Orpherian, and base Violl" (en- tered on Stationers' Register 8 May, 1601). Another work by Ros- seter was entered on the Stationers' Register 14 April, 1609, under title "A booke of Consortes to the treble lute, bandora, treble viall, base viall, the Citterne and the fflute." The poet Samuel Daniel's broth- er, John Daniel, — whom we meet later (1615flF., complete work, vol. I) as the leader of that old-men's company practicing on the reputa- tion of the children-companies as an asset under the name of The Children of her Majesty's Royal Chamber of Bristol, — ^published in 1606 a volume of "Songs for the Lute, Vial, and Voice, in folio.'' — For data above, see Sir John Hawkins, A General History of the Science and Practice of Music, etc. (1776'; 1853'), I, 4826; II, 489a, 570o, 571&. Also, E. Arber, A Tran- script of the Registers of the Com- pany of Stationers of London, 1554- 1640 (1875-94), III. These books of concert music for voice and instrument are not only the earliest of their kind, but also form a collection more numerous than the product in this branch at any later period of similar brevity. If they did not arise out of the na- ture and popularity of the Black- 118 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS in either Chapman's The Widow's Tears, — the "chaste widow" which the Duke of Stettin saw,^ — nor in any other play. It is quite clear that the musical training of the Children amply balanced the dramatic. The notable thing about the dancing'' is that it differs from the public theatre jig and Morris. It is treated more as an art and seems modeled on the masques long practiced at Court. This is true especially of Jonson's Cynthia's Revels and four of Chap- man's plays, Sir Giles Goosecap, The Gentleman Usher, May Day, The Widow's Tears; also Marston's The Dutch Courtezan and The Malcontent. The ancient custom of masques at Court' was carried out by Elizabeth and her predecessors with elaborate detail and at great friars entertainments which had be- come the great new fad of London, the suggestion of it at least is diffi- cult to repress, and no other ex- planation of the simultaneity pre- sents itself. 'See further, infra, "Plays," vol. n. ''The Case is Altered (.ca. Sept. — Oct., 1597). — No dancing indicated. Cynthia's Revels (ca. Apl. 1600). — (ed. Gifford-Cunningham), HI, iii, p. 170, Asotus sings and dances. V, iii, p. 200O-302O, three several dances, each composed of eight maskers in rich attire, — four nymphs of Cynthia's court and four sylvan brethren. Sir Giles Goosecap (ca. fall, 1600).— (ed. Bullen), II, i, p. 31, "He daunceth speaking." " . . Your Lord is very dancitive me- thinkes." V, ii, p. 93, A masque closes the play, "In form whereof first daunce, . . . sing and daunce The Measure. Now to the song and do this gar- land grace." Canto. Poetaster (ca. Apl. 1601).— No dancing indicated. See further, in- fra, 119. The Gentleman Usher (ca. sum., 1601).— (ed. Shepherd, 1873), II, i, p. 88o, Dance of Broom-man, Rush- man, Broom-maid, Rush-maid in a masque. Monsieur D' Olive (ca. Oct. — Dec, 1601). — No dancing indicated. May Day (ca. May, 1603).— (ed. Shepherd, 1873), I, i, preceded by "Chorus juvenum cantantes et sal- tantes. [Exeunt saltan." IV, i, p. 396, Quintiliano skips about while singing to music of fiddles. V, i, p. 3036, Enter Aurelia, &c., . ._. masked, dancing. The masque is danced in three rounds. The play ends with all joining hands and dancing. Exeunt. The Widow's Tears (Sept., 1602).— (ed. idem), III, ii, p. 3260, A masque. Six sylvans with torches dance. They take out the bride and the rest. All dance. V, i, p. 383o, "He dances and sings." The Dutch Courtezan (fall — wint., 1603).— IV, i. Enter the Masquers ; they dance. Tfie Malcontent (spring, 1603). — In IV, i, the masque begun on elaborate scale of the "brawl" is in- terrupted and not taken up again. The movements to be executed in the court dance described. V, iii, A masque, in which additional coup- les join at intervals. 'See especially A. Soergel, Die Englischen Maskenspiele (Diss., Halle, 1883) ; and Rudolf Brotanek, Die Englischen Maskenspiele (1902). THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 119 expense during the annual period of relaxation of the Christmas Revels. But these masques within the play at Blackfriars were a wholly new feature in the evolution of the drama/ and cannot have been but strikingly attractive and popular with the aristo- cratic patrons. The dance was made up of nymphs, or sylphs, or other airy, mythological, or fanciful shapes. The effect was heightened by special costumes calculated to lead the eye through the maze of masque into pleasing bewilderment. In Cynthia's Revels the masque is danced by four nymphs and four fairy brethren. All are dressed to the taste of the Royal Court of Fancy. The nymphs in citron, green, vari-colored, and white, match their sylvan partners in green and blue, purple env paled with gold, blush-color, and watchet-tinsel. The whole sit- uation is phantastic. The evolutions are executed under the magic of Cupid and Mercury in the presence of the throned Cynthia. Doubtless the masque was danced to the level of Jonson's con- ception of the mingling of colors, movement, and music into har- monious charm. Sir Giles Goosecap doses with a dance of lords and ladies, fol- lowed by a song. This is on the order of a Court-masque, and is danced in honor of Hymen. Doubtless it was executed with elaboration, giving the light play its chief attraction. Merely its place of occurrence, at the end of the play, is mentioned in the printed drama as it has reached us. Poetaster may be mentioned in this connection, although it con- tains no stage directions for dancing. But it has in act IV "a pretty fiction" of "a heavenly banquet" represented as played at the Court. It is "a pageant" or masque of the Bacchanalian revels of the gods in the full habit of deities, with the effects of too much nectar riotously dominant in the ichor of their deity- ships. The revel closes with irregular singing and loud music, and might appropriately have had the reeling accompaniment of the Bacchanalian dance ending with the usual joyous whoop in swinging the fair goddess clean from the floor at the great final leap of "the swaggering upspring.'"' The "pretty show" in The Gentleman Usher is a masque pre- 'See infra, 119-21, 122-33. in Europe. But to see this manner 'This is a custom still familiar and finish of a dance in its native 120 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS sented in the presence of Duchess Margaret as she sits on her throne surrounded by the splendor of lords and ladies of the Court. The dancers and singers are sylvans and nymphs under the names of Man-bug, Woman-bug, Broom-man, Rush-man, Broom-maid, Rush-maid. The entertainment was voted as "pleas- ingly performed." May Day opens with a chorus of youths dancing and closes with "the May-night show at Signor Honorio's." The whole play is preparation for this masque, and the most of the conver- sation of act V is simply lively setting for it. It is the life and entertainment at the home of a lord transferred with heightened coloring to the stage. In The Widow's Tears, seen by the Duke of Stettin, "the revels and nuptial sports" at the palace of the "chaste widow," the Countess Eudora, make up much of act III. It is a royal bridal scene, containing a masque of "rare device." With Tharsalio in the chair of honor, the bride Eudora, surrounded by her court- ladies, takes her place at his side. The show and masque are the spiritualization of the ceremony of marriage. At the sound of music, Hymen, represented by one of the players who "hangs in the clouds deified," descends toward the bridal pair, while a chorus of "fresh and flowry sylvans" bearing torches enter be- neath, "curveting and tripping ath' toe, as the ground they trod on were too hot for their feet." With such courtship as they make to the Dryads, they lead the bride and her court-ladies into the sylvan nuptial dance. The Dutch Courtezan presents a masque at the opening of act IV. From previous mention in the play concerning the proposed masque, we rightly expect large entertainment from the perform^- ance of it. Possibly it may have fulfilled expectations, but neither the dialogue nor the stage directions let us know. The masquers at Sir Hubert Subboy's house are about to enter as the act opens. Servants are standing with lights to lend brilliance to the per- formance. More lights are called for. As the masquers arrive, Sir Lionel Freevill calls out "Call down our daughter. Hark! woodland and mountain perfection and atmosphere, visit sometime a of thrilling wildness as inspired dance in any valley of the Alps of originally into the reveling Pan and the German Tyrol. Bacchus by similar surroundings THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 121 they are at hand: rank handsomely." As the masque is in cele- bration of the pending nuptials of the son of Sir Lionel with the daughter Beatrice of Sir Hubert, doubtless some magnificence was given the setting. But the masque is quickly broken up by a challenge to a duel, — feigned and prearranged. Altogether the reader is given to know very little of how the masque went. Cer- tainly the action does not seem to allow great elaboration of the dance, but that could have been shaped to the will of the actors. Twice in The Malcontent are we presented with a masque. The first, in which the elaborate evolutions of "The Brawl" were about to be danced, was interrupted and not carried out. The second closes the play. Mercury is the master of the revels. In the midst of a song to the accompaniment of cornets, the masque of four crowned Dukes, dressed in white robes, enters. They choose their ladies, and dance and chat to the accompaniment of cornets. It is not a highly successful show, and fully justifies Jonson in not including Marston with himself. Chapman, and Fletcher as the only ones who could write a masque.^ The indications in the plays for singing, music, and dancing as cited above, though amply substantiating Gerschow's state- ment of the Queen's requirements, cover only the incidental prac- ticing of these arts. The chief exhibitions in music and singing had nothing to do with the plays, as already noted in the evidence from the Diary. It is probable also that musical entertainments were given exclusive of dramatic performances. For later, in certain articles of agreement concerning the conduct of the Chil- dren of the King's Revels at Whitefriars,^ a company modeled after the Blackfriars organization, there is special provision made concerning the receipts from musicales as well as plays. Also, the special "show"^ presented at Court Feb. 6, 1601, is '"Next himself, only Fletcher for only one separate masque by and Chapman could make a Mask." Chapman is now known. Certainly — Notes of Ben Jonson's Conversa- either Jonson or Chapman prepared tions with William Drummond of the special "show" presented before Hawthornden, January, 1619 (ed. the Queen by the Children Feb. 6, David Laing, Shakesp. Soc. Pub., 1601, for no other poets were then 1843), 4. employed to prepare their plays, and It is doubtless upon the eminent no others were turning out that sort success of Chapman's masques in of work. the plays of the Blackfriars Boys ^See complete work, vols. I, III. that Jonson gave him this praise, 'Supra, 115\ 132 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS further suggestive. Although nothing further is known of it, there is Httle hkeUhood that Gyles and Evans took the trouble of preparing such an entertainment without reaping the benefits of its re-presentation at the theatre. Moreover, the Queen would hardly have called for such a specialty if the Children had not been previously trained in similar performances. Documentary proof of such "shows" would explain the gap in the period of 1597 to 1600. But at present it seems only highly probable that an important part of their lost repertoire consisted of these mu- sical and dramatic ephemeral The requirements for the training of the Children at Black- friars gave rise to new features in the drama. Music of minor sort as also singing are known earlier, particularly in plays of the Children of the Chapel and Paul's from their beginnings on. The public theatres had less of either. But the origin of musical praeludia, interludia, and intermezzos, cannot be traced farther than this period at Blackfriars. The masque as an integral part of the play is unknown in dra- i matic history prior to the establishment of Blackfriars theatre.* 'It is probable that the Queen 'Tis Cynthia's pleasure." not infrequently called for such ^^j. ^ Soergel, Die EngUschen^ ephemeral "shows." Jonson may Maskenspiele (Diss. Halle, 1882), well have got that trammg here m gg^ dates the beginning of the masques which made him under masque within the play as ca. 1600, James the foremost man of all time but without knowing the influences in that special form of entertain- here mentioned. It is probable that ment. In his C onversaUons with this new species of drama that had Drummond (ed. Lainp 5. S. Pub such wide following in the next 1842), 27, he says, that the half half century began three years ear- of his Comedies were not in print. Her than Soergel puts it, with the Why? Jonson was generally care- opening of Blackfriars. This part ful to preserve his work. Were a of his thesis Dr. Soergel has only good part of his inventions among touched upon, leaving a thorough these evanescences, which the Queen working to the future. But it has may have commanded? His Cyn- not yet been made public, if ever thias Revels is a tribute to her as undertaken such a patroness In that play she Dr. Rudolf Brotanek, Die Eng- is Cynthia and he is Crites. It is Uschen Maskenspiele (Wien, 1902), so suggestive of the mode of ful- 99^ has assembled the known evi- fillmg the Queens requirements at dences to show that the masque Blackfriars as to seem to be drawn within the play is of earlier ori- from life when m that play, near g[^ ._„ tiie close of V, i^i, just preceding f^^ friiheste Zeugnis fiir die in the masque of in, Arete says to jer Bliitezeit der Maske sehr be- '-''''*^^' liebte Einschiebung in andere "Crites you must provide straight Stiicke stammt aus dem Jahre 1514 for a masque, und bezieht sich auf ein Interlu- ■j THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 123 The example there was followed almost immediately by others.^ In general the Chapel Children's plays did much to set the dra- matic tone of the time. Novelty indeed carried it away, for the Children were "now the fashion."^ The influence especially on Shakespeare as well as other contemporaries, likewise also on the character of the Court entertainments under James I, particu- larly the masques,^ requires extensive investigation in detail, and is reserved of necessity for a later publication. The furnishing of apparel at the Queen's cost has already been presented.* The prodigal lavishness of the rich costuming is mentioned in the Diary and abundantly supported by the plays. The sense of unlimited resources gave the Blackfriars dramatists, Jonson, Chapman, and Marston, a free hand and enabled them to undertake plots and present characters and situations requiring the most elaborate courtly elegance. Theatrical conditions in this phase as in all others had much to do with shaping the nature of the drama, — more than is commonly supposed. By virtue of the conditions of management and distributed shareship originally peculiar to the Globe,® Shakespeare alone of all the numerous other dramatists of this period* enjoyed a similar sense of unre- strained freedom in choice and artistic treatment of dramatic material. The masques already mentioned, with fairies, nymphs, gods, dium "devysed by Sir Harry Gyll- dialogue are of course of even very furth, Master of the Revells . . . much earlier date than these cases in the whiche conteyned a moresk cited by Brotanek. But all these of VI. persons and II. ladys." cases fall into a class wholly out- [Foot-note reference, Collier, I, side the masque as an integral part 68ff; Letters and Papers of the of the theatrical drama as known Reign of Henry VIII, I, 718f.] for the first time in the history of Diese Auffiihrung ist sicher ident- the English drama on Blackfriars isch mit dem von William Cornish stage. fiir dieselbe Weihnachtsfeier ge- ^See further complete work, vol. schrieben Tryumpe of Love and I. Bewte. Sir Henry Guildford er- 'Infra, 166-67, 174, Fi, 177. saim offenbar die Handlung, und 'For a chronological list pf Cornish fxihrte die Reden aus." known masques, see Soergel, op. cit., Brotanek points out further that 72-^5 (1604-37) ; and Brotanek, op. in Interlude of the Four Elements cit. at close is a Mumming indicated, *Supra, 98-101. "also, if ye list, ye may bring in a 'See newly discovered documents Disguising." Then the maskers ap- on Shakespeare, Globe, and Black- pear. He mentions finally a similar friars, u. s., ix-x, 34', 44", 56\ superaddition in a Morality of 1527. "See list of dramatists, 1597- Court masques accompanied by 1603, infra, 163". 124 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS goddesses, kings, queens, dukes, countesses, noble bridal festivi- ties, courtly entertainments, &c., show some of the accessory re- quirements for an elaborate theatrical wardrobe. Most of the plays represented some court, and all are comedies in high life. Presented before courtiers, lords, and ladies, and the fastidious fashionables of London, the dresses of necessity must meet the demands of the time. A representative example may stand for all. Since the Duke of Stettin was struck by the costuming in The Widow's Tears, I select from it. In I, ii, there is the follow- ing entrance of a courtly train in state: — Two gentlemen ushers in court-livery, heads bared, march in dignified pomp across the stage, followed by two Spartan lords. These in their turn serve but as ushers to their more splendid viceregal master, who walks after in single state. The Countess Eudora follows in flowing silks, with her daughter at her side. A waiting-gentlewoman bears the Countess's train. Another waiting-woman closes the procession in single dignity. So rich and abundant is the apparel in this representative play that the German visitors remark upon it as excessive. Spectacu- lar effect, however, was one of the novelties of the Beerbohm Tree sort that drew large audiences, — even more perhaps than the plots and sayings of the plays. In contrast to the public theatres where plays were presented by daylight, the enclosed privacy and spectacular elegance at Blackfriars must have been altogether as attractive as the testi- mony of the time declares it. With an aristocratic audience filling the house from the seats in pit and galleries to the lords' rooms, the fashionable "smart set" sitting at right and left on the stage, and the shimmer of candlelight over the royal costumes of the boy-actors in the midst of music, dramatic movement, and phan- tastic masque, it is little wonder that the spectacular effect was enough "to ravish a man"^ with delight, and to attract from the public theatres the most desirable part of their audience.^ Whether the requirement to present one play a week as men- tioned by Gerschow in the Diary was elastic enough to allow that as the minimum, not the maximum, is not certain. Suggestive 'See infra. Children of the ^ Supra, 96, 112; infra, 128, 164- Queen's Revels at Blackfriars. 66, 174, 176-77. THE QUEEN'S REQUIREMENTS 126 circumstances indicate a possibility of twice a week. But they are insufficient for a final conclusion. The Queen attended the theatre on a Tuesday, — 29 Dec, 1601,^ — the Duke of Stettin on a Saturday, — Sept. 18, 1602.^ The fact that Kirkham and part- ners in the 50 /. bond of April 20, 1602, agreed to pay Evans eight shillings "everye weeke weekly on Saturdaye . . . when & soe often as anye enterludes plaies or showes shalbe playde vsed showed or published in the greate hall"^ &c., indicates Saturday as a day for acting. The same document from which the above is quoted declares that a play or interlude was presented there Saturday, 16 June, 1605,* and indicates Saturday as the regular time for both acting and payment, from date of the contract. This fixes Saturday as one regular day of the week for acting, but does not settle it as the only day. The purpose in the 1600 and 1601 orders emanating from Elizabeth to suppress all public the- atres but the Globe and Fortune, and to restrict these to playing but twice a week looks like the attempt at a leveling process in number of representations as well as in other features, in con- formity with the Queen's fixed purposes as carried out in the pri- vate establishment of Blackfriars." ^ Supra, 95. glioe secwndo quoddom ludicrum 'Supra, 106. anglice an interlude lusum fuit in 'Supra, 103'. praedicta magna Aula." — Cf. docu- * "Super diem sabfcoti existentem ment in extenso, in complete work, sextumdecimum diem Junij Anno vol. III. regni domini Jacobi nunc Regis An- "See infra, chapter XII, entire. CHAPTER X SUMMARY OF EVIDENCES ON THE OFFICIAL SANCTION OF BLACKFRIARS There is abundant evidence of the official conduct of the Black- friars. The Diary of the Duke of Stettin declares it.^ The par- agraph in Evans's Answer concerning the weekly disbursements and allowances by the Queen's official shows it.^ The Decree of the Court of Star Chamber is based upon it.' The provision for only the minor expense of rent and repairs, and the omission to mention the heavier charges of maintenance, apparel, and furni- ture in the 1602 agreement indicates it.* Even in Qifton's Complaint, bitter with animus and Puritan- ism, the same comes out unintentionally. His statement that the Blackfriars was set up, furnished, and maintained "under color" of authority is an admission of the fact, since the "color" proved true.° Other charges of his not yet quoted are equally clear as showing the truth when the beclouding animus is blown away. For example, when Clifton threatened to report the managers to the Privy Council, they told him "to complayne to whome he would, & they would aunswer yt" ; and also "that yf the Queene (meaning your highnes) would not beare them furth in that ac- cion [i. e., taking up and using the Boys in plays at Blackfriars], she (meaning lykwyse your highnes) should gett another to exe- cute her comission, for them."® Furthermore, they declared "that they had aucthoritie sufficient soe to take any noble mans Sonne in this land,'" and "that were it not for the benefitt they made by the sayd play howse, whoe would should serve the Chap- pell w'" childeren, for them."^ All these replies show a confident security in the Queen's grants and permissions. ^Supra, 106-7. Also, cf. chapter ^Supra, 79ff., 10l'-3. IX, entire. "Clifton's Complaint in Star "Supra, 98-101. Chamber, G.-F., 130c. 'Supra, 8l"-83\ 'Idem, 131a. 'Supra, 91-92". 'Ibid; also, supra, 81'. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCES 127 We have seen Gyles's authority, — the Commission for taking up children/ — and we know how he was allowed to interpret and exercise the powers granted.^ He was not only unhampered by the Court of Star Chamber/ but during a period of nearly six years he carried out the Queen's will and had her favor. The Decree of the Court, cited by Kirkham, has furnished evidence that EVans too had official papers.* Their nature and purport we know pretty certainly by the theatrical practices under them. His leasing the theatre for twenty-one years,^ which meant the rest of his life, also shows he felt his concessions extended prac- tically in perpetuum. Evidence has shown that about twenty-five to thirty boys were boarded and lodged at Blackfriars,' while the chorus of twelve Children' for the Chapel service were kept at or near the Palace.' At the theatre were provided school-room,* praeceptores, and musicP-'^ for the education and special training of the Children there.^^ As an essential adjunct to theatrical requirements, an extensive wardrobe was supplied,^" as also probably stage-furni- ture.^^ The total expense of these elaborate provisions was borne by the royal exchequer.^* We have seen that the declarations of documents on certain of these heads are supported also by the evidence of plays. I may here add also conclusions that lie patent to the observer. No one could fail to recognize the impossibility of the Children of the Chapel being used as actors without the Queen's knowl- edge. Students have hitherto recognized that such knowledge implied consent and some sort of favor. All the printed plays of the Boys announce them as Children of her Majesty's Chapel, or Children of Blackfriars, or both. The official record concerning their performances at Court speaks of them as Children of the Chapel.^^ If was universally known that they were the Children of the Chapel taken up for the Queen's service and maintained ^ Supra, 60\ 'Supra, 40', 40', 71. 'Supra, 70-71. ^'' Supra, 106-7. 'Supra, 83. "^Supra, 106-7, 113. *Supra, 81-82\ "Supra, ibid; 98-101, 123-24, 178. 'Supra, 57. "Supra, 101'. 'Supra, 75, 73-76. "Supra, 70-71, 98-lOlS 106-7, 178. ''Supra, 59'. "See Court Plays, complete ^ Supra, 73. work, vol. II. 128 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS by her at Blackfriars. The pubhc talked about it as did also the Queen's officials. Clifton based his suit on it, and the Duke of Stettin gained such official or semi-official information about it as enabled him to leave a record of the conditions that later moved him, as it seems, to action in establishing a troop of English actors at his court at heavy expense. The aristocratic folk of London, including members of the Court, knew these conditions under which Blackfriars was established and maintained, and were at- tracted to the plays there.^ The Queen herself, accompanied by her court-ladies, granted the grace of her presence there.^ In the light of the evidence, the declaration of Gerschow's "erbauet"^ is not remarkable. The simple explanation is that her Majesty provided for the establishment or setting up* and main- tenance of the theatre at Blackfriars under royal favor and at ^ Infra, 164-66, 174, 176-77. 'Supra, 95-97. °It would be a matter of great interest if it could be shown that James Burbage in 1596 purchased and set about remodeling the Black- friars in accordance with the Queen's desire to set up these boys as actors, and that Gyles, then Mas- ter at Windsor, or Hunnis, whom Gyles in 1597 succeeded as Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal, had at the same time joined with Evans, the lessee of the theatre, to carry out these plans. But there is no evidence of it, I think, even in "erbauet" that has set some on a false scent. On the contrary, Clifton's charges (though not much reliance is to be placed upon them for reasons al- ready shown, unless they are cor- roborative) indicate a date after the purchase, while the Globe- Blackfriars Share-Papers of 1635 declare in reference to the purchase of Blackfriars that it "after was leased out to one Evans" (supra, 57^). Also the fact that Evans did not take the twenty-one-year lease until he had proved the ven- ture a success points to the same. But I must admit the force of opposing considerations. In re- sponse to the petition of 1596 against Blackfriars, the Queen's Council did nothing (supra, 18^ 53). The size of Blackfriars is against supposing Burbage intended it to supplant "The Theatre." The new rooms built above the theatre were also peculiarly adaptable. But there is nothing more than unexplained suggestiveness in these points. It is to be hoped that other documents, traces of which are known to me, may yet be brought to light and contribute something conclusive. '"Set up" and "erect" were used in a double sense in and long after Elizabeth's time. Applied to the theatre as a physical structure, the sense was "build" ; as a company, "establish." The following, out of a large number of examples, suffice to illustrate : — "for erectinge, buildinge, and settinge upp of a newe howse and stadge for a plaie-howse." — Con- tract for the Fortune (1600), in J. 0. Halliwell-Phillips, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (9th ed., 1890), I, 305O. "nowe erectinge a Newe Play- house in that place." — Privy Coun- cil Register, 26 Sept., 1615, on sup- pression of Rosseter's Blackfriars theatre. See complete work, vols. 1, III. "... to sett vp a Playhowse in SUMMARY OF EVIDENCES 128 royal expense as the combined evidences abundantly show. Even the expense for the rental of the building was provided for, not specifically, but generally, by the granted privilege of private gain to the management. The maintenance of a player company and the furnishing of apparel was the chief expense in theatrical business. With these provided, not only expense free but under royal patronage, and with no charges to be met by the management except the minor sum of rental and repairs, there is little wonder that the Queen is regarded as "establishing" this theatre. Her part in it amounts i to nothing less. The results that arose immediately out of this theatrical estab- lishment, — the Queen's official acts in carrying out her purposes, the City's opposition, the unfriendly attitude of the public the- atres, the championship of their cause in Hamlet, as also the ori- gin of certain theatrical modes and customs, — are reflexively con- tributive to a knowledge of the Queen's relations to Blackfriars, and are discussed in succeeding chapters. the Blackfrya"." — Idem, 27 Jan., "which after was leased out to 1617, on suppression of the same one Evans that first sett up the theatre. Cf. ut praeantea cit. boyes commonly called the Queenes "A common playhowse then Majesties Children of the Chap- [1596, Nov.] preparing to be pell." — Globe-Black friars Share-pa- erected there." — City's order to sup- pers of 1635 in Halliwell-Phillips, press Blackfriars (1618-[19]), in op. cit., I, 317. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 311. "to erect a company for repre- "to errecte, sett vpp, furnish and sentation of tragedies." — Patent to maynteyne a play house or place in George Jolly (Dec. 24, 1660) in E. the Blacke-fryers."— Clifton's Com- Malone, op. cit., Ill, 252. plaint in Court of Star Chamber Gerschow's "erbauet" is a cor- (1601), supra, 101^ rect translation of "set up'' or "lett the said Playhowse vnto "erect" in either the literal sense, Henrye Evans, . . . whoe intended or with the meaning of "cause to then [»'. e., when lease was made] be erected or set up," "found," "es- presentlye to erect or sett vpp a tablish." His use of the word Companye of boyes ... in the doubtless arises from translating same."— Burbage's Answer (1612), "erect" or "set up" in the English supra, 57' source of his information (». e., "except the said Evans could talk with officials or others) used erect & keepe a companye of Play- in the sense of "establish." inge boyes." — Idem, supra, ibid. CHAPTER XI THE CUSTOM OF SITTING ON THE STAGE ORIGINATING AT BLACKFRIARS Before dealing with larger matters affecting the stage and drama, and connected with the official conduct of Blackfriars in a series of causes and effects, I choose here to intercalate a chap- ter on the fashionable custom of sitting on the stage. The cus- tom shows the tendency of influences started at Blackfriars. The origin of it is two-fold, — the physical structure of the stage and the fashionable character of the audience. An investigation of known evidences on the subject changes previous views and establishes in their stead certain facts. The fad of sitting on the stage came into vogue with the Black- friars in 1597.^ The earliest known allusion to it dates 1598.^ It was a custom in no other theatre in Elizabeth's reign.' The supposition of Malone* that this fashionable fad was the practice in all the private^ theatres has been so widely accepted as a settled fact that it may be regarded as almost a universal error among students of the drama and stage.' The error arises out of the imitation of the custom at two of the later private the- atres, the Cockpit and Salisbury Court. There is no evidence for or against the custom at Whitefriars. I must conclude that it was unknown there. Paul's never admitted the practice under either Elizabeth or James. The stage was too small. The evidence of this is in the Induction to John Marston's What You Will, and is too clear-cut ^Infra, 131-34. oning. 'Infra, 133'. "Specific references even to re- 'Infra, 130-34, 136-38. _ cent publications containing this er- 'E. Malone, Shakespeare Varior- ror would make an unwieldy and um (ed. Boswell, 1831), III, 78. in no way helpful list. Almost any 'The private theatres were Black- modern essay, doctor's dissertation, friars, Paul's, Whitefriars, Cockpit book, or edition of a play published (Phoenix), and Salisbury Court. in England, Germany, America, or Writers have generally left Paul's France, and touching this custom, and Whitefriars out of this reck- will furnish exemplification. SITTING ON THE STAGE 131 a declaration to be impeached.^ The only other known mention in a play acted at Paul's is sufficiently definite to tell us that Paul's is not meant.^ Else we should have the anomaly of the players uttering gratuitous self-detraction. This exhausts both the Paul's list of references,'' and the evi- dences on that side of the question that assumes the existence of the custom in any other theatre than the Blackfriars up to 1604. Between 1597 and 1604, every identifying evidence of sitting on the stage is associated with Blackfriars. Also, as shown be- low, no public theatre of this period had the custom.* The logi- cal conclusion is that every allusion to the practice within these limits refers to Blackfriars, whether specifically so declared or not. ^Atticus says to Philomuse (sup- posed gallants on the stage), "Let's place ourselves within the curtains, for good faith the stage is so very little, we shall wrong the general eye else very much." — John Mars- ton, Induction to What You Will, in Marston's Works (ed. BuUen, 1887), II, 335. Acted at Paul's ca. April, 1601. (Cf. Plays, complete work, vol. II.) ^"Courtesan. — ... I know some i' th' town that have done as much, and there took such a good conceit of their parts into the two- penny room, that the actors have been found i' th' morning in a less compass than their stage, though twere ne'er so full of gentlemen." — Thomas Middleton, A Mad World My Masters, in Middleton's Works (ed. Bullen, 1886), III, 347. Acted at Paul's ca. 1606 (?). "A stage-direction in W. Percy's The Faery Pastorall (published from MS. by Joseph Haslewood for The Roxburghe Club, 1834) re- quires a word here. After mention- ing stage-properties to be used, the author says, "Now if so be that the Properties of any of These, that be outward, will not serue the turne by reason of concurse of the People on the Stage, Then you may omitt the sayd Properties" &c. What stage does Percy mean? It is not infrequently supposed that this play was acted at Paul's. The author in writing had in mind all possible companies that might ac- cept his plays, and would have been glad to appear at Paul's. This is shown by "A note to the Master of the Children of Powles" (printed in Collier, op. cit.,' Ill, 181) at the close of Necromantes; also in the directions concerning the double closing of The Faery Pastorall (in op. cit. supra) and in the direction for the Prologue in The Cuck- queanes and Cuckolds Errants {idem). But there is no evidence that The Faery Pastorall or any other play in the MS. volume by Percy was ever acted by any company. His works doubtless belong to that nu- merous host {cf. Collier, op. cit.,' Ill, 331-33) that, for unsuitable- ness or other reasons, never trod the boards. Hence I set no special value upon the elaborate and im- possible stage-directions or other items taken seriously by many as touching vital points in stage-his- tory. But see on the contrary Carl Grabau, Zur Englischen Bilhne um 1600 in Shakespeare-Jahrbuch (1903), XXXVIII, 385; G. F. Rey- nolds, Some Principles of Eliza- bethan Staging, in Modern Phi- lology (1904-5), II, 607 (later published separately) ; G. P. Baker, The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist (1907), 76-77. *Infra, 136-38. 132 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS About 1598, Sir John Davies in a satirizing sonnet-epigram gives the first evidence.^ Here the gallant is conceived as at the Blackfriars, on the stage (1. 3) ; or at the public theatre, over the stage (1. 4). Ben Jonson twice in Every Man out of his Humour {ca. Aug., 1599,2 at the Globe) satirizing the fashionable courtier, gallant, and would-be gentleman, gives this practice a caustic touch.' In the Induction to Cynthia's Revels at Blackfriars the following year {ca. April, 1600*) Jonson uses "one of your genteel audi- tors" of the unfriendly sort (not on the stage) to break a jest over, and follows it up with a dialogue flattering to the well- wishing stage-patron of the house.' ' In Rufum. Rufus the Courtier at the theatre Leauing the best and most conspic- uous place, Doth either to the stage himselfe transfer. Or through a grate doth show his doubtful face. For that the clamorous frie of Innes of court, Filles vp the priuate roomes of greater prise: And such a place where all may haue resort, He in his singularitie doth despise. Yet doth not his particular humour shunne. The common stews and brothels of the towne, Though all the world in troupes do thither runne Cleane and vncleane, the gentle and the clowne : Then why should Rufus in his pride abhorre A common seate that loues a com- mon whore. — Sir John Davies, Epigram 3 (be- fore 1599), in Isham Reprints (ed. Charles Edmonds, 1870), sig. 3. This careful reprint differs from the partial quotation of the same oflfered in Malone, op. cit., Ill, 81. ''See infra, Plays, complete work, vol. II. "Boorish Sogliardo, characterized by Jonson as being "so enamored of the name of gentleman that he will have it though he buys it," finds himself in tow of Carlo Buffone: — Carlo. . . . when you come to plays, be humorous, look with a good starched face, and rufHe your brow like a new boot, laugh at nothing but your own jests, or else as the noblemen laugh. That's a special grace you must observe. Sogliardo. — I warrant you, sir. Car. — Ay, and sit on the stage and flout, provided you have a good suit. Sog. — O, I '11 have a suit only for that, sir. —Every Man out of his Humour, in Jonson's Works (ed. Gifford- Cunningham), I, i, p. 72. Fastidious Brisk. — Why, assure you, signior, rich apparel has strange virtues: it makes him that hath it without means, esteemed for an ex- cellent wit: . . takes possession of your stage at your new play. — Idem, II, ii, p. 94i>. *Supra, 75. "3 Child [Sal Pavy].— Stay; you shall see me do another now, but a more sober, or better-gathered gallant; that is, as it may be SITTING ON THE STAGE 133 Thomas Dekker later, remembering Jonson's satire upon him^ in Poetaster (ca. April, 1601'') and the punishment he himself administered through Satiromastix^ (summer, 1601) by having Horace [Jonson] tossed in a blanket, unequivocally in this in- stance has in mind the custom of sitting on the stage as being at Blackfriars/ In 1601, Hamlet, in the excitement of bitter joy at the close of the play before the King, finds in the custom a means of satiric exultation.^ Indeed the whole play within the play, — not as a new form, for it was old, but in manner, — ^seems intended for Blackfriars done in miniature, with grandees, even of the Hamr let sort, in patronizing display, familiar ease, and chorus-com- ment on the mimic stage. George Chapman's All Fools, at Blackfriars after close of the 1603 plague, twice shows us the audience on the stage. The Pro- logue defers humbly to their judgments and craves their special thought, some friend, or well- wisher to the house : and here I enter. 1 Child [Nat Field].— What, upon the stage too? 2 Child [Jack Underwood]. — Yes ; and I step forth like one of the children, and ask you, Would you have a stool, sir? — In this quotation I have used the Gifford-Cunningham edition, and inserted the names of the Boy- actors who played these parts in the first representation at Black- friars. They are easily determin- able from the Induction itself. ^Infra, 171. 'Supra, 75\ 'Infra, 171. *"Now sir, if the writer be a fellow that hath either epigrammed you, or hath had a flirt at your mistris, or hath brous;ht either your feather, or your red beard, or your little legs &c. on the stage, you shall disgrace him worse then by tossing him in a blancket, or giving him the bastinado in a Tauerne, if, in the middle of his play (bee it Pas- toral or Comedy, Morall or Trag- edie) you rise with a screwd and discontented face from your stoole to be gone : no matter whether the scenes be good or no; the better they are the worse do you distaste them: and, beeing on your feet, sneake not away like a coward, but salute all your gentle acquaintance, that are spread either on the rushes, or on stooles about you, and draw what troope you can from the stage after you." — Thomas Dekker, How a Gallant should behaue himself in a Play-house, chapter VI of The Guls Horn-Booke (1609), in The Non-Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker (ed. Grosart, The Huth Li- brary. 1885), II, 2.13. '"Would not this Sir, and a For- rest of Feathers, if the rest of my Fortunes turne Turke with me; with two Prouinciall Roses on my rac'd Shooes, get me a Fellowship in a crie of Players sir." — Mr. Wil- liam Shakespeares Comedies, His- tories & Tragedies (folio 1623), The Tragedie of Hamlet, [III, ii] p. 2686. 134 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS favor.^ The Epilogue shows them sitting less wise than they were flatteringly invited to be.^ In the spring of 1603, Marston's The Malcontent apparently touched the matter, though the present form of the play doubt- fully shows the manner of it.^ The Globe having annexed The Malcontent played it in 1604 with a special Induction, wherein the fixed privilege of sitting on the Blackfriars stage is specific- ally declared, and the similar privilege at the Globe explicitly denied.* These are the known references to the custom of sitting on the stage up to 1604. They establish its origin in the Blackfriars. This fashion is not to be confused with a certain practice orig- inating in the public theatres. We know there was in more than one of them the custom of sitting "above" or "over" the stage at the rear.^ This is shown in the De Witt — Van Buchell sketch of "^ Great are the gifts given to united heads, To gifts, attire, to fair attire, the stage Helps much; for if our other au- dience see You on the stage depart before we end; Our wits go with you all, and we are fools. — Shepherd's edition (1874), p. 77. ^We can but bring you meat and set you stools And to our best cheer say you all are ( ) welcome. — Idem, p. 77. "Compare the Induction, "Black- friars has almost spoiled Black- friars for feathers" and the follow- ing in II, ii : — "no fool but hath his feather." The allusion is to the prevalent custom, as shown by other examples, of gallants wear- ing on the stage ornamental feath- ers, costing sometimes several pounds. *The Induction opens with these data, thus : — ■ Tire-man. — Sir, the gentlemen will be angry if you sit here. Sly. — Why, we may sit upon the stage at the private house. Thou dost not take me for a country- gentleman, dost? dost think I fear hissing? [See further infra, 138.] 'These were the choice places. It is most probable that the actors of England of that day acted for art's sake, as their heirs the mod- ern German actors do, and conse- quently faced the rear or sides as often as the front, if the faithful representation of the situation re- quired it. To Americans and to many Englishmen, accustomed to spectacular display and studied ar- tificiality in acting, with the funda- mental rule "face the audience," it is as preposterous to think of these rear seats "over" the stage as the best as it is astounding and con- vincing in its artistry to see the modern German actor face any di- rection the case requires, in utter disregard of the audience but with all faithfulness to the life he is por- traying, so that you forget you are in the theatre, and feel that you are living through real experiences. But these rear seats "over" the stage were choice, not merely for hearing (for which we should be glad to believe they were mainly used), but most especially for be- ing seen and making a display of SITTING ON THE STAGE 185 the Swan {ca. 1596), the Roxana print (1632), and the Red Bull picture (1672). Skialetheia or a Shadow of Truth (1598) de- clares it.^ The epigram already quoted from Sir John Davies {ca. 1598) refers to the same,^ and another epigram by him uses the same or same sort of person for ridicule" as is satirized in epigram 53 of Skialetheia. , Jests to Make you Merry, by Thomas Dekker and George Wil- kins, testifies to the practice of this custom in some unidentifiable theatre in 1607.* fine dress, as numerous contempo- rary witnesses testify. ' Of Cornelius See you him yonder who sits o're the stage, With the Tobacco-pipe now at his mouth ? It is Cornelius that braue gallant youth. Who is new printed to this fangled age; He wears lerkin cudgeled with gold lace, A profound slop, a hat scarce pipkin high. For boots, a paire of dagge cafes ; his face, Furr'd with Cads-hezvd: his poynard on his thigh. He wallows in his walk his slop to grace. Swears by the Lord, daines no sal- utation But to some iade that 's sick of his own fashion, As farewell sweet Captaine, or (boy) come apace: Yet this Sir Beuis, or the fayery Knight Put vp the lie because he durst not fight. — [Edward Guilpin], Skialetheia or A Shadowe of Truth, in certaine Epigrams and Satyres (1598), epi- gram 53. 'Supra, 132\ 1. 4. ' In Sillam Who dares affirm that Silla dares not fight? When I dare sware he dares ad- uenture more then the most braue, and most al- daring wight, that euer armes whith resolution bore, He that dare touch the most vn- wholsome whore, that euer was retirde into the spittle, And dares court wenches stand- ing at a dore, The portion of his wit being pass- ing little. He that dares giue his dearest friend offences. Which other valiant fooles doe feare to do. And when a feuer doth confound his senses. Dare eate raw biefe and drinke strong wine thereto. He that dares take Tobaco on the stage. Dares man a whore at noon-day through the street Dares daunce in Poules, and in this formall age, Dares say and doe what euer is vnmeete, Whom feare or shame could neuer yet affright. Who dares affirme that Silla dares not fight? — Sir John Davies, op. cit., epigram 38. *"A wench hauing a good face, a good body, and good clothes on, but of bad conditions, sitting one day in the two-penny roome of a play-house, & a number of yong Gentlemen about her, against all whom she maintained talke. One that sat ouer the stage sayd to his 186 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS From the stage-requirements of the Globe and Fortune, we are warranted in concluding, at least tentatively, that such references as these last three do not relate to those theatres. Nearer ap- proach to identification seems not now possible. How late this practice of sitting above the stage at the public theatres or at any one of them was still maintained I do. not know. Just when, if ever, the Blackfriars fashion was taken up in emulation by any one of the public theatres cannot be said. Their stages were not all alike, nor all adaptable to similar conditions. There is doubt whether the custom spread widely amongst them. The evidence of its existence there at all is most slender. It was not allowed at the Globe in 1604, when The Malcontent was played.^ I question whether it was ever tolerated there. The introductory address To the great Variety of Readers, signed by John Heminge and Henrie Condell, prefixed to the 1623 folio edition of Shakespeare's plays, singles out the Blackfriars and the Cockpit, the two private theatres then in existence, the first of which their company owned, and does not name the company's other house, the Globe, as the place of this practice.^ Moreover, the physical conditions of the Globe building and stage, with the choicest seats in the gentlemen's rooms at right and left, could not have allowed the presence of an intervening audience of gal- lants any better at a later date than in 1604. There is, however, one direct evidence apparently on the other side, which may here be subjoined.^ But as it is merely a hypothetical case, in a satire friend : doe you not thinke that yon- Black-Friers, or the Palace-garden der flesh will stincke anon, hauing Beare, so many flyes blowing vpon it?" — Are subiects fittest to content your Thomas Dekker, op. cit., II, 292. care. '^ Supra, 134*. An amorous discourse, a Poets wit, ' "Censure will not driue a Trade, Doth humor best your melancholy fit. or make the lacke go. And though The Globe to morrow acts a pleas- you be a Magistrate of wit, and sit ant play, on the Stage at Black-Friers, or the In hearing it consume the irkesome Cock-pit, to arraigne Playes dailie, day. know, these Playes haue had their Goe take a pipe of To. the crowded triall alreadie, and stood out all Ap- stage peales." Must needs be graced with you and 'Yong Gallants glories soone will ^ your P^ge. Ladies charm Sweare for a place with each con- S'foot walke the streets, in cringing trolling foole, vse your wits ^^^ s^fl your hackney seruant for Suruey your Loue, which in her ^ stoole. window sits. — Henry Hutton, Follies Anatomte, SITTING ON THE STAGE 137 1 2 at that, I doubt its value. It is even questionable whether this, upon close examination, can be taken to mean the Globe more than the Blackfriars. Besides, the advice is the same as given a little while before in the same work concerning Blackfriars.^ Middleton's The Roaring Girl, acted at the Fortune ca. i6io,' satirizes the practice throughout the greater part of the first scene of act II, and specifically ridicules* it as belonging to the private stage.* No further evidence comes from or relates to the Fortune. From the evidence given and in the absence of contradictory testimony, I conclude that neither the Globe nor the Fortune made provision to entertain visitors on the stage. To have done so would have required a probable rebuilding of the stage, or of the best paying part of the theatre, the gentlemen's rooms at the sides. The structure of certain stages furnishes further negative evi- dence. The Fortune,'' eighty feet square outside and fifty-five within, built in other respects on the model of the Globe, had a stage forty-three feet wide which extended in depth to the middle of the yard, i. e., excluding the tiring-house, twenty-seven and one-half feet. At left and right of the stage was the "orchestra"' or Satyres and Satyrical Epigrams 'This meant, of course, the (1619), sign. B3. Blackfriars. It is not certain ^Dancing attendance on the whether the Cockpit was yet built, Blackfriers stage, > which was the next theatre to take Call for a stoole with a command- ^ up the fashion. ing rage. "For details see Contract for the — Idem, sign. A. See infra, 139^-40. Fortune in Halliwell-Phillips, op. '' Published 1611 with the state- cit., I, 304-306. See also plat of ment on the title-page, "As it hath the Fortune, supra, 50-51. lately beene Acted on the Fortune- "Dr. Cecil Brodmeier, Die stage by the Prince his Players." Shakespeare Biihne nach den alten ' [At the feather-shop. Buhnenanweisungen (Diss. Halle, Jack Dapper.— Pooh, I like it not. 1904) 102, followmg Professor Mistress Tiltyard.—Wh&t feather Brandl, evidently misunderstand- is't you'd have sir' "iS '"^ designation orchestra in These are most worn and most in the Swan sketch as having not the fashion • Latin sense but the modern mean- Amongst the' beaver-gallants, the j"g. Peaces the music here!! To stone riders °^ sure, Brodmeier does not deal The private stage's audience, the with the Fortune But as he inelts twelvepenny-stool gentlemen, *"? stages of The Theatre, Cur- I can inform you 'tis the general tain. Globe, and Blackfriars into feather °t^^' the addition of the JHortune —Thomas Middleton, The Roaring cannot disturb his resulting com- Girl, II, i, 151-56, in Middleton's Posite. Cf. supra, 42 , 44-45. Works (ed. Bullen, 1885) IV, 37. 138 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS (in the Latin sense), or place of the four rooms for gentlemen.^ There was an aisle six feet wide between these chief auditors and the stage. ^ The sketch of the Swan shows a similar arrangement, and the Hope was modeled after the Swan.'' Physical conditions thus indicate the stages of at least four* public theatres were open to the chief auditors at right and left. An audience of gallants on the stage at either side, then, would have cut off the view from the gentlemen's rooms. This is the condition the Tire-man refers to in the Induction to The Malcon- tent when he tells Sly, "Sir, the gentlemen will be angry if you sit here."^ These negative conditions and the absence of unquestionable affirmative testimony seem sufficient to conclude with some certi- tude that the Globe, Fortune, Swan, and Hope, at least, did not foster the Blackfriars custom. The Rose, a small theatre, went out of the reckoning about 1603-4," and the conditions at the Red Bull are uncertain. There remains the Curtain alone as an un- known quantity. Against these considerations of physical conditions, there are two bits of evidence so stated as to imply that the practice may have been general in public theatres. Both are in satires ; — not reliable repositories of fact. The one from Middleton,' in its drive at the would-be gallant posing before the public, seems the more convincing of the two. The notorious gull or fine fop, lover of display and perennial subject of the laugher's scorn,^ is like- ^See Contract, u. s., 29^ John Taylor, the Water-poet, 'Supra, 45, and plat, 50-51. Works (1630), 172, The Water- ^ Supra, 31*, 42°. men's Suit, indicates it existed in ■"The Red Bull picture seems to 1613, though closed. And Sir indicate a fifth. But as it does not Henry Herbert's OfBce-book shows show the gentlemen's rooms, but that after 1620 it was occasionally does show people in the aisles at used for prize-fighters. See Ma- right and left, I omit it. If the lone, op. cit.. Ill, 56. Red Bull had gentlemen's rooms, '"But turning my legacy to you- then it should be included in the ward, Barnaby Burning-glass, arch list. tobacco-taker of England, in ordi- ' Supra, 134*. naries, upon stages both public and "No plays are heard of here at private," &c. — The Devil's Last a later date. See also Henslowe's Will and Testament, in The Black talk with Thomas Pope, June 25, Book (1604), Middleton's Works 1603, on pulling down "the littell (ed. BuUen, 1885-86), VIII, 43. Roosse" in Henslowe's Diary (ed. 'Out of the scores of satires and W. W. Greg, 1904), I, 178. jests on this sort of person, partly But it was not pulled down. real and partly imaginary but gen- SITTING ON THE STAGE 139 wise satirized in the example from Dekker, which is a part of the advice to such pretended gallants how to make themselves, if pos- erally exaggerated, the following three as the best (or the worst) may here be quoted. Meditations of a Gull. See yonder melancholy gentleman, Which hoodwinck'd with his hat, alone doth sit, Thinke what he thinkes, and tel me if you can, What great affaires trouble his lit- tle wit : He thinkes not of the warre twixt France & Spain, Whether it be for Europes good or ill. Nor whether the empire can it selfe maintaine Against the Turkish powre en- croching still. Nor what great towne in all the nether lands. The States determine to besiege this spring. Nor how the Scottish poUicie now standes, Nor what becomes of th' Irish mu- tining : But he doth seriouslie bethinke him whether Of the guld people he be more esteemde, For his long cloake, or for his great blacke feather, By which each gull is now a gal- lant deemde. Or of a Tourney he deliberates, To Paris garden cock-pit, or the play. Or how to steale a dogge he medi- tates. Or what he shall vnto his mistris say: Yet with these thoughts he thinks himself most fit To be of counsell with a King for wit. — Sir John Davies, Epigram 47 (be- fore 1599), in Isham Reprints (ed. Charles Edmonds, 1870). Epigram 20. To Candidus. Friend Candidus, thou often doost demaund. What humours men by gulling vn- derstand ; Our English Martiall hath full pleasantly, [i. e., Sir John Davies in Epigram 47, supra\ In his close nips described a gull to thee, rie follow him, and set downe my conceit What a Gull is : oh word of much receit ! He is a gull, whose indiscretion Cracks his purse strings to be in fashion ; He is a gull, who is long in taking roote In barraine soyle, where can be but small fruite : He is a gull, who runnes himselfe in debt, For twelve dayes wonder, hoping so to get ; He is a gull, whose conscience is a block, Not to take interest, but wastes his stock : He is a gull, who cannot haue a whore, But brags how much he spends upon her score; He is a gull, that for commodite Payes tenne times ten, and sells the same for three : He is a gull, who passing finicall, Perseth each word to be rhetoricall : And to conclude, who selfe con- ceitedly Thinkes al men guls, ther's none more gull then he. — [Edward Guilpin], Skialetheia. Or, A shadoive of Truth, in cer- taine Epigrams and Satyr es (Lond. 1598), sign. A3. Epigram 1. What have we here? a mirror of this age. Acting a Comicks part vpon the stage. What gallant's this? His nature doth vnfold 140 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS sible, more ridiculous and absurd than they already are.^ The author mentions both public and private stages as places on which such gallant may display himself.^ Dekker's satire was apparently written while the Boys held the Blackfriars boards, for the author has constantly them and their performances in mind, and once shows how the quarrel with Jon- son in 1601 still rankles.' Yet he confuses throughout the chap- ter both private and public theatres.* Him, to be framed in Phantasies mold. Lo how he iets; how sterne he shewes his face, Whiles from the wall he passen- gers doth chase. Muse touch not this man, nor his life display, Ne with sharpe censure gainst his vice inuey : For, sith his humor can no iesting brooke. He will much lesse endure a Sa- tyre's book. Beschrew me, sirs, I durst not stretch the streete, Gaze thus on conduits scrowls, base vintners beat Salute a Mad-dame with a french cringe grace, Greete with God-dam-me, a con- fronting face. Court a rich widow, or my bonnet vaile, Conuerse with Bankrupt Mercers in the Gaile, Nor in a Metro shew my Cupid's fire. Being a french-poxt Ladies apple- squire ; Least taxing times (such folly be- ing spide) With austere Satyres should my vice deride. Nere breath, I durst not vse my Mistrisse Fan, Or walke attended with a Hackney- man, Dine with Duke Humfrey in de- cayed Paules, Confound the streetes with Chaos of old brawles. Dancing attendance on the Black- friers stage. Call for a stoole with a command- ing rage. Nor in the night time ope my Ladies latch. Lest I were snared by th' all-seeing Watch : Which Critick knaves, with Lynxes pearcing eye. Into mens acts obseruently do prye. — Henry Hutton, Follie's Anatomic, or Satyres and Satyrical Epigrams (1619), sign. A. 'See. How a Gallant should be- haue himself in a Play-house, chap- ter VI of The Guls Home-book (1609), in The Non-Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker (ed. Grosart, Huth Library, 1885), II, 246-55. ° "Whether therefore the gather- ers of the publique or priuate Play- house stand to receiue the afternoones rent, let our Gallant (hauing paid it) presently aduance himselfe vp to the Throne of the Stage. I meane not into the Lords roome (which is now but the Stages Suburbs) : No, those boxes, by the iniquity of custome, conspiracy of waiting-women and Gentlemen-Ush- ers, that there sweat together, and the couetousnes of Sharers, are con- temptibly thrust into the reare, and much new Satten is there dambd, by being smothered to death in darknesse. But on the very Rushes where the Comedy is to daunce, yea, and vnder the state of Cambises himselfe must our feathered Es- tridge, like a piece of Ordnance, be planted valiantly (because impu- dently) beating downe the mewes and hisses of the opposed rascal- ity."— /d?w, 347-48. 'Supra, 133*. '"By sitting on the stage, you SITTING ON THE STAGE 141 It looks very much as if Dekker, having in mind the perform- ances and customs of Blackfriars, were mentally transferring these to the public theatres for the purpose of heightening the absurdities of the gallants under imagined ridiculous conditions £ind circumstances, or such as existed but rarely. Nothing in the way of very conclusive evidence can be made out of these satiric references in Middleton and Dekker. It may be that occasionally a gallant intruded his presence on the public stage. But on the whole it seems unlikely that the public theatres accommodated their conditions to the Blackfriars fad. It would be gratifying to find proof that they did. It would show even more powerful influences of the Queen's Children than I have been able to trace. But the evidence at hand is not highly convincing. One can only admit the possibility, and hope for determinative declaration from contemporaries. Nevertheless the Blackfriars fashion spread widely. Not only were the two private theatres, the Cockpit^ and Salisbury Court,* built on the general model of the Blackfriars,' but the practice of sitting on the stage was also imitated. There are numerous allu- sions to the custom as practiced in both.* In all three the gentle- men's rooms were not at right and left of the stage as in the pub- lic theatres, but in the region where our modern private boxes are,° — "which," to quote Dekker, "is now but the Stages Sub- may (with small cost) purchase the (353) gulling the "Ragga-muffins" deere acquaintance of the boyes: at the public theatre, then without haue a good stoole for sixpence : at break of thought recalls in the next any time know what particular part paragraph the quarrel with Jonson any of the infants present."— /rfe»», in 1601 («. s., 133*), and in the 249. following paragraph (354) goes on This of course is on the Black- with this advice concerning the friars Boys. Yet eight lines beyond, Blackfriars Boys : — "mewe at pas- in the same paragraph, without sionate speeches, blare at merrie, break of thought, the mind of the finde fault with the musicke, whew author is on the situation as if it at the childrens Action, whistle at were in the public theatre, thus: — • the songs" &c. "Neither are you to be hunted ^ Supra, 8\ from thence, though the Scarcrows 'Built 1639. See documents, «. in the yard hoot at you, hisse at s., 39°. you, spit at you, yea, throw durt 'Supra, 36', 39'. euen in your teeth" &c. *It is without the scope of the Again (253) he has the gallant present work to assemble all these, take a pair of oars for the play- But see for example supra, 43", 136' house («. e., to the Bankside), has and infra, 143'. him on the stage playing cards and 'Supra, 36', 46, 50-51, plats. 142 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS urbs."^ The gallants occupied the right and left wings of the stage itself, built and reserved especially for such use.^ There is no reason to suppose with Gifford that the audience on the Blackfriars stage of the Chapel Boys was indecent;' nor with Collier that their presence there annoyed the actors and dis^ turbed the play.' On the contrary they seem to have been gen- teel and ultra-fashionable, and the stage was specially adapted, fitted, and reserved for their presence. But in the course of years the custom was, presumably, abused and undue liberties were taken. Even in 1616 Jonson in the Prologue to The Devil is an Ass^ indicates the fad was pushed to such popularity among the grandees that at a new play at Blackfriars the actors were left barely elbow-room for their performance. Sometime prior to "■Supra, 43, 1401 'Supra, 46, 50-51 (plat), 147. 'Works of Ben Jonson (ed. Gif- ford-Cunningham, 1816), I, 146\ Gifford seems to have taken Dek- ker's satire on conditions in any theatre of a later time (or of no time) as applicable at any time or all times to this particular theatre. *J. P. Collier, op. cit.,' Ill, 144. Collier seems to be transferring to English territory conditions exist- ing half a century to a century and a half later on the French stage, or basing conclusions upon conditions of 1616 and later, u. i, 142°-43'. ' Prologue. The Devil is an Ass : that is to- day. The name of what you are met for, a new play. Yet grandees, would you were not come to grace Our matter, with allowing us no place. Though you presume Satan, a sub- tle thing, And may have heard he's worn in a thumb-ring; Do not on these presumptions force us act In compass of a cheese-trencher. This tract Will ne'er admit our Vice, because of yours. Anon, who worse than you, the fault endures That yourselves make? when you will thrust and spurn And knock us on the elbows; and bid, turn ; As if, when we had spoke, we must be gone. Or, till we speak, must all run in, to one. Like the young adders, at the old ones mouth ! Would we could stand due north, or had no south, If that offend ; or were Muscovy glass. That you might look our scenes through as they pass. We know not how to affect you. If you'll come To see new plays, pray you afford us room. And shew this but the same face you have done Your dear delight. The Devil of Edmonston. Or, if for want of room it must miscarry, 'Twill be but justice that your cen- sure tarry. Till you give some : and when six times you have seen't If this play do not like, the Devil is in't." —The Works of Ben Jonson (with a Memoir by Gifford, 1838), 343. SITTING ON THE STAGE 143 Sept. 14, 1639, Charles I had put an end to the custom of sitting on the stage.^ The influence did not end here. It spread even to France and Germany. Once imported to spectacular Paris, the custom was more tenacious than in London. For nearly a century and a half it shaped the structure of the stage and influenced the form of both drama and acting. There can be no great doubt that its im- portation dates from the period of high favor in London. Yet D'Aubignac^ in 1657 fails to mention it. However in the same year or the year after, Tallemant des Reaux speaks of its abuse as an intolerable nuisance, with no suggestion that it is a novelty.^ And only three or four years later, Moliere satirizes it in the open- ing speech of Les Facheux (1661) as a mature practice having features of refinement for the refined, but abused by the parasitic bore and the creature of pretentious worth and ostentatious gen- tility, to the annoyance of the actors and the displeasure of the better sort of spectators.* During the next hundred years it is 'See "Instructions touching Sales- bery Co't Playhouse, 14 Septem., 1639," in The Shakespeare Society's Papers (1849), IV, 99-100, commu- nicated by Peter Cunningham from the papers of Mr. Richard Heaton, manager of the Salisbury Court theatre, in which Heaton makes memorandum, in certain articles with the players : — "And one dayes p'fBtt wholly to themselves every yeare in consid- eration of their want of stooles on the stage, w''" were taken away by his M" comand." "Francois Hedelin (Abbe d'Au- bignac), La Practique du Theatre (1657). ""11 y a, a cette heure, une in- commodite epouvantable a la Co- medie, c'est que les deux cotes du theatre sont tout pleins de jeunes gens assis sur des chaises de paille ; cela vient de ce qu'ils ne veulent pas aller au parterre, quoiqu'il y ait souvent des soldats a la porte, et que les pages ni les laquais ne por- tent plus d'epees. Les loges sont fort cheres, et il y faut songer de bonne heure: pour un ecu, ou pour un demi-louis, on est sur le theatre; mais cela gate tout, et il ne faut quelquefois qu'un insolent pour tout troubler." — Tallemant des Reaux, Mondory, ou I'histoire des prin- cipaux comediens frangois: Les Historiettes, VII, 178. '£:raste. — Sous quel astre, bon Dieu, faut-il que je sois ne, Pour etre de Facheux toujours as- sassine ! II semble que partout le sort me les adresse, Et j'en vols chaque jour quelque nouvelle espece ; Mais il n'est rien d'egal au Facheux d'aujourd'hui; J'ai cru n'etre jamais debarasse de lui, Et cent fois j'ai maudit cette inno- cente envie Qui m'a pris a dine de voir la co- medie, Ou pensant m'egayer, j'ai mise- rablement Trouve de mes peches le rude cha- timent. II faut que je te fasse un recit de I'affaire, 144 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS again and again subject of adverse comment. In 1731 Voltaire condemns it as a cause of dramatic and histrionic de- Car je m'en sens encor tout emu de colere. J'6tois sur le theatre, en humeur d'ecouter La piece, qu'a plusieurs j'avois oul vanter ; Les acteurs commensoient, chacun pretoit silence, Lorsque d'un air bruyant et plein d'extravagance, Un homme a grands canons est en- tre brusquement, En criant : "Hola-ho ! un siege promptement !" Et de son grand fracas surprenant I'assemblee, Dans le plus bel endroit a la piece troublee. He ! mon Dieu ! nos Frangois, si souvent redresses, Ne prendront-ils jamais un air de gens senses, Ai-je dit, et faut-il sur nos defauts extremes Qu'en theatre public nous nous jouions nous-memes, Et confirmions ainsi par des eclats de fous Ce que chez nos voisins on dit par- tout de nous? Tandis que la-dessus je haussois les epaules, Les acteurs ont voulu continuer leurs roles; Mais I'homme pour s'asseoir a fait nouveau fracas, Et traversant encor le theatre i grands pas, Bien que dans les cotes il put etre a son aise, Au milieu du devant il a plante sa chaise, Et de son large dos morguant les spectateurs, Aux trois quarts du parterre a cache les acteurs. Un bruit s'est eleve, dont un autre eut eu honte ; Mais lui, ferme et constant, n'en a fait aucun compte, Et se seroit tenu comme il s'etoit pose, Si, pour mon infortune, il ne m'eut avise. "Ha! Marquis, m'a-t-il dit, prenant pres de mois place. Comment te portes-tu ? Souffre que je t'embrasse." Au visage sur I'heure un rouge m'est monte Que Ton me vit connu d'un pareil evente. Je I'etois peu pourtant; mais on en voit paroitre, De ces gens qui de rien veulent fort vous connoitre, Dont il faut au salut les baisers essuyer, Et qui sont familiers jusqu'a vous tutoyer. II m'a fait a I'abord cent questions frivoles, Plus haut que les acteurs elevant ses paroles. Chacun le maudissoit; et moi, pour I'arreter : "Je serois, ai-je dit, bien aise d'ecouter. — Tu n'as point vu ceci. Marquis? Ah ! Dieu me damne, Je le trouve assez droles, et je n'y suis pas ane; Je sais par quelles lois un ouvrage est parfait, Et Corneille me vient lire tout ce qu'il fait." La-dessus de la piece il m'a fait un sommaire. Scene a scene averti de ce qui s'al- loit faire; Et jusques a des vers qu'il en savoit par cceur, II me les recitoit tout haut avant I'acteur. J'avois beau m'en defendre, il a pousse sa chance, Et s'est devers la fin leve longtemps d'avance ; Car les gens du bel air, pour agir galamment, Se gardent bien surtout d'ouir le denouement. Je rendois grace au Ciel, et croyois de justice Qu'avec la comedie eut fini mou supplice; SITTING ON THE STAGE 145 cay.^ Later, in the introduction to Semiramis (1748), he com- plains more sharply of the abuses of the custom as noxious and pestilential in both dramatic composition and stage representation.^ Mais, comme si e'en eut ete trop bon marche, Sur nouveaux frais mon homme a moi s'est attache, M'a conte ses exploits, ses vertus non communes, Parle de ses chevaux, de ses bonnes fortunes, Et de ce qu' a la cour il avoit de faveur, Disant qu'a m'y servir il s'offroit de grand coeur. Je le remerciois doucement de la tete, Minutant a tous coups quelque re- traite honnete; Mais lui, pour le quitter me voyant ebranle : "Sortons, ce m'a-t-il dit, le monde est ecoule;" Et sortis de ce lieu, me la donnant plus seche: "Marquis, allons au Cours faire voir ma galeche. . ." — Les Facheux, Comedie (1661), I, i, 1-76. CEuvres de Molilre (nou- velle edition, par M. Eugene Des- pois, 1876), III, 35-39. For a convenient prose transla- tion see Henri van Laun, The Dra- matic Works of Moliire rendered into English {The Bores), I, 309- 11. "^"The place in which plays are acted, and the abuses which are crept into it, are also a cause of that dryness which may be objected to some of our dramatic pieces. The benches set on the stage for the spectators, contract the space of it, and make it almost impos- sible to represent the whole action. To this defect 't is owing, that the scenes and decorations which are so strongly recommended by the antients, so seldom suit with the play. Above all, it hinders the act- ors from passing out of one room into another before the spectators, as was the judicious practice of the Greeks and Romans, in order to preserve at one and the same time the unity of place and proba- bility. How could we attempt, for in- stance, to bring Pompey's ghost, or the genius of Brutus, on our stage, among so many young people, who view the most serious inci- dents purely that it may give them an opportunity of saying some smart thing." — Voltaire, A Discourse on Tragedy, with Reflections on the English and French Drama. Pub- lished with An Essay upon the Civil Wars of France (London, 1731), 7-8. Written by Voltaire in both English and French as an introduc- tion to his Henriade and Brutus, and addressed to Mylord Boling- broke. 'Un de plus grands obstacles qui s'opposent, sur notre theatre, a toute action grande et oathetique, est la foule des spectateurs confondus sur la scene avec les acteurs : cette in- decence se fit sentir particuliere- ment a la premiere representation de Semiramis. La principale ac- trice de Londres, qui etait presente a ce spectacle, ne revenait point de son etonnement; elle ne pouvait concevoir comment il y avait des hommes assez ennemis de leurs plai- sirs pour gater ainsi le spectacle sans en jouir. Cet abus a ete cor- rige dans la suite aux representa- tions de Semiramis, et il pourrait aisement etre supprime pour jamais. II ne faut pas s'y meprendre : un inconvenient tel que celui-la seul a suffi pour priver la France de beau- coup de chefs-d'oeuvre, qu'on aurait sans doute hasardes si on avait eu un theatre libre, propre pour I'ac- tion, et tel qu'il est chez toutes les autres nations de I'Europe. Mais ce grand defaut n'est pas assurement le seul qui doive etre corrige. Je ne puis assez m'etonner ni me plaindre du peu de soin qu'on a en France de rendre les theatres 146 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Through Voltaire's efforts it was suppressed in the acting of Se- miramis after the first night. The custom was eleven years later (1759) abolished from the French stage through the payment of a considerable sum of money by the Count de Lauraguais to the actors on the condition of not allowing thereafter any spectators on the stage.^ The custom was never adopted on the stage of the serious Ger- man. Its only known appearance in Germany is on a French stage in French plays by a French company at Frankfurt, the home of Goethe, while the French troops of the Seven Years War were quartered there. In the same year in which the custom was abolished from the Parisian stage, 1759, the youthful and pre- cocious Goethe, then ten years old, saw and even shared in its practices in this French theatre at Frankfurt.^ dignes des excellents ouvrages qu'on y represente et de la nation qui en fait ses delices. Cinna, Atha- lie^ meritaient d'etre representes ail- leurs que dans un jeu de paume, au bout duquel on a eleve quelques decorations du plus mauvais gout, et dans lequel les spectateurs sont places, contre tout ordre et centre toute raison, les uns debout sur le theatre meme, les autres debout dans ce qu'on apelle parterre, ou ils sont genes et presses indecem- ment, et oii ils se precipitent quelquefois en tumulte les uns sur les autres, comme dans une sedition populaire. On represente au fond du Nord nos ouvrages dramatiques dans des salles mille fois plus mag- nifiques, mieux entendues, et avec beaucoup plus de decence. — Voltaire, Dissertation sur la Tragedie An- cienne et Moderne (seconde partie). Published as an introduction to Semiramis, tragedie (1748). '"Enfin, en 1759, M. le comte de Lauraguais, aujourd'hui due de Brancas, I'a fait cesser en donnant aux comediens une somme consi- derable pour les indemniser de la perte que devait leur faire eprouver la suppression des banquettes de I'avant-scene" (Auger, 1819) — Quoted in Les Facheux, Oeuvres de Moliere (nouvelle edition, par M. Eugene Despois, 1876), IH, SB'a. ^Was mir meine Besuche auf dem Theater sehr erleichterte, war, dasz mir mein Freibillett, als aus den Handen des Schultheiszen, den ^Weg zu alien Platzen eroffnete, und also auch zu den Sitzen im Pro- scenium. Dieses war nach fran- zosischer Art sehr tief und an bei- den Seiten mit Sitzen eingefaszt, die, durch eine niedrige Barriere be- schrankt, sich in mehrern Reihen hinter einande aufbauten und zwar dergestalt, dasz die ersten Sitze nur wenig iiber die Biihne erhoben war- en. Das Ganze gait fiir einen be- sondern Ehrenplatz ; nur Offiziere bedienten sich gewohnlich desselben, obgleich die Nahe der Schauspieler, ich will nicht sagen jede Illusion, sondern gewissermaszen jedes Ge- f alien auf hob. Sogar jenen Ge- brauch oder Miszbrauch, iiber den sich Voltaire so sehr beschwert, habe ich noch erlebt und mit augen gesehen. Wenn bei sehr vollem Hause und etwa zur Zeit von Durch- marschen angesehene Offiziere nach jenem Ehrenplatz strebten, der aber gewohnlich schon besetzt war, so stellte man noch einige Reihen Banke und Stiihle ins Proscenium auf die Biihne selbst, und es blieb den Helden und Heldinnen nichts iibrig als in einem sehr maszigen SITTING ON THE STAGE 147 This is the last contemporary testimony. The adaptation of the foreign stage to the Blackfriars custom, as shown in the testimony of Tallemant des Reaux, Moliere, Vol- taire, and Goethe, is corroborative evidence of the stage-structure at Blackfriars where it originated. In all cases the seats were at right and left of the actors. In the earliest form, as we know from the evidence at Blackfriars and from Dekker's The Guls Home-Book, the wings and the seats there were on a level with the stage of action. But in a century and a half the structural form had evolved from that unvarying level into the latest phase as reported by Goethe, with the elevated seats at the sides placed on an amphitheatrical slope down to the low dividing rail about the stage proper, but with the highest privileges still reserved within the narrowed borders of the actors themselves. I have given thus much space to this custom of sitting on the stage because it shows the tendency and potency of influences begun at Blackfriars under Queen Elizabeth's patronage. Raume zwischen den Uniformen Werke, XVII, Wahrheit und Dicht- und Orden ihre Geheimnisse zu ent- ung (ed. Prof. Dr. H. Diintzer, in hiillen. Ich habe die "Hypermnes- J. Kurschner's Deutsche National- tra" selbst unter solchen Umstand- Litteratur, Band 98), Teil I, Drittes en auffiihren sehen. — Goethe's Buch, 119-30. CHAPTER XII THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES.— OPPOSING THEATRICAL AND OFFICIAL CONDITIONS, 1597-1603 With 1597 began that attempt at state control of the theatres which later under James I put on the novel cloak of exclusive royal patronage/ and ultimately degenerated into the principle of monopoly first granted by Charles II to Killigrew and Dave- nant,^ whence it passed on down even into the reign of Victoria. From 1597 to the close of Elizabeth's reign more official orders were directed against the public theatres than in all the rest of the years together from 1576 to the Puritan suppressions begin- ning with the civil war in 1642.^ No order of permanent suppression emanated from the Queen prior to 1597. There had been, however, numerous orders touch- ing regulation of the theatres for various causes, especially dur- ing periods of infectious disease.* From 1597 to the close of Eliz- abeth's reign, five orders of suppression were issued by the Privy Council in her name, besides unimportant temporary regulations. The cause for this brief strenuousness has been taken for granted to be Puritanism. ° No one has ever given a basis for the 'See complete work, vol. I. 1831), III, 414-57. All are avail- ^Idem. able in the published Acts of the 'The facts in this sentence and Privy Council (m. s.). in the following paragraphs in this 'J. P. Collier, History of English relation are taken from the original Dramatic Poetry (1831^, 1879"), 305, Registers of the Privy Council, at 329-30, is, so far as I know, the Whitehall Palace. Only a part of first to make the assumption as a these, up to 1603, are as yet avail- matter of course. Since then it has able in the government publications, been accepted as fact by Halliwell- Acts of the Privy Council. Phillips, op. cit., I, 367ff. ; Sidney 'The orders touching the The- Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare atre and Curtain are collected by (5th ed., 1905), 319-20; Karl Mant- J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, Outlines of zius, A History of Theatrical Art the Life of Shakespeare (9th ed. (translated into English by Louise 1890), I, 346-75, passim. Numer- von Cossel, 1904), III, 8, 19, 69ff. ; ous others are in George Chalmers, and nearly every one "who has Farther Account of the English touched the field. Recently the as- Stage, published in Malone's Shake- sumption has been used as an in- speare Variorum (ed. Boswell, tegral part of a dissertation for the THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 149 theory. Presumably it arises out of attacks of Puritan pam- phleteers on the theatres, and the general knowledge that Puri- tanism was a strong and growing element which steadily more and more had to be reckoned with in matters of church and state. Puritanism was always ascetically opposed to games, plays, and amusements as ungodly. As early as 1569, for example, a Puri- tanic pamphlet sharply attacks Elizabeth for using the Children of the Chapel in theatrical performances.^ The years from that time on are strewn with lost waifs of opposition to theatres.'' But are these conditions an adequate explanation of the ofificial manoeuvers in theatrical regulation from 1597 to 1603? The Queen was not Puritan, nor were her privy councillors, nor were the several Lord Mayors, nor the city council of Lx)ndon. Yet these are the sources of the actions. There is no documentary evidence of any other. We find, for example, the Lord Mayor and City Council on certain occasions asking for general orders of suppression, and the Privy Council in the Queen's name giving, not the general orders solicited, but instead very definite and specific orders against only the public theatres,^ which in turn the same city officials who made the solicitations refuse to carry out. This is not Puritanism. Puritanism would have been quick to embrace the opportunity to enforce the slightest restriction against any theatre. Again, a little over two years after the most drastic of all the orders of the Privy Council under Elizabeth, we find that same body as constituted under James not merely revoking its own acts of 1600 and 1 60 1, but even commanding the City and other offi- cials to allow the very conditions they had in the closing years of Elizabeth so vigorously attempted to restrict.* doctorate by E. N. S. Thompson, '^The Children of the Chapel The Controversy between the Puri- Stript and Whipt (1569). See su- tans and the Stage {Yale Studies pra, 4\ in English, ed. A. S. Cook, 1903, ^See a collection of these touch- XX), particularly on pages 133-27. ing the Theatre and Curtain to 1607 F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of in J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., the London Stage (1890), 161, saw I, 368^'l, 354, 365. See also E. N. the error of this common assump- S. Thompson, op. cit., 40 sqq. tion, and recognized a conflict of 'See the orders of 1597, 1600, City and royal authority, without 1601, infra, 153-53, 156, 160-61. however reaching the cause. *See the order of 9 April, 1604. 150 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Instead of having any relation to Puritanism, these instances rather exempHfy the action of officials in the one case in carrying out the will of Elizabeth and the very different will of James in the other. I suppose Elizabeth in affairs generally felt the need of taking Puritanism into account.^ This she generally did by steering around it. Incidental traces of such seem evident in the quiet nature of her permissions for establishing and conducting Black- friars,^ and again in the disposition of the consequent Qifton affair.* But the causes of the Queen's official attitude toward the the- atres lay not in Puritanism, but in her own purposes. Elizabeth, always a patron and lover of the drama,* had some definite notion of what the theatre should be. Not the complete- ness nor the incompleteness with which her notion was executed by officials, but her purpose therein is the point of main concern in this consideration. Upon the numerous public theatres, particularly those of sec- ond-rate sort, the Queen looked with no more favor than did the City.° The Lord Mayor and aldermen attempted reformation by In E. Malone, An Inquiry &c. Sed further complete work, vol. (1797), 215; J. O. Halliwell-Phil- I. Et infra, 153-53, 156, 160-6l\ lips, op. cit., I, 310. Original MS. 'Some of the complaints against in Dulwich College. See also G. F. the theatres originated with the Warner, Catalogue of the Manu- church. Which however was a long scripts and Muniments of Alleyn's ways from Puritanism. But the College of God's Gift at Dulwich church of St. Saviors in Southwark, (1881), 26-37, showing J. P. Col- the district in which most of the lier's forgeries in this document as public theatres then were, in 1600 printed in his New Facts Regard- accepted them as fixed institutions, ing Shakespeare (1835). and sought to use them as means In this act of 1604 the Privy of church support through tithes. Council specifically commands the • — See extracts from Parish-regis- Lord Mayor and the Magistrates to ters, in Chalmers, Farther Account, allow the Globe, Fortune, and Cur- &c., in op. cit., Ill, 452. Cf. sup., 4. tain unrestrained liberty, expressly ^ Supra, 70-71. mentioning and revoking the re- 'Supra, 81-83 ; infra, 159. strictive and suppressive orders of 'Even in her school-days she 1600-1601 thus : — ^"without any lett translated a part of one of Seneca's or interruption in respect of any dramas into blank-verse, — the first former Letters or Prohibition here- example of blank-verse in the tofore written by us to your Lord- English, ship," &c. ^" . . forasmuch as it is man- Blackfriars is here not men- ifestly knowen and graunted tioned, because it was not included that the multitude of the saide in the famous orders of 1600-1601. houses and the mys-government of THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 161 driving the theatres out. The Queen attempted reformation by fostering meritorious exclusiveness.^ Her declared purpose was to reform abuses and increase the usefulness of the stage.^ In carrying out her notion the Queen established a restrictive law on strolling players. She established the Blackfriars, which, whether so intended or not, became at once the envy and the model of the time. She fostered the privacy of Paul's. She at- tempted to suppress the less worthy of the public theatres, and to put the Globe and Fortune on the basis of exclusiveness their companies merited. Had Elizabeth's notions met with full support from even those who most pretended to want reform, the inferior theatres would have been suppressed, and the necessarily high prices would have shut out the troublesome rabble from the Globe and Fortune as completely as from the Blackfriars. This would at once have corrected the evils complained of by the City, and at the same time thereby have disarmed the City of the pretentions it was using merely as a cover for a very different contention.^ How the City authorities and the public theatres felt about it we shall see. them hath bin and is dayly occa- consequently of the houses that sion of the ydle, ryotous and dis- must serve for publike playinge to solute living of great nombers of keepe them in exercise, people, that, leavinge all such hon- " [This is best shown by her acts, est and painefuU course of life as But the declaration is in the con- they should followe, doe meete and eluding next words of the preamble assemble there, and of many par- quoted above in notes 1 et supra:] ticular abuses and disorders that doe "To the ende, therefore, that both thereupon ensue ; the greate abuses of playes and ^ [This is shown by her acts next playinge-houses may be redressed, noticed, and by her declaration in and yet the aforesaide use and mod- the words next following the quo- eration of them retayned, the Lordes tation supracit. :] "and yet, never- and the reste of her Majesties Priv- theless, it is considered that the use ie Counsell, with one and full con- and exercise of such playes, not be- sent, have ordered" &c. — Preamble inge evill in ytself, may with a good to the order of the Lords of the order and moderacion be suffered Privy Council for the restrainte of in a well-governed state, and that the moderate use and Companye of her Majestic, beinge pleased at som- Playehowses and Players, in Reg- tymes to take delight and recrea- isters of the Privy Council, White- tion in the sight and hearinge of hall, 22 June, 1600. In J. O. Halli- them, some order is fitt to be taken well-Phillips, op. cit., I, 307-8, and for the allowance and mayntenaunce George Chalmers, Farther Account of such persons as are thought meet- &c., in op. cit.. Ill, 453. est in that kinde to yealde her Maj- 'Infra, 161^. estie recreation and delighte, and 152 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The beginning of the Queen's reformatory purpose shows itself during Burbage's remodeling of the Blackfriars Priory-house into a theatre, in the latter part of 1596. Whether she intended then to have the Children of the Chapel established there, or whether Burbage purposed to use it in place of the Theatre, the lease of which was just expiring, does not affect the present con- sideration. The new establishment was at least to be in a most aristocratic neighborhood, and its exclusiveness and privacy were assured. Hence, when certain petitioners in November, 1596,^ appealed to her through the Privy Council to suppress Burbage's project, the request was ignored.^ The next appearance of definite, plans was in the wholesome lopping off of the nuisance of unlicensed strolling players by the sharply restrictive law of 1597 reducing and confining the num- ber of companies to those under noble patronage.^ Act now succeeds act along the line of pne clear purpose. Whatever may have been the original plan or expectation in build- ing the Blackfriars theatre, the Commission for taking up children issued to Nathaniel Gyles,* the operations of which we have seen," settles the question as to what determination the Queen had reached by July 3, 1597, the date of the Privy Seal.* It is not likely that Gyles lost any time in collecting a company of chil- dren, nor that the City authorities and the public theatres were unaware of the new state of affairs. July 28, 1597, within a month after the Privy Seal, and two weeks after the Patent,'' doubtless while Gyles and Evans were collecting and organizing the new children-actors, the Lord Mayor asked the Privy Council for orders to suppress plays "as well at the Theatre, Curten, and Bankside, as in all other places in and about the Citie."' ^ Supra, 17'. hand and seale of arms of such 'Supra, 18^ 53, 153-54^ 161'. baron or personage, shall be ad- °The statute of 39 Elizabeth judged and deemed rogues and vag- (1597) declares that "all common abonds." players of interludes wandering 'Supra, 60'. abroad, other than players of inter- 'Supra, 70-73, et sqq. ludes belonging to anie baron of 'Supra, 60\ this realme, or anie other honour- ''Supra, ibid. able personage of greater degree, 'See letter in J. O. Halliwell- to be authorized to play under the Phillips, op. cit., I, 356-57. THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 158 The designation "Theatre, Curten, and Bankside" included all the public theatres then in existence.^ The only "other" known theatre "in or about the Citie" in 1597 was the private establish- ment of Blackfriars.^ The Privy Council so understood it, and immediately, on the same day, sent a reply "in her Majesty's name" expressing "her Majesties pleasure and commandment" for drastic measures against the "common playhouses," thereby excluding the private theatre of Blackfriars, the suppression of which seems to have been the desired object of the request. The Theatre and Curtain are specifically named. They shall be dis- mantled and made unfit for further use as places for acting. All other "common playhouses"^ are to be restrained until Allhallow- tide.* In response to this order the Lord Mayor and City Council did nothing, although their request had exhibited great anxiety for power to act. This is the beginning of what seems to be a political game of chess, with the theatres as pieces. The City had long before driven the theatres out of its pre- cincts. Still the City authorities, always jealous of power and craving more, wished to control them. Still more, they wished to establish their long-contested claim to civic control of the pre- cincts of Blackfriars. The establishment of a theatre within the liberties of Blackfriars gave them renewed eagerness. Permis- sion granted to control all theatres, and therefore this theatre, ^The Theatre and Curtain were plate work, vol. II., under Plays.) on the north (Middlesex county) It is probable that Paul's soon side of the Thames, and north of opened as a result of the establish- the City "in the fields." The Swan, ment of Blackfriars. Rose, Bear Garden, and Newington These and all other later private Butts were on the Bankside (south theatres were on the north (Mid- or Surry county side). The other dlesex county) side. — Whitefriars Bankside theatres were built at later (ca. — ?) ; Cockpit (ca. — ?), re- dates, the first Globe, 1599; Hope, built as Phoenix (1617) and known 1613; new Globe (after the fire) of tener as Drury Lane theatre; Sal- 1613-14. Of the later public thea- isbury Court (1639). tres only the Fortune (1600), in "/. e.. Swan, Rose, Bear Garden, Golding-lane, and the Red Bull, St. and Newington Butts, on the Bank- John's street, were in Middlesex co. side. "It is not known whether Paul's 'See the order of the Privy Coun- was reopened by 1597 or not. The cil, July 38, 1597, published in Acts date of reopening is usually taken of the Privy Council, 1397 (ed. J. R. to be 1600. But I find evidence of Dasent, 1903), 313-14. Also in J. playing there in 1598. (See com- O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 356. 154 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS would be a tacit admission of the Gty's right to full control in Blackfriars in other matters hitherto denied by the Crown. They had long claimed that precinct for their own.^ Although they failed to establish their claim they kept tenaciously insisting upon it.^ The attitude of the City authorities during these five and a half following years seems to be this. They insist upon their claim of control of precinct and theatre. If the Queen denies it, and even establishes and maintains a theatre there contrary to their wishes, they will not in turn aid her to regulate the abuses in the public theatres, even after they have asked and received authority to act, and even though to act accordingly would be to their own civic advantage and welfare. They will use the one as a lever against the other.' The Queen on the other hand goes ahead with her purposes. She would gladly control the abuses in the public theatres, cut off the unworthy, and raise the rest in moral tone to at least the rank of select exclusiveness. So she issues orders accordingly. If however the community most immediately concerned does not execute the orders even after asking for them, she can hardly 'See in Guildhall Record Office lier, op. cit., I, 398-99, where is Letter-Book Z, fol. 33-38. This cited a document found at Bridge- lengthy historical document, dated water House on this effort in which 27 January, 1579, has never been the case of 1579 (m. s., 154') is printed. It is a vigorous brief with used as a basis. This is the only long arguments and citations on the genuine document in the folio of part of the City to prove both six in which it is found. See ex- Blackfriars and Whitefriars parts of posure in N. E. S. A. Hamilton, the City of London, and not inde- An Inquiry into the Genuineness pendent liberties responsible only to of the MS. Corrections in Mr. J. P. the Crown. It gives much of the Collier's Annotated Shakespeare, history of both precincts, and is also folio, 1632; and of certain Shake- an admirable document in the his- spearian documents likewise pub- tory of the development of munic- lished by Mr. Collier (1860), 109. ipal powers. The attempt at pos- In 1615-17 the City had gained session however failed. See further sufficient ground to suppress Rossi- infra, 154^. ter's attempt to build another the- For claims on the side of the atre in Blackfriars precincts (cf. Blackfriars inhabitants in the long complete work, vol. I), and, em- controversy, see documents cited su- boldened tiiereby, tried in 1618-19 pra, 31'. to suppress the Blackfriars theatre "Failing of success with Eliza- of present interest («. i., 161'). See beth, they persisted in their efforts Order of Suppression, 1618-[19], under James I. In 1608 they made u. s., 17'-18. a particularly vigorous effort, with "Infra, 161'. failure as the result. — See J. P. Col- THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 155 undertake forcible measures. But she can do much by carrying out her own royal purpose in giving countenance and support to a theatre for the better sort of patrons and recognizing only such of the public theatre companies at Court as have chief merit. And her high example and exclusive recognition work results despite the City's attitude. Within ten days after the above request and order of July 28, 1597, Nash's satirical Isle of Dogs was acted at the Rose. Tem- porary restraint of that theatre, not by the City officials to whom the power was just granted but by the Queen's Court, immediately followed. The restraining order was recalled August 27, and the Rose was allowed to go on.^ Within the next six months we find that definite shape to the Queen's plans, as outlined above, which she pursued to the last. February 19, 1597- [8], Queen Elizabeth caused her Privy Coun- cil to send letters to the Master of the Revels and Justices of Mid- dlesex and Surrey, in which we learn the Chamberlain's company, to which Shakespeare belonged, and the Admiral's players under the Henslowe-Alleyn regime, have been specially licensed and retained for her service.^ All others are to be suppressed. So far as she was concerned, no other public companies should have recognition of her patronage or license. None did. These are the only men's companies that appear thereafter for five years at Court,^ with the exception of one single play by Derby's men. Shrove Tuesday, February 14, 1600.* Between 28 December, 1598,° and about August, 1599, the Bur- bages, having torn down the Theatre, used its materials in build- 'See records in Henslowe's Diary Pub., 1842), Introduction, xxxii- (ed. Collier, Shakesp. Soc. Pub., xxxiv. 1845), 94, 98, 99, 258. Also in J. P. ''For record of payrnent see Acts Collier, op. cit., I, 295-97. of the Privy Council, 1599-1600 ^See letter from original docu- (ed. J. R. Dasent, New Series), ment in Acts of the Privy Council, XXX, 89. Also in George Chal- I597~9S (ed. J. R. Dasent, New Se- mers, op. cit.. Ill, 450. ries, 1904), XXVIII, 327. Also in F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History J. P. Collier, op. cit., I, 298. of the London Stage (1890), 122, 'For official records of the Court- says the date of playing was Febr. payments to these two companies, 5 ; p. 133, Febr. 7. But by the 1598-1603, see Extracts from the Baroni Easter-table it is Feb. 14, Accounts of the Revels at Court 1600. (ed. P. Cunningham, Shakesp. Soc. 'Supra, 28°. 156 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS ing the Globe on the Bankside. January 8, 1599- [1600]'^ the Fortune was begun in Golding-lane on the opposite side of the City to the north. During the course of its construction, com- plaints against the theatres were renewed. We are not told by contemporary records whether the complainants were City offi- cials or not. The common modern assumption that they were Puritans is gratuitous.^ June 22, 1600, the Privy Council in response to these complaints issued orders for carrying out her Majesty's plans^ as outlined in the order of 19 Feb., 1597- [8]. Only the two companies there specified and their respective new houses, the Globe and Fortune, are to be permitted. But the idea of exclusiveness was extended in a way that displeased even these two favored companies. They were to be permitted to act but twice a week instead of daily as hitherto. The Lord Mayor and other authorities made no more effort to enforce this order than the one of July 28, 1597. I must here call attention to an important item. Of all the orders of the Privy Council from 1576 to 1597,* not one uses the word "common" or "public" in application to the theatres. The apparently hasty and choleric order of July 28, 1597," is the first to employ either word thus. Within a space of eighteen lines, "common playhouse" is used twice, "publique place" twice, and general descriptions of public theatres coupled with the names "Curtain" and "Theatre" twice. In the order of 1600 and the two letters accompanying it,* "common stage-plaies" is used three times, and "publique" is ap- plied twice. The first official use, antedating the Privy Council's use, of "common" thus, so far as I have found, is in the law of 1597 against strolling players.' This distinction of "common" or "public" as a manifest differ- ^ Supra, 29'. these dates see the government pub- ^See supra, WS'-SO. lications, Acts of the Privy Coun- °See quotations supra, ISO'-Sl' cil. Those touching the Theatre and the document in extenso in and Curtain are collected in J. O. Acts of the Privy Council, 1599- Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 346-75, 1600 (ed. J. R. Dasent, New Series), passim. XXX, 395-98, 411. Also in J. O. 'Supra, 152-53. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 307-8. 'Supra, 156°. *For the whole series covering ''Supra, 152. THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 157 entiation from the Blackfriars was quickly picked up by poets and patrons and was felt by the public theatres to have a touch of stigma in it. Shakespeare but represents the feeling of his fellows when he expresses his disrelish of the new distinction of "common stages," both officially and popularly applied.^ The attitude of the Queen towards public theatres and her pat- ronage of Blackfriars cannot but have had large influence in ac- complishing what her orders in the hands of the City authorities failed to accomplish. It at least was the means of depriving the public theatres of their best patronage and materially reducing their income, as their representatives charge. They could not as a residt be a very friendly element. It was with a full knowledge of these conditions that the Essex conspirators sought to enlist Shakespeare's company in their cause^ early in 1601. And doubtless these conditions, more than the bribe of 40 .y.^ wrought persuasively with those actors of the Globe who were besought to present "the deposyng and kyllyng of Kyng Rychard the Second" on the following day, Saturday, February 7, 1601. Although wholly unaware of the Essex con- spiracy, they were fully aware of Elizabeth's special antipathy to the theme involved,** and no amount of palliation can cover their culpability to that extent. Although no legal proceedings were instituted against the Globe players, and within three weeks, on Shrove Tuesday, Feb. 24, they played, by previous arrangement, before the Queen, yet never after did good feeling exist on either side. The items of the two following paragraphs in the chronology of events are of only incidental concern. The Queen had the Paul's Boys at Court January i, 1601, and the Children of the Chapel on February 6, and again on Shrove Sunday, February 22.* Her orders of March 11 following, for "^See further, infra, 176', IBS'". added documents on the famous fa- 'For documents in this affair see, tal insurrection of the following at the Public Record Office, State day, Sunday, Feb. 8, 1601, is very Papers, Domestic Series, Elisabeth, full. CCLXXVIII, Nos. 78, 85; Calendar 'See J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. of the same (1598-1601) 575-78; cit., II, 359. J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., II, 'See complete work, vol. II., 359-62. Mr. Halliwell-Phillip's dis- Plays at Court. Also cf. supra, cussion of the case (I, 191-99) with 115', 12l'-23\ 158 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS closing all theatres during Lent, with Blackfriars and Paul's specifically named,^ has but one special significance. The Earl of Essex was to be executed, — his execution occurred March 25, — and the political state was vmquiet. Hence it was well to close all places of public gathering, particularly those where in- fluential sympathizers of the popular Essex might assemble. This unimportant temporary order of mere expediency, — whether merely for Lent or on account of Essex, — has nothing to do with the Queen's attitude and purposes toward the favored or the less favored theatres.^ May 13 (signed May 10),^ 1601, the Privy Council issued a restraining order against the company playing at the Curtain on account of satirizing persons of prominence, but without attempt- ing to enforce against it the order of 1600, by which the Curtain should nearly a year ago have been permanently suppressed. The present order does not touch the theatre, but merely deals with the company in this single offense. It is of present interest mainly because in the summer of the same year Jonson at the Blackfriars and Dekker at the Globe were waging their con- troversy of bitter personal satire without interference by the government.* 'A part of this order was printed give the date as May 10. I find by George Chalmers, op. cit., HI, May 13 in the original Registers of 435. I give here my transcript of the Privy Council, Elisabeth (Dec. it from the original records in the 7, 1600— Jan. 2, 1602), XVII, 193, at Privy Council Oflfice: — Whitehall. May 13 is also given in Wednesdaye the xi'" of March the recent official publication of the 1600-[1] document in Acts of the Privy A lettre to the L. Mayo' requir- Council 1600-1601 (ed. J. R. Das- ing him not to faile to take order ent. New Series, 1906), XXXI, 341, playes w^in the Cyttie and the lib- 346. But see item {idem, 340) from erties, especyally at Powles and in the origmal records that it was the Blackfriers, may be suppressed signed the 10th and hore date the during this time of 'Ltnt.— Registers l^th- Is this significant? of the Privy Council, Elisabeth In this quarrel Blackfriars is (Dec. 7, 1600— Jan. 2, 1602), XVII, regarded as being, through Jonson, J 19 the aggressor. Shakespeare later in "One might be led to suppose so the same year, in Hamlet, not only from the bare statement in F. G. administers censure for an unwise Fleay, op. cit., 160, and Hermann partisanship in allowing the Chil- Maas, Die Kindertruppen (Diss. dren to be made instruments of Gottingen, 1901), 12. quarrel, but charges more sharply "In quoting this document, J. P. that "the nation holds it no sin to Collier, op. cit., I, 305, and J. O. tarre them to controversy." See Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit.. I, 368, further, infra, 171, 174 Fi, 180*-81. THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 159 One of the importcint events showing EHzabeth's attitude is the Clifton case of Dec. 15, 1601. As already pointed out/ this looks like a shrewd political move tinged with Puritanism. Clif- ton's personal grievance, — a most minor affair at best, which was within the space of a day fully redressed,^ — is a mere excuse for action. Personal grievances do not wait a year and two days for justice, ajid in this case waited no more than a da,y. These were troublous times politically. Besides, both City and public theatre were opposed to Blackfriars; and whether Clifton was or was not a willing instrument in furthering plans of others, the sus- picion of it is not wanting. Clifton's whole complaint is a covert attack upon the Queen's Commission to Gyles in its present permitted use for establishing and maintaining the Blackfriars. His waiting a year gives emy phasis to this clear fact. Clifton knew, as everybody else in Lon- don knew, that this theatre was conducted under the Queen's patronage. It was upon that knowledge that action was taken. His complaint has no point or purpose but the suppression of the theatre, or the embarrassment of the Queen in her plans. Elizabeth's course in the case was as judicial as just and con- sistent. She took ample notice of the minor matter of personal injury by causing Evans in the Court of Star Chamber to be de- prived of the official position she had given him. It could never have been within her thought to do violence to gentlemen of the realm by forcible impressment of their children, nor to have the children abused or misused who were to serve her. She had not wished it, nor could she or her Court countenance it. Thus she redressed the grievance upon the exact basis of its pretenses, and at the same time consistently with a just sovereignty. The chief burden of complaint however, made as if subsidiary to the per- sonal injury, was treated on the lines of that pretense, and con- sequently disregarded.^ As a result, the Blackfriars went on, as we have seen, without interruption, and on the same basis as hitherto.* During the Christmas season of i6oi-[2] the customary Court- entertainments were for the first time in many years omitted. No ''Supra, 79. 'Supra, 81-83. 'Supra, 78-79. 'Supra, 87-88, et passim. 160 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS plays were presented there.^ If the cause of this did not Ue in the Queen's displeasure with the public theatres, the suggestion of it is at least difficult to repress. The Richard II affair in be- half of the Essex conspirators was less than a year in the past,'' and the Clifton attempt was but recently made. The Queen however found other amusement, and amply showed by her presence at Blackfriars December 29, as already noticed,^ her clear purpose. This particular event, coming just a fortnight after the Clifton complaint, and publicly marking its failure to suppress Blackfriars, seems to have had some signifi- cance in official London. The City may not have had an interest in Clifton's attempt to suppress Blackfriars. But if he had suc- ceeded, the City as represented by the Lord Mayor would at least have been spared the Janian deification of features induced by the strain of moral solicitude in its next acts. On the next day after the above event of the Queen's attend- ance at Blackfriars, or at latest on the day after the next, the Lord Mayor renewed the City's complaint, indicating that the number of playhouses and plays had greatly increased, and ask- ing for power to regulate them !^ This looks like a most strange request in the light of the fact that this very power had been specifically granted, with the command also to exercise it, in the order of June 22, 1600. It seemed thus also to the Privy Coun- cil, who in their reply of the same or following day, December 31, 1601, very courteously called attention to the inconsistency, and issued a sharp command to the City and justices to enforce, not some new order, but the former order of a year and a half ago." ^I do not know the authority of this season, according to the Ex- Mr. ]. O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., tracts from the Accounts of the I, 201, for saying that Shakespeare's Revels at Court (ed. P. Cunning- company at this season presented ham, 6". 5". Pub. 1843), Introduction, four plays before her Majesty at xxvii-xxxiv. Whitehall, one of which was prob- F. G. Fleay, op. cit., 123, likewise ably Twelfth Night. He does not was unable to find any Court-plays get this from the Registers of the for 1601-[2]. Privy Council, for the officials at ^ Supra, 157. the Office of the Privy Council in- ^ Supra, 95-97. form me that all records from Jan- *The only knowledge of the date uary 2, 1602, to 1613 were burned and contents of this request is con- in the fire of Jan. 12, 1618. Also, tained in the Privy Council's an- the OMce Book of the Treasurer of swer (m. i., 160°). the Chamber shows no plays for °See the two documents, one to THE QUEEN'S PURPOSES 161 The City's solicitation for power when they already had it is clearly a pretense inspired by some new hope of success in its old contention. The Privy Council's surprise that during the past year and a half nothing had been done to carry out the Queen's order is simply a counter pretense ; for the theatres were a large element in the social life of London, and their doings were known to no one better than to the Queen and her Court. Both actions are simply secure moves on the chess-board. The City authorities finding no change of front and getting not the concession they craved concerning Blackfriars but a rep- etition of the definite and specific order of 1600 for restrictions of only the public theatres, quietly let the order die, just as in the former cases.^ There is no evidence that they made the slightest effort at restraint.^ the City and one to the county mag- istrates, both dated Dec. 31, 1601, in J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, op. cit., I, 308-309. "^That it was the Queen's private establishment in liberties within the City yet outside its control that irked the municipal authorities is proved over and over by circum- stances, as presented in the preced' ing pages. A clinching proof is their attitude in 1618-[19]. Em- boldened by their success in secur- ing the suppression of R'ossiter's theatre in the Blackfriars precincts, 1615-17, they set about to find a way to carry out their long-cher- ished desire to suppress the present Blackfriars theatre, and thereby gain a conceded right of control looking toward the full establishment of their long contention. The City now (1618-[19]) de- cided that the Blackfriars was a "public" theatre and therefore fell under the late Queen's orders of 1600-1601 ! So they issued a com- m.and suppressing it in accordance with those long-dead orders ! ! — Eighteen years after ! ! Nothing could have been more absurd, for in the first place the Queen's orders in question had never been enforced against any theatre even at the time of issue, and in the second place the Privy Council under James in 1604, April 9 (u. s., 149*-50), had revoked those dead orders. More- over, the Queen had in the 1600- 1601 orders exempted the Black- friars by astutely specifying "public" or "common" theatres, thus pre- venting the City's desired operation against her private theatre. The dog-in-the-manger figure of the City Council from 1597 to 1603, and their sudden awakening eigh- teen years after to enforce those old orders, — even after long revoked, — against the very theatre they shielded, but against no other, is as comical as it is convincing and final proof of the conditions as I have analyzed them. See further on earlier phases of the City's contention and the order of 1618-[19], supra, 21\ 53, 153-54". ''With the assistance of Dr. Sharp, Superintendent, I have searched the City archives at the Guildhall in vain for evidence of action in any one of the several foregoing orders. If the City had acted in any single instance, there would certainly be some sort of trace left, as in the suppression of Rossiter's theatre in the same pre- cints in 1615-17 ; in the effort to 162 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS This was the last move on either side.^ Nevertheless, I am willing to take the evidence of Shakespeare and Jonson that the public theatres were steadily losing ground. The cause is rightly ascribed in Hamlet, as discussed in a later chapter.'' During this period of five and a half years, the public theatres enjoyed the anomalous distinction of the City's tacit favor and the Sovereign's explicit disfavor. There is no other such period in their history. It amotmts to an alliance of municipal and the- atrical enemies in a common cause against nationally enforced progress in theatrical conditions. suppress the Blackfriars in 1618- [19] ; and in other cases touching on theatres, games, &c. This is negative but not less sure proof of the City's inaction in ex- ecuting the orders they themselves asked for. Positive proof is the well-known fact that various com- panies were acting unrestrained by the City in the various public the- atres not only in 1602, but through- out this whole period of 1597-16tf3. ^The Privy Council's order of March 19, 1602-[3], which I have not hitherto seen in print, might in disconnected relation be taken to be another move along similar lines. But it has reference to another mat- ter:— "[1602-[3], March] 19. Letters to the Lord Mayor and Justices of Middlesex and Surrey, for the re- straint of Stage plaies till other di- rections be given." — From MS. Camden Society Transcript of Privy Council Records, now preserved at Privy Council Office. This tran- script of extracts or abstracts of the Registers of the Privv Council de- stroyed by fire (u. s., 160^) is taken from Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 11402. As appears from a letter in the same MS. sent by the Council the next day to "Sondrie Earles and Barons" to "take all possible care wee can for the preventing of dis- orders and for the continuance and preservation of tranquilitie and peace in all parts of the Realme," &c., this order closing the theatres temporarily was made because of the fear of an uprising in case of the Queen's expected death. Five days after the order, 24 March, 1602-[3], the Queen passed away. 'Infra, 173-83. CHAPTER XllI RELATIONS OF BLACKFRIARS TO OTHER THEATRES, POETS, AND PLAYERS The Blackfriaxs Boys, led by the young Roscii Pavy, Field, Underwood, and Ostler, with their novel entertainments of mu- sic, singing, masque, and drama under special favoring influences and select auditorial privileges, found that following that made theirs recognized as the foremost theatre of London. They be- came as a result the objects of imitation and envy. This much we have evidence of. But the detailed relations cannot now be fully worked out, even so far as the scattered re- mains of evidence are available. It will never be possible to get at the full particulars, for the probable evidences have perished. I mean contemporary plays containing satires and local hits. Some of this sort we know to have been suppressed. We know also that it was then as now the custom to introduce local drives not connected with the play. The new evidence offered later in connection with the Byron tragedies by Chapman would be suffi- cient in itself to prove this.^ But the field cannot here be entered upon. Henslowe's Diary shows that approximately two-thirds of the plays written by the numerous poets employed by him, for prac- tically every public theatre but the Globe, have perished. Nearly three times as many dramatists wrote for Henslowe as for Black- friars, Globe, and Paul's combined.^ The number of dramas is 'See complete work, vol. I. Percy's plays were acted here. 'The known dramatists for 1597- (i) Fortune, Curtain, Rose, and 1603, in chronology of their first possibly Swan, Bear Garden, appearance at their respective the- and Newington Butts, for atres, are: — Henslowe. In chronology of (a) Blackfriars. — ^Jonson, Chapman, first mention in Henslowe's Marston. Diary. — Dekker, Chettle, Juby, (6) Globe. — Shakespeare, Jonson, Day, Haughton, Drayton, Hath- Dekker, W. S. away, Rankins, Porter, Nash, (c) Paul's. — Marston, Middleton. Jonson, Munday, Lee, Wilson, It is not known that any of Chapman, Slater, Heywood, 164 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS in similar proportion. Those extant of the Henslowian class oc- cupy generally the lower ranks of dramatic merit. If the fittest work of all dramatists survived, the lost plays perhaps could have been of mere historical value to us. That this great category of lost plays most likely was rich in topical allusions has been quite generally recognized and in par- tial details worked out.^ But the field yet awaits scientific re- search, with promise of large literary-historical rewards.^ Among such allusions there could hardly have failed mention of a state of affairs closely affecting both poets and theatres. This and the rigid laws against presenting on the stage matters touching the official state suggest that the sharp attack in Hamlet, spoken on the stage with impunity, may not have been the most severe of its kind. I hesitate to go fkrther into the alluring field of specu- lation, preferring to await results of research. The losses through Henslowe, as above noticed, sufficiently account for the fact that the evidences of theatrical relations by way of local allusions in dramas that have reached us belong mainly to the non-Henslowian plays, — those of the Globe, Paul's, and Blackfriars. The foremost of all these is the famous chil- dren-passage in Hamlet, reserved for a special chapter.^ Besides this there are numerous evidences, direct and indirect, only a part of which are taken up in the following paragraphs. The passage in Hamlet (late 1601) showing the drawing away of the genteel part of the audience to the more select Blackfriars, represents the condition not only in the Globe but in all the other public theatres. It is well supported by passages in other plays. Pitt, Wadeson, Smyth, S. Row- May, 1906) 763-78. This latter ar- ley, Bird (Borne), Middleton, tide gives practically the substance Webster, Singer. _ of the former. Removing from this last list the ''Since writing these paragraphs names of Jonson, Chapman, Mars- my own researches have brought to ton, and Middleton, who did their light great bulks of material in this chief work for Blackfriars, Globe, field, — too extensive to find itself and Paul's, it will be seen that the in print yet, — but of a value quite Henslowian writers are on the disproportionate to the bulk. These whole of a very inferior rank. documents include the sources of 'See Sidney Lee, The Topical hitherto unknown dramas by Chap- Side of the Elizabethan Drama man, Dekker, Webster, Ford, and {New Shakesp. Soc. Trans., Series others, with certain fragments of I, 1887), llsqq. Also cf. eundem, dramas, — all purely local. The Future of Shakespearean Re- 'Infra, 173-85. search {The Nineteenth Century, RELATIONS OF BLACKFRIARS 165 In Poetaster {ca. April, 1601) Histrio, a player standing for the spirit of the public theatres in general and of the Globe in particular, is made to declare this condition of leanness as a re- sult of the lack of gentleman patronage.^ In Cynthia's Revels {ca. April, 1600) the better classes are represented as avoiding the public theatres because of the immodesty and obscenity in the plays there, and attending Blackf riars where there was a more wholesome vogue. ^ By a comparison it will be seen that the Blackfriars plays of i597~i6o3 are freer from such offensive qualities than the plays of any other theatre except Shakespeare's at the Globe. Again, in Poetaster the public theatre audiences on the Bank- side are ridiculed as composed of "all the sinners of the suburbs."* 'Histrio is speaking of the play Horace [Jonson] supposed was in progress against him under the hand of Demetrius [Dekker] thus : — "O, it will get us a huge deal of money, captain, and we have need on't; for this winter [1600-1] has made us all poorer than so many starved snakes : nobody comes at us, not a gentleman nor a ." — Poetaster, III, i., Jonson's Works (ed. Gififord-Cunningham), I, 3346- 235o. ^In the Induction to Cynthia's Revels a genteel auditor who has come to Blackfriars because dis- pleased with the plays offered by the public theatres is giving advice to the Children and their poets as to what to avoid. His part is spo- ken thus : — "3 Child [Sal Pavy].— ... It is in the general behalf of this fair society here that I am to speak, at least the more judicious part of it, which seems much distasted with the immodest and obscene writing of many in their plays." Then he goes on to advise their poets what to avoid. This part is not aimed as satire at the Boys, nor at their poets (Jonson himself and Chapman), but is a shaft shot over their shoulders at the public the- atres, thus : — "Besides, they could wish your poets would leave to be promoters of other men's jests, and to waylay all the stale apothegms, or old books, they can hear of, in print or otherwise, to farce their scenes with- al. That they would not so penu- riously glean wit from every laun- dress or hackney-man, or derive their best grace, with servile imi- tation, from common stages, or ob- servation of the company they con- verse with ; as if their invention lived wholly upon another man's trencher. Again, that feeding their friends with nothing of their own, but what they have twice or thrice cooked, they should not wantonly give out, how soon they had drest it; nor how many coaches came to carry away the broken meat, besides hobby-horses and foot-cloth nags. 2 Child [Jack Underwood]. — So, sir, this is all the reformation you seek ? 3 Child. — It is; do not you think it necessary to be practiced, my lit- tle wag? 3 Child. — Yes, where any such ill-habited custom is received." This last statement, as the spirit throughout, shows the "custom" was not "received" at Blackfriars, but on the "common stages," whose practice is to be avoided. 'Histrio, speaking of "Humours, Revels, and Satire," is made to say, "They are on the other side of Ty- ber [i. e., at Blackfriars] : we [pub- 166 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Jonson's Prologue to Cynthia's Revels is one of the best ex- amples showing the select character of the Blackfriars audience, before whose learned judgments Jonson is especially proud to have his plays appear.^ Dekker in Satiromastix (summer, 1601) enviously replies to this with the flirt of a sneer in which never- theless there lies the tacit admission of the difference in question.' The declaration in the Prologue to Eastward Ho (spring, 1605) that the Blackfriars has ever been imitated' refers mainly to the ElizabethaJi period. We know further from Hamlet that the Boys were "now the fashion," and it is not likely that other theatres and poets failed to get as nearly into fashion as possible. The general evidence is sufHcient to establish the fact of imi- tation, but details do not lie so patent. The final investigation of the thesis involved must be reserved for later research. I think ' the evidence will show that the new sort of plays introduced at lie theatres] have as much ribaldry in our plays as can be, as you would wish, captain : all the sinners in the suburbs come and applaud our ac- tion daily." — Poetaster, IH, i, op. cit., 2320. ' Prologue n gracious silence, sweet attention. Quick sight and quicker apprehen- sion. The lights of judgment's throne, shine any where. Our doubtful author hopes this is their sphere; And therefore opens he himself to those, To other weaker brains his labours close. As loth to prostitute their virgin- strain, To every vulgar and adulterate brain. In this alone, his Muse her sweet- ness hath, She shuns the print of any beaten path; And proves new ways to come to learned ears: Pied ignorance she neither loves nor fears. Nor hunts she after popular ap- plause, Or foamy praise, that drops from common jaws: The garland that she wears, their hands must twine. Who can both censure, understand, define What merit is : then cast those pierc- ing rays. Round as a crown, instead of hon- ored bays. About his poesy; which, he knows, affords Words, above action; matter, above words. — Ben Jonson, Cynthic^s Revels, Prologue. "Jonson is satirized under the name of Horace speaking thus in parody on the Prologue to Cynthia's Revels: — "Horace. — ^The muses' birds the bees were hiVd and fled, Us in our cradle thereby prophesy- ing That we to learned ears should sweetly sing. But to the vulgar and adulterate brain Should loath to prostitute our vir- gin-strain." [Italics in original]. — Thomas Dek- ker, Satiromastix, in Origin of the English Drama (ed. Hawkins, 1773), III, 132. '" . . we have evermore been imitated." RELATIONS OF BLACKFRIARS 167 Paul's by Marston and Middleton, displacing the "musty fop- peries" the boys there had been presenting, owes somewhat to the influence of Jonson's and Chapman's plays at Blackfriars. The introduction of the masque within the play^ and the general trend of realism in other theatres are also involved. The in- fluences on Shakespeare,^ as for example in Hamlet,^ The Tem- pest/ and certain other plays after the period of the histories, as also on Beaumont and Fletcher, promise peculiar interest. But parts of the field, affording only internal evidence and circum- stantial suggestion, are too shadowy to be alluring. It may seem a more tenable thesis that most of the Blackfriars plays are chargeable with imitation. Chapman, the chief poet there, took from Shakespeare materials or suggestions in every play he wrote for the Chapel Children.^ But he did not do this in the plays he wrote before associating himself with Blackfriars. The extent of his indebtedness seems to be as follows.* Chapman seems in each instance to have used Shakespeare's latest play. In Sir Giles Goosecap (ca. fall, 1600) the title char- acter in his ninniness and misuse of words looks like the notable character of Much Ado about Nothing {ca. 1599) Constable Dogberry in excessive leanness of absurdity made lanker by the extremities of idiocy protruding from the dress of knighthood. In The Gentleman Usher (ca. summer, 1601) Bassiolo seems ^Cf. supra, 118-22, 122^-23. speare, "Der weg des sammlers, der ^The long dominant supposition den spuren der wirkung Shake- that Shakespeare by virtue of tran- speares nachgeht, wird so oft ge- scendent genius was only the giver, kreuzt von lockenden pfaden, die zu not likewise the receiver, of dram- Jonson laufen, dass ihm manchmal ^tic influences is fortunately pass- iweifel aufsteigen konnen, welchem ing. Among the serious attempts der beiden manner die fuhrerrolle to reach the truth in one part of zuzutheilen sei." — Vorwort zu Stu- the field may be mentioned, despite dien iiber Shakespeare's Wirkung its defects, the work of A. H. Thorn- auf Zeitgenossische Dramatiker dike. The Influence of Beaumont (1905). Cf. supra, 123. and Fletcher on Shakespeare (1901). 'Cf. supra, 15, 133; infra, 173-85. All evidences tend to show that *Cf. supra, 10°. no dramatist of his time influenced "On the plays in question, except his fellows more than Shakespeare Sir Giles Goosecap, see also E. Kop- did, and none was influenced by pel, Quellenstudien zu den Dramen them more than he. Professor Dr. George Chapmans, &c. (Quellen und Emil Koppel, of the University at Forschungen, Heft 82., Strassb. Strassburg, who has made extensive 1897). researches in the Elizabethan- Jaco- 'For evidences fixing the dates bean drama, says, with refer- and further discussion see Plays in ence to the influence of Shake- complete work, vol. II. 168 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS modeled after Malvolio of Twelfth Night (ca. 1600), while the title character of M. D' Olive {ca. Oct.-Dec. 1601) is Bassiolo developed. May Day (ca. May, 1602) contains an answer to the attack on Blackfriars in Hamlet (late 1601 — early 1602)^ in the form of satirizing parodies on the "To be" soliloquy and other parts. These read as if Chapman had heard Hamlet once or twice while May Day was in progress, and had caught the general trend. Acts III and IV contain bits of satire certainly made thus. The Widow's Tears (Sept., 1602) in overcoming of feminine scruples is mindatory of The Taming of the Shrew (early 1602?). Did Chapman intend these character-extensions as ridicule of Shakespeare? Or did he simply find good comedial material here ready for further development? At any rate, even if, it is proved that Chapman here imitated, that fact would not disprove that his and Jonson's plays at Blackfriars in turn were imitated. Both seem true. Opposition to a rival institution upon principle and imitation of its successes at the same time are not incom- patible. The opposition of the Globe to the Blackfriars is only typical of conditions in all the other public theatres. Hamlet tells us thus much. Dekker's "the puppet-teacher"^ in Satiromastix (at the Globe, summer, 1601) is a thrust at the Boys as well as at Jonson. The minor reference in the Prologue to Troilus and Cressida {ca. 1602, late) can hardly be called friendly.^ Paul's Boys and the Chapel Children in 1580-84 and at other periods had performed together. But under the new conditions Paul's and the public theatres made common cause against Blackfriars, and found a convenient means of expressing their attitude through furthering on their stages the personal quarrels of certain dram- atists opposed to Jonson of the Chapel Boys' theatre. I must here notice this incident, since it is cotmected with the theatrical conditions in hand. 'Written late 1601. First acted A Prologue arm'd, but not in con- late 1601^ early 1602, doubtless at fidence the Christmas season. See also su- Of Authors pen, or Actors voyce." pra, 86, and infra, 174-75, 183-84*. This is in reference and reply to '"Hold, silence, the puppet- Jonson's armed Prologue to Poet- teacher speaks." — Satiromastix, op. aster, in which the public theatres, cit., in, 171. and particularly the Globe in the * . . . "And hither am I come anticipated Satiromastix there, are RELATIONS OF BLACKFRIARS 169 The personal quarrel between Jonson on the one side and Mars- ton and Dekker on the other, conducted on the battle-field of the stage, was merely incidental to the general state, arising partly out of theatrical, partly out of personal relations. But had it not been fostered by the theatres it could never have been tolerated, could not even have come into existence before an audience. An institution does not easily lend itself as an organ of mere per- sonal animus. It served the theatres as a temporary vent.^ The personal phases of the quarrel can be briefly stated, so far as they appear in literary form. They have been elaborately dis- cussed by Fleay, Penniman, and Small, and treated somewhat by practically every literary historian or critic that has touched upon the period.^ But as the main events have been given incorrect historical perspective by the confusion of chronology, I sum- marize certain conclusions here in accordance with the dates es- tablished upon final evidence under the list of plays, following.^ The first traces are not vicious, and consist of literary jibes. In The Scourge of Villainy (Stationers' Register, Sept. 8, 1598) Marston glanced at Jonson through the character of "judicial Torquatus" in the address "To those that seem judicial Perusers," and expected that Torquatus would vouchsafe the new volume "some of his new-minted epithets (as real, intrinsecate, Del- phic)," without understanding a word of it. Late in the same year, Marston in his revision of Histriomastix (1598) reshaped represented as so hostile as to re- volume to disproving the positions quire such armed protection of both of his predecessors, and on the author and actors at Blackfriars. whole is sound in his own identifi- ^See further, infra, 180*. cations but wide of the mark in his 'The Rev. F. G. Fleay, A Chron- datings. tele History of the London Stage By all these scholars the quarrel (1890), passim, and A Biographical is given wrong aspects through non- Chronicle of the English Drama sequential relation of plays and iSgg-1642 (1891), I-II, ad loc, fol- events. The personal side is incor- lows the ministerial method of find- rectly regarded as having consid- ing allegory in the plays concerned, erable independent importance in- and consequently arrives at roman- stead of being subordinate to the tic identifications of characters. J. larger conditions that made it pos- H. Penniman, The War of the The- sible. atres (1897), likewise finds unten- 'See the respective titles under able identifications. R. A. Small, Plays, complete work, vol. II, for The Stage-Quarrel between Ben all evidences and full treatment in Jonson and the so-called Poetasters elaborate detail, with extensive ref- (1899), devotes a large part of his erences. 170 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS the features of Chrysogonus and gave them a few touches that must undoubtedly have reminded the audience of Jonson. Jonson's Every Man in his Humour {ca. Aug.-Sept. 1598) had appeared before either of the above, and consequently con- tains no trace of the quarrel in even its mildest form. But his next play, Every Man out of his Humour {ca. Aug., 1599) re- plied to both of Marston's jibes by making a character. Clove, evidently introduced for no other purpose, talk fustian words culled out of The Scourge of Villainy and Histriomastix. Mean- while, Marston had given Antonio and Mellida {ca. first half of 1599) to the stage at Paul's without a word of bickering against Jonson. Jonson and Dekker during August and September, 1599, worked in collaboration for Henslowe on Page of Plymouth and Robert H King of Scots. Probably also Marston worked with them in September on this latter play. Up to this time (Sept., 1599) there seems to be no serious per- sonal feeling between Jonson and Marston. Dekker had not yet been in the least concerned. It is most probable that the inti- macy of collaboration sowed the seeds of discord. Jonson's per- sonality could brook little opposition. He had no patience with such as we know Dekker and his work to have been. But on Marston's side there appears as yet no rankling, for about Nov., 1599, appeared at Paul's his Antonio's Revenge, with no word directed at Jonson. In September, 1599, Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton completed Patient Grisell, probably first acted ca. January, 1 599-1600. The Emulo-Owen duel of this play is a clear imitation of Jonson's Brisk-Lentulo duel in Every Mem out of his Humour that had appeared at least four months before. From Jonson's later at- tack {i. e., in Poetaster) he apparently charged this imitation up as one of Dekker's plagiarisms. Cynthia's Revels {ca April-May, 1600) gives us the first real personal bitterness of the quarrel and its first importance on the stage. There Jonson caricatured some of the features of Mars- ton in Hedon, and of Dekker in Anaides, while assuming to him- self some of the general excellences of Crites. This was played by the Blackfriars Boys. Almost simultaneously Marston pre- RELATIONS OF BLACKFRIARS IT^l sented Jack 'Drum's Entertainment {ca. May, 1600) on the stage by the Paul's Boys, unfavorably representing Jonson as Brabant Senior and mentioning himself as "the new poet Mellidus." There is no known cause in any existing drama or other writ- ing by either Marston or Jonson for the sharp personal attacks of these two plays. As both appeared at practically the same time, neither is the cause of the other, and neither play refers to the other. The only explanation of the personalities seems to be that the close literary relations of August-September, 1599, had bred enmity between Marston and Dekker on the one side and Jonson on the other. The only explanation of the stage-publicity of these personal relations is the theatrical status that fostered it, as already discussed and as indicated further in Hamlet.^ A year later, Marston replied in his behalf to Cynthia's Revels by What You Will {ca. April, 1601) at Paul's, making some of Jonson's features unpleasantly prominent in Lampatho and him- self assuming the better traits of "squareness" in Quadratus. Simultaneously appeared at Blackfriars Jonson's Poetaster {ca. April, 1601), violently attacking Marston and Dekker as Cris- pinus and Demetrius respectively, while Jonson martyred him- self as Horace. This attack is not in reply to anything in any of the former plays, but in anticipation of a lampoon that Jonson believed Marston and Dekker were preparing against him in a play to be presented at the Globe. There seems no explanation of this rabidness except that personal relations had become se- verely acute, and that theatrical conditions made such public ex- hibition possible. Hitherto Dekker had made no reply to Jonson. But after Poetaster he flamed out with Satiromustix {ca. June- July, 1601). Marston seems to have furnished some of the fuel. Jonson's final reply was his Apologetical Dialogue, "spoken only once upon the stage" and then by himself as "The Author," apparently in the spring of 1602. This was the end of the personal quarrel on the stage. Jonson no more refers to it. Marston thereafter took Jonson's place as poet for the Blackfriars Boys, and in his Dutch Courtezan (fall- wint., 1602) and The Malcontent (spring, 1603) no reference is ^ Supra, 158*; infra, 174, Fi, 180*. 172 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS made to the recent unpleasantness. Absence of reference in these two plays is negative proof that the personal war-cloud had passed, by 1602. Positive proof is in the year 1604, when Mars- ton dedicated The Malcontent to Jonson, and also wrote com- mendatory verses for Sejanus. Dekker, however, cherished ill- feeling as late as 1609, in The Guls Home-Book.'^ The quarrel in its personal aspects was of much less impor- tance than usually supposed. So far as we can now identify them, it includes only these three men. But from Jonson's Apol- ogetical Dialogue and from Dekker's address To the World in Satiromastix, we are led to believe that other poets and their theatres were involved. Doubtless they were. But as the plays have not come to light and are probably irretrievably lost, we can now say no more about them. The attempt to identify Shakespeare on this personal side in Troilus and Cressida hardly needs refutation. Beyond the minor reference in the Prologfue,^ I find nothing in the play touching either the personal or the impersonal side.^ I have given this incident of the personal quarrel more space than its relative importance demands, but not more than seems required to put it into its proper perspective as a minor matter in the history of stage-relations.* 'See supra, 133*, 140'. of William, Shakespeare (5th ed., 'Supra, 168°. 1905) 237"; R. Boyle, Troilus and 'Scholars differ widely on the Cressida, in Englische Studien play. See for example, R. A. Small, (1902), XXX, 21-59. op. cit., 139-71; Sidney Lee, A Life 'See further, infra, 180*. CHAPTER XIV THE HAMLET PASSAGE ON THE BLACKFRIARS CHILDREN The Shakespeare student has already anticipated conclusions made possible by the documents treated in the foregoing pages. I have little more left to do than to transcribe those conclusions in the briefest possible manner. Shakespeare's reference to the Children-players is at once the best known and yet the newest record touching contemporary stage conditions. Explanations have been attempted by every student of Hamlet.^ These range from the guess of dilettanteism to the plausible hypothesis and occasional statement of fact. Not only does the evidence now at hand explain practically every item in this passage, but in turn Shakespeare's record be- comes available thereby as one of the most important contribu- tions made to the history of this royally favored company of Children-actors at Blackfriars. For purposes of comparison, I here subjoin the passage^ as it appears in Q^, Q2, and F^. ^For a convenient collection of ness, Variorum Shakespeare, Hamlet representative examples from fore- (1877), I, 162-168. No collection most scholars to the date of that of the recent and better interpreta- publication, see Dr. H. H. Fur- tions has been made. ^The passages are quoted as they appear in H. H. Furness, Variorum Shakespeare, Hamlet (1877), H, 59, and I, 162-68. Qi (1603) 968. Ham. Players, what Players be they? Ross. My Lord, the Tragedians of the Citty, Those that you took delight to see so often. Ham. How comes it that they trauell? Do they grow restie? Gil. No my Lord, their reputation holds as it was wont. Ham. How then? Gil. Yfaith my Lord, noueltie carries it away, For the principall publike audience that Came to them, are turned to priuate playes. And to the humour of children. 174 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS I accept it as a conclusion now beyond debate that the whole passage in Fi was written in 1601 and first acted by the closing months of that year or the opening of 1602, the only period in Q2 (1604), n, ii, 315-34 315 Ham. What players are they? Ros. Even those you were wont to take such delight in, the tragedians of the city. Ham. How chances it they trauaile? their residence, both in reputation and profit, was better both ways. 320 Ros. I think their inhibition comes by the means of the late innovation. Ham. Do they hold the same estimation they did when I was in the city? are they so followed? Ros. No, indeed, are they not. Lines 325-45 {"Ham. How comes it? . . . Hercules and his load too") are omitted from Q2, Q3, Qi, Qs. In all the Qq, the next speech begins, "Ham. It is not very strange ; for my uncle," &c., as in Fi, infra, 1. 346. Fi (1623), II, ii, 315-50 Fi gives 315-24 exactly as Q2, with the exception of transposing "they" and "are" in 324, and continues with 325-45, omitted from the Qi, Qs, Q*, Qb, thus : — 325 Ham. How comes it? Do they grow rusty? Ros. Nay, their endeavour keeps in the wonted pace; but there is, sir, an aerie of children, little eyases, that cry out on the top of question and are most tyrannically clapped for't; these are now the fashion, and so berattle the com- 330 mon stages — so they call them — that many wearing rapiers are afraid of goose-quills, and dare scarce come thither. Ham. What, are they children? who maintains 'em? how are they escoted? Will they pursue the quality no longer than they can sing? will they not say afterwards, if 335 they should grow themselves to common players, — as it is most like, if their means are no better, — their writers do them wrong, to make them exclaim against their own succession? Ros. 'Faith, there has been much to-do on both sides, and the nation holds it no sin to tarre them to controversy; 340 there was for a while no money bid for argument, unless the poet and the player went to cuffs in the question. Ham. Is't possible? Guil. Oh, there has been much throwing about of brains. Ham. Do the boys carry it away? 345 Ros. Ay, that they do, my lord ; Hercules and his load too. Ham. It is not very strange; for my uncle is king of Denmark, and those, that would make mows at him while my father lived give twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats a-piece, for his picture in little. 'Sblood, there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out. THE HAMLET PASSAGE 175 the history of the drama and stage at which the allusions could have point or fit the facts.^ The strolling players are those of the public theatres, — ^men. In giving the reason for their traveling, Shakespeare glances at the theatrical conditions of the times, as already examined. The Queen in carrying out her notions o.f what she wished in the way of a theatre, established the Blackfriars with the Children of the Chapel. With this grew up the notion of restrictions and pro- hibitions of the public theatres. For the Queen to maintain a theatre at all was an innovation in itself. But to maintain a pri- vate theatre and at the same time to attempt to shut up all but two of the public playhouses, with severe restrictions on even those two, was both an innovation and an inhibition at once, that seemed related to each other as cause and effect.^ This not only diminished the reputation and profit of the unfavored players and drove them into the country,^ but also justly called for so much for Shakespeare's claim as to the players having to travel. This might be ascertained by long re- search in the archives of munici- palities. But the preceding pages have shown sufficiently that the statement is based upon actual con- ditions of hardship resulting from the Queen's attitude. The few known details of the traveling com- panies at this period are these : In 1599, a company of English actors under Laurence Fletcher (sometimes, but erroneously, sup- posed to have been Shakespeare's company) visited Scotland, and were patronized by James VI. ( See State Papers, Elizabeth, Scotland, LXV, Nos. 64 and 64 1, dated Nov., 1599, Public Record Office). Again, in Oct., 1601, Fletcher led a com- pany thither. Shakespeare's own company was at Oxford and Cambridge some- time prior to the publication of Hamlet. (See title-page of Qi, in- fra, 182^). Whether these visits antedated the Stationers' Register entry, 26 July, 1602, is undeter- mined. Henslowe's Diary (ed. W. W. Greg, 1904), 177-78, shows Lord Worcester's men, of the Rose, went ' [1602] xxvj"" Julij James RobertsEntred for his Copie vnder the handes of master Pasfeild and master waterson warden A booke called 'the Revenge of HAMLETT Prince {of] Denmarke' as yt was late- lie Acted by the Lord Chamber- leyne his servantes vj** — E. Arber, A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Sta- tioners J554-J(540 (1875-94), III, 312. The play in final form, from which the above publication was garbled, was on the stage long enough before this entry to inspire the surreptitious issue. See also on the dating, supra. May Day (86, 168), Widow's Tears (ibid.), Clifton's Complaint (86), the stage-quarrel (158*, 171, 181), the strained official and theatrical relations (157). Also see infra, 183-84'. All evidences combine to show Hamlet was written late 1601, and first acted late 1601 — early 1602, doubtless the chief attraction of the Christmas season. "T think their inhibition comes by the means of the late innova- tion." ^I do not know the detailed basis 176 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS at least as the mild righteousness of this passage, despite Eliza- beth's absolute law against criticism of the state in public plays. Under these conditions of course the public theatres were not and could not be "followed" as formerly. The immediate source of grief to the "common stages,"^ as people now, since the new fashion, were calling the public theatres, whose cause Shakespeare champions, lay in this "aerie" of "little eyases"^ that the Queen- care was fledging. The rivalry is not with inferior children-actors, but with a company of boys whose unquestioned excellence receives the gen- into the country March 13, 160 [l]-2. They returned to London and re- newed acting Aug. 17, 1602 (idem, 179). Strolling players, of course, had been in earlier stage-history per- mitted to wander at will. But Shakespeare cannot have these in mind, for the law of 1597 (supra, 153') put a stop to this by the regulating control of noble patron- age. Besides, the satire on the Children and theatrical conditions could not have had point in refer- ence to this earlier period. The company to which Shakespeare be- longed traveled in 1593, 1594, 1597, but not again, it seems, prior to the Hamlet presentations at the univer- sities. (See Sidney Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare, 5th edition, 1905, 40, for list, from which, how- ever, this last item is omitted). No company traveled except when its profits in London were un- satisfactory. For this condition at the present period, the Blackfriars stands as the cause. In only two plays does Shake- speare mention strolling players, — in Hamlet (1601-3) and The Tam- ing of the Shrew (1603?), just at the time when the Queen's pur- poses were bearing bitter fruit for the public theatres. 'The practice of so calling them originated in the Queen's orders through the Privy Council in dif- ferentiation from Blackfriars. (See supra, 156-57V) Jonson in The Case is Altered, II, iv, (at Blackfriars ca. Sept. — Oct., 1597) uses "common theatres" and "public theatre" in a long and sharp satire on the sort of audi- ences frequenting them. In Cyn- thia's Revels, Induction (ca. April, 1600), he uses "common stages" and "public theatre" opprobriously. Doubtless the frequenters of the- atres made the same distinction ; — conveying thereby the stigma of in- feriority that Shakespeare here dis- relishes. But "common" in reference to plays in the sense of "ordinary" or "usual" is found very early. E. g., in 1553, Bishop of London Bonner issued to the clergy an order pro- hibiting in churches "all manner of common plays, games, or inter- ludes" &c. (See E. Malone, Shake- speare Variorum, ed. Boswell, 1831, III, 45). But no opprobrium seems to attach to the word then as is laid upon it later in distinguishing Blackfriars and public theatres. Examples of this earlier inoffensive use in application to plays, games, etc., are numerous even in official papers prior to 1597. But the op- probrious sense of both "common" and "public" applied to theatres dates from that year. ^The terms "aerie" (eagles- nest) and "eyases" (eaglets) ap- plied to the Queen's establishment present in a single view actors and supporter. There is conveyed also the sense of security of position against all interference. See fur- ther on this meaning under "aerie," The New English Dictionary (ed. Murray). Compare also "her mai- THE HAMLET PASSAGE 177 erous applause of the most select and judicial audiences of London.^ The men-players are doing their best to maintain their pres- tige ; but they are unable to stem the tide of popularity and fash- ion. The followers after illustrious example have taken up the theatre with its privileges of privacy, high prices, novelties, and spectacular effect as the fad of the day. The Boy-actors and their poets have rather got the best of it in the wit-combat be- tween them and the "common stages" and have given the latter such a shaking up with their rattling fire as to diminish their pop- ularity still farther in comparison. The local and personal drives have caused my rapier-girdled courtier and fine gentleman to avoid the public theatres rather than make himself for coming thither the subject of later stage-jest before his fashionable set at Blackfriars." esties unfledged minions" in The Children of the Chapel Stript and Whipt (1569), supra, 4\ and "neast of boys able to ravish a man" in Father Hubbard's Tales, by T. M. (1604), infra, chap. XVI. ^"Cry out on the top of ques- tion" is usually explained as a de- traction of the Boys; as, "at the top of their voices," "with bad elo- cution," &c. I cannot find any de- traction of the Boys in the whole passage. It is not they, but the manner of their establishment and support that is objectionable. Moreover, I find no untruth in the passage. It would be not only false, laut would kill Shakespeare's own point, for him to say the act- ing was bad. The whole history of the Boys shows it was good. At the time Hamlet was written, young Pavy, Field, Underwood, and Ostler were among the chief Chil- dren-actors. Pavy was famous then as a boy who acted old men's parts superbly, and at his death (1601 or 1602?) was made the subject of Jonson's noble tribute to him as an actor, — one of the most delicate and appreciative recognitions of excel- lence ever written. (See further. Careers of Actors, infra, vol. II.) The latter three Boys were also superior actors, and were all, a few years later, taken into Shakespeare's own company, where they were among the leaders. Field was sec- ond only to Burbage. (See their careers, u. s.) Also, at the time Hamlet was written, the Boys were pleasing to Queen, Court, and critical London. (See audiences, supra, 113, 164-66\) Historically, the notion of bad acting has no basis. That "cry out on the top of question" means "excel," "do with unquestioned excellence," "exhibit superiority" is clear from the Ham- let text in the light of the facts, as above. It is substantiated by the only two known similar uses of Shakespeare's time. In this same scene (II, ii, 417) Hamlet speaks of "others whose judgments cried in the top of mine" (= excelled, were superior to]. In Robert Ar- min's Nest of Ninnies (1608, ed. Collier, 5. 5". Pub., 1842, _X), 55, the author speaks of "making them [fencers or players at single-stick] expert til! they cry it up in the top of question." This seems final as a commentary. ''It was the custom at Black- friars (and probably at other the- atres) to break jests upon the 178 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS The question of maintaining a company and appareling them, or dressing them out, was, as already noted,^ of first importance in enabling theatrical and financial success. The expense of maintenance was first. But as Elizabethan theatres had little scenery, they made up for the lack in appropriate apparel. As practically every play of the time represents people of station, — kings, queens, courtiers, lords, &c., — the expense of apparel prob- ably equaled or exceeded the keep of the company. A glance through Henslowe's Dia/ry shows the cost of a pair of silk stock- ings from 15 to 20 shillings; a doublet and hose, 3/. to yl.; a black satin suit, 5 /. A single rich cloak cost 19 /., — almost half as much for only part of one costume as Evans iwas paying for the annual rental of Blackfriars. The total value of a theatrical wardrobe probably exceeded the value of the given theatre itself." It is quite certain from all testimony that the Children's ap- parel furnished by the Queen was of superior elegance. Since it was generally known who "maintained" the Boys and thus "escoted" them, Shakespeare desiring merely to raise the notion suggestively above the mental horizon, accomplishes his object fully by simply asking the question and not allowing an answer other than that which comes at once to the mind of the audience. To this he adds the touch of deft diminution by the coinage of a word for the occasion which no one of the audience could fail to catch by the intonation, a slight gesture, or even the very punning nature of the word, indicating these lads were audience or some prominent person- nations of the wardrobes of public age. Such local hits did not then theatres. Henslowe's Diary gives and do not now appear in the by inventories and purchases a gen- printed play. See such a jest in eral notion. The Diary of Thomas the Induction to Cynthia's Revels; Platter (1599) says, "Die Comedien- also the statement of its prevalence spieler sindt beim allerkostlich- at Blackfriars made by Sly in the sten vnndt zierlichsten bekleidet." — Induction to The Malcontent. To (See extracts by Prof. Binz in An- the same eSect see The Guls Home- glia (1899), XXH, 459.) Even in Book (m. s., 133*). 1590 a player is represented by R'ob- This practice grew worse under ert Green as saying "his very share James I. Again and again the in playing apparel would not be sold King was made the target. This for 200 /." (Quoted in Sidney Lee, was one of the chief causes for his op. cit., 1899, 198.) In 1608 the putting a summary end to the wardrobe of the Children of the Blackfriars Boys in 1608. (See doc- King's Revels at Whitefriars was uments in later chapters.) valued at 400/., — apparently in that ^ Supra, 128-39. special case, however, too high. 'There are no known exact val- (See following chapters.) THE HAMLET PASSAGE 179 hardly old enough to wear players' "apparel," but must needs wear the "cotes" of children.^ Then with the skill of the master wit innocently foreswearing *The meaning of "escoted" lies thus near home. It has hitherto been explained as derived from the rare OF. escotter, — dead even to the French more than a hundred years when Shakespeare wrote, and long supplanted by ecoterU The etymological treatment of "cote," "coat," "escoted"; and "es- cotter," "ecoter," "escot," "scot," "shot," "shoot," is too long for in- sertion here. I note simply that "escotter" seems to have died in French about the middle of the 15th century. (See Godefroy, Dictionnaire L'An- cienne Langue Francois, du IX" mi XV' Steele, 1898. The one late ex- ample there given is clearly an ob- solete use.) Cotgrave's frequently quoted re- port of the word in 1611 is the result of mere compilation of older dictionaries, not the report of cur- rent usage. The form "escotter" is not found in current French liter- ature of Shakespeare's time, nor in the hundred years preceding. The title-page of Cotgrave's work claims only compilation, — "A Dic- tionarie of the French and English Tongues. Compiled by Randle Cot- grave. London. 1611." But it is not only a compilation, and there- fore of no value as an authority on the current French, but it is also merely a French-English not an English-French dictionary, and hence of no value on the English. Cotgrave defines, "Escotter. Euery one to pay his shot, or to contribute somewhat towards it, &c." The meaning is correct. But such a meaning and such an ety- mology from such or any reference, applied to the ephemeral word-play "escoted," is but fair game for laughter as the lean and wrinkled nonsense of despairing pedantry. No contemporary English dic- tionary gives "escote."' I have ex- amined every English and every English-foreign dictionary (and every extant edition of each) pub- lished from the beginning of the language up to Samuel Johnson's English Dictionary (1755). (For list, but giving first editions only, see H. B. Wheatley, Chronological Notices of Dictionaries of the Eng- lish Language, in Transactions of the Philological Society, London, 1865.) The word is in none of them till Johnson, where the mean- ing was assumed that has been fol- lowed to the present. An indefinite number of exam- ples of "cote," "coat," meaning dress, apparel, or to dress, &c., can easily be collected by any one from Chaucer's "medlee cote" (see also picture in Egerton MS.) to a period much later than Shakespeare. Two from contemporary authors suffice here. "Scarce will their Studies stipend them, their wiues, and Children cote." — William Warner, Albion's England (revised ed. 1603), 238. Not in the earlier (1589) edition. This example is interesting not only as contemporary to the year, but also as juxtaposing the common no- tions of maintenance and apparel- ing as in Hamlet. "After they [our first parents] got coates to their backes, they were turned out of doores. Put on therefore either no apparel at all, or put it on carelessly."— Tho. Dek- ker, The Guls Home-Book (1609), in op. cit., 11, 220. Shakespeare seems the only one who ever used the word "escote" prior to Johnson's learned blunder of 1755 ; — sufficient index of its spe- cial coinage. It originated and died with the occasion. Its components are "cote" (coat) with a sliding prefix ex- (es-). Puns however do not come into existence through lawful etymologic unions but de- spite them. They are the begotten waifs of occasion. 180 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS himself by leaving with the audience the satisfied sense of dis- covering the meaning themselves, he turns aside and proceeds to blame the poets who write for the Children for making them utter jibes against the public theatres, to which they must ulti- mately succeed. For upon the general knowledge that the primary function of singing is the basic consideration of their im- pressment and maintenance while their acting is simply a conse- quence that must be conterminal with the cause, it is warrantably assumed that these Chapel Boys will be continued at the theatre as actors only so long as they can sing.^ If then they keep on act- ing until their voices at puberty begin to break and unfit them for choir-singing and taking part in the varied sort of entertain- ment they now furnish at Blackfriars, they will at the time of voice-change be deprived of their present superior position; and not being gentlemen's sons but lads who have no better means than their own resources for support,^ it is like-most that they themselves, despite their present raillery, will then have to seek employment as a means of livelihood among these same "com- mon players" their poets now make them cry down.^ But the contest has not been one-sided. With a glance at the more general conditions in which there has been "much to-do on both sides," Shakespeare having made Hamlet apparently talk away from the question raised as to maintenance and appareling of the lads, now purposely causes Rosencranz to avoid directly answering it, but nevertheless reenforces the answer in the minds of the audience by shifting, after all, the blame from the poets to the "nation" for allowing and encouraging the present state of affairs. For a while the controversy was so hot that plays were purchased by neither side unless* the poet took the part of the ^See supra, 115. grown-up children of Blackfriars ''Shakespeare by his "as is like and Whitefriars are found among most if their meanes are no better" the leaders in every men's company {1623 folio) understands that these but one, and practically dominate are not gentlemen's children. Clif- the stage during that later period, ton's boy, who never acted, was '"There was for a while no probably the only one of rank taken money bid for argument unless" &c. up. See also supra, 80', 83*. This is as clear a declaration as 'Shakespeare prophesied soundly one need make that the personal here. This is exactly what did hap- was subordinate to the theatrical pen later, as the history from 1610 quarrel and came before the public to the Restoration, taken up in sue- solely through demands of the lat- ceeding chapters, shows. The ter. Cf. supra, 158*, 169-72. THE HAMLET PASSAGE 181 players he wrote for and jibed at their opposition poets and play- ers,^ as notably in Jonson's Poetaster {ca. April, 1601) at Black- friars and Dekker's Satiromastix (summer, 1601) at the Globe and Paul's. Although there is a law (Elizabeth 1559)^ which absolutely forbids any allusion or criticism by the stage with reference to affairs of state and religion, "the nation holds it no sin" even thus to countenance and set on such a controversy as the present one.^ It is a condition of affairs much to be deplored, and "in a well- governed state"* seems hardly "possible."'' Where the blame rests for this "throwing about of brains" and for the whole unsatisfactory theatrical status is thus shadowed forth with such consummate skill that the audience, familiar with the circumstances, could not miss the chief cause of grievance, though no breach of open declaration is made. The conclusion as to whether the boys win or not is a pregnant summary of conditions in a single line. Rosencranz puns on "carry it away," and says that they not only have won but they have carried off the chief audience and income of the Globe, — '"Unless the poet and the player Also in New Shakespeare Society went to cufifs [Fi, "Cuffs"] in the Transactions (1880-85), Appendix question." "Cuffs" was a common to Part II, 19t. nickname for a schoolmaster be- For punishments inflicted on the cause of his bad habit. "To go to Rose in 1597 and the Curtain early cuffs" about anything therefore 1601, doubtless under the interpre- came to have a quadruple signifi- tation of this law, see .sa/>ro, 155, 158. cation, — primarily "to cuff or fight," It seems remarkable that Shake- then "to go to a master who cuffs," speare was permitted so much as "to go to school," and "to study, the present deft passage in Hamlet study up, study how, find ways and against the same law. See supra, means." 164. Shakespeare plays with the pun- 'Tschischwitz (quoted in Fur- ning nature of the expression, with ness, Variorum Shakespeare, Ham- the final sense of course resting let, I, 167) could not see the "logic" upon the last of the quartet. of 332-37, as they stand, — for a very Compare the following from good reason! But really was ever Satiromastix (summer, 1601, ed. a cause that required the most del- Hawkins, op. cit., Ill, 135) : — "He icate handling presented to the [Horace-Jonson] has as desperate minds of the audience with more a wit as any scholar ever went to consummate "logic"? cuffs for" [=went to school for, * Order of the Privy Council, 32 acquired by study]. June, 1600, u. s., 15l\ 'Printed in J. P. Collier, op. cit., 'Hamlet, u. s., 174, Fi, 1.343. I (1831^), 168-69; (1879"), 166\ 182 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS for which "Hercules and his load," the sign of the theatre, stands.^ That is, of course, they have attracted away the better paying and more genteel class. In the next speech, the fickle fawning of a public after the fashion of royalty without regard to the justness of the cause it represents is made the common basis upon which Shakespeare rises from the consideration of local theatrical conditions to the fuller swing of physical and psychic difficulties that beset Hamlet in the tragic execution of the high purpose laid upon him. Thus ends this valuable record touching the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars. Seen in its proper relation to their history it becomes also contributive to certain Hamlet problems, which cannot be taken up here. I am however compelled to take notice of one item which further connects with this history. The 1603 quarto,^ admitted on both sides of a long contro- versy' to be at least maimed and mutilated, contains no reference to the innovation and inhibition, but does give in four lines a gen- eral summarized sense of the twenty lines (325-345) found first in the 1623 folio. On the other hand, the second quarto (1604)* omits these twenty lines, but gives the rest of the passage as a practical iden- tity with the same in the 1623 folio." This omission in Q^ is 'Malone, op. cit., Ill, 67, thinks ers on the other side (that the play the sign of the Globe was painted was completed before printed or on the river-side wall, — -"a figure played), quoted in H. H. Furness, of Hercules supporting the Globe, Shakespeare Variorum, Hamlet under which was written Totus (1877), II, 14-33. mundus agit hisirionem." I do not The controversy still continues know his authority. in recent books and periodicals. ^The I Tragicall Historie of | See infra, 184'. Hamlet | Prince of Denmarke | By 'The J Tragicall Historie of | William Shake-speare.| As it hath Hamlet, ( Prince of Denmarke. | By beene diuerse times acted by his William Shakespeare. | Newly im- Highnesse ser-|uants in the Cittie printed and enlarged to almost as of London : as also in the two much | againe as it was, according V-|niuersities of Cambridge and to the true and perfect | Coppie. 7 Oxford, and else-where| [vignette] [vignette] At London,| Printed by At London printed for N. L. and I. R. for N. L. and are to be sold John Trundell.l 1603 :| — Title-page, at his | shoppe vnder Saint Dun- 1603 quarto. stons Church in | Fleetstreet. 1604.1 'See discussions by Caldecott, — Title-page, 1604 quarto. Knight, Delius, Staunton, Elze, 'The only difference is in the Dyce, and others on the one side transposition of "they" and "are" (that Qi is a first conception, later in line 324. See note on Fi, supra, reworked), and Collier, Tycho 174. Mommsen, Grant White, and oth- THE HAMLET PASSAGE 183 made in the face of the statement on the title-page that the edi- tion is "enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect Coppie." Without entering into argument, I must, though anticipating a date by two years, simply state the significance of these facts.*- When James I came to the throne, the royal maintenance and appareling of the Blackfriars Boys ceased. In January, 16CX4., they were put on an exact level with the public theatres. The cause of grievance to the public theatres being thus removed, the continuance of Shakespeare's attack thereafter would have been pointless and absurd, — an attack upon a mere historical foe. Hence it was omitted from the 1604 edition. — Which incidentally indicates that that edition was, as it claimed to be, printed from "the true and perfect copy" as Shakespeare and his company then wished it. It was likewise omitted from Q3 (1605), Q^ (1611), Qb (undated, but after 161 1), and was never printed until the 1623 folio, which aims to preserve to literature and history the plays of Shakespeare from their most authentic source. I have no doubt that the 1623 folio text was from the original manu- script containing minor changes made from time to time for the stage. This passage containing the attack, crossed out and not acted after the death of Elizabeth, was restored in the folios as a part of the original play. In the 1604 and later quartos, just enough of the original mat- ter is retained to make the transition from the necessary talk about the players to the matters of dramatic concern expressed in Hamlet's, "It is not very strange" &c. It is clear that the part retained was kept solely for this transitional step.^ We no longer need to rely upon the four-line summary in the 1603 quarto as sole proof that the complete passage (315-345) was in the play as originally acted ; for, as seen, the passage in its 'The matter is taken up fully in p. 139, Dr. Tanger has as clear a proper chronological order, com- statement as can well be made on plete work, vol. I, chap. XVI. the awkward gap caused by the °See Dr. Gustav Tanger, The omission (325-45). His conclu- First and Second Quartos and the sion, however, that this part was First Folio of Hamlet {New Shake- left out by accident is an unfor- speare Society Publications, Series tunate guess. I, Nos. 8 and 9, 1880), 109-97. On .. . ^ . .','t 184 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS entirety fits the facts of no other period than at the close of 1601 and opening of 1602.^ No farther documents touching the status or popularity of the Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars are known. The evidences adduced give us the "gelegenheit" or state of affairs through a brilliant career from 1597 to September 18, 1602. We know from' subsequent events that the same condition continued to the close of Elizabeth's reign, — March 24, 1603. What occurred there- 'The facts on the above Hamlet passage are established on a purely historical basis with reference to the Children of the Chapel as act- ors at Blackfriars. — -Which has hith- erto not been possible. The larger significance to certain Hamlet prob- lems must be taken up elsewhere. I add here only a word. The certainty that this impor- tant passage was written and acted in its entirety in late 1601 to early 1602 is established. (See supra, 174-75^). The logical acceptance of it as a representative example of "the true and perfect copy" as orig- inally written and acted is unavoid- able; — just as in similar cases in certain other Shakespearean and contemporary plays. It stands thus for the first time as an incon- trovertible fact among the proofs that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in 1601 just as he wrote his other great dramas before and after, — once and for all. The later stage- changes are unimportant. It is cor- respondingly disproof of the theory, comfortable to some, that between the quartos of 1603 and 1604 Shake- speare's mind and art underwent a century-long Homeric development. (See commentators cited supra, 182'. Also, among later theorists, see J. Schick, Die Entstehung des Hamlet. Festvortrag, gehalten auf der General - Versammlung der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft am 2$. April 1Q02; in Shakespeare- Jahrbuch, 1902, XXXVIII, xiii- xlviii.) With the play in final form in 1601, there is no longer need of supposing, with some, an earlier form, or with others an intermedi- ate form, from which the pirated 1603 quarto and Der Bestrafte Bru- dermord were derived, nor with others that the latter is derived from the former. (See W. Crei- zenach, Der Bestrafte Brudermord and its Relations to Shakespeare's Hamlet, in Modern Philology (1904- 5), II, 249-60. This is in the main a defense of the author's views on the same subject in Berichte der philol.-histor. Classe der Konigl. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften, 1887, Iff., and in Schau- spiele der Englischen Komodianten in Kiirschner's Deutsche National- Litteratur, 1889, XXIII. At the same time it is an answer to the review of Creizenach's views by Dr. Gustav Tanger, Der Bestrafte Bru- dermord Oder Prins Hamlet aus Ddnnemark und sein Verhaltniss su Shakespeare's Hamlet, in Shake- speare-Iahrbuch, 1888, XXIII, 234ff. To Creizenach's article in Modern Philology, u. s., M. B. Evans, "Der Bestrafte Brudermord" and Shake- speare's "Hamlet," in eod., 433-49, makes reply. This is mainly a de- fense of Evans's Der Bestrafte Bru- dermord sein Verhaltniss zu Shake- speare's Hamlet. Diss. Bonn, 1902.) Both versions were written from the original play as presented on the Globe stage from ca. late 1601 to early 1602 on. Who wrote them and why they have certain sitni- larities and differences requires in- vestigation on wholly new lines that are not bounded by the defense of theories. Known facts concern- ing certain actors long in Germany THE HAMLET PASSAGE 185 after, with its larger significance to the drama and stage, is the subject of following chapters. and but recently in the Burbage- on a matter of mere history can be Shakespeare company may be of established, conclusions based on use in a first research for external theory were better unexpressed. data. But unless historical facts SUBJECT INDEX [This analytical index of chief subjects, supplemented by cross-refer- ences in the foot-notes, may serve for most purposes in lieu of the more severely scientific index rerum et nominum et titulorum, which is too ex- tensive to be practicable in'this introductory volume.] Accommodations for comfort of au- diences, 8, 34-35, 35", 50-51, 5lS 52. Actors, Children of the Chapel as, 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 16, 18, 40, 41, 53, 54, 56', 58, 59"-62, 65, 66, 68-70', 70- 72, 73-76, 77-83, 92, 105, 106-7, 113, 115, 127, 141, 150, 151, 163, 165", 166, 174, 176-82, 183; devel- oped by children-companies, 13- 14, 180'; irresponsibleness of chil- dren, 15 ; hindered by stage-pa- trons, 44, 46, 142, 143-46; view of, on Blackfriars and modern stage, 47'; number of, at Blackfriars, 74-76, 127; names of, at Black- friars, 76, 80Tl327l63, 165', 177" ; impressment of boys as, 17, 53, 57, 6tf-68', 70, 71, 73-74, 77-83, 99, 101, 102, 114, 127, 152; contract for employment of boys as, at Blackfriars, 80'; not "gentlemen's children" at Blackfriars, 82, 180'; English, in Germany, 110'-12, 128 ; art of Elizabethan-Jacobean and modern, 134°; law against stroll- ing, 150, 152', 173'; relations of, at Blackfriars and other theatres, 163^'2; strolling or traveling of, caused by Blackfriars, 175'-76; Fletcher's, patronized by James VI of Scotland, 175'-76; superi- ority of, at Blackfriars, 176-77'- See Blackfriars, Children, Eliza- beth, Theatre. Admission price, at Blackfriars, 36, 112, 177; comparative view of, 6, 112'. Alleyn, Edward, Fortune contract by, 7'-8; on cost of Fortune, 29°. All Fools. See Chapman. Allusions, local. See Plays. Antimasque. See Masque. Antonio and Mellida. See Marston. Antonio's Revenge. See Marston. Apologetical Dialogue. See Jonson. Apparel. See Stage-apparel. Archives and original documents, xii, xiv-xv. Art of Elizabethan-Jacobean and modern acting, 134". Articles of agreement, by Black- friars managers, 85, 87-91, 102; date of, 85, 87', 88-91 ; 200 /. bond as security in, 88, 92'; lawsuits concerning, 89-91; terms of, in 200/. bond, 91-92'. See Bond. Artificial lighting of Blackfriars, 106-7, 124. Assignment of Blackfriars lease by Evans to Hawkins, purpose of, 85-86, 93; date of, 89-91; not in trust, 89'. Attitude of Elizabeth toward thea- tres, results of, 155, 156-57, 158, 159, 163-72, 175-82. Audiences, relative position of, to stage, ix, 50-plat-51, 52; select, at Blackfriars, 6, 7, 8, 35-36, 43, 45, 48', 51, 52, 71, 82-83, 95, 96, 97, 106-7, 112, 119, 124, 128, 142, 155, 157, 164-66, 175-77, 181-82; pro- visions for comfort of, 8, 34-35, 35', 50-plat-51, 51', 52; Hamlet on losses of genteel, to Blackfriars, 164, 175-77, 181-82; Poetaster on, 165-66; Cynthia's Revels on, 166; Satiromastix on, 166; Case is Altered on, 176'. Balcony of Blackfriars, 48, 50-plat- 51 ; use of, for musicians, 48", 50- plat-51. Bear Garden, Thomas Platter on, 7'-8; date of, 9'; architecture of, 18'; cost of, 30; structure and fin- ishing of, 32'; location of, 153'. Bestrafte Brudermord, Der, rela- tions of, to Hamlet, 184'. 188 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Biron. See Byron. Blackfriars monastery, history of, 18-20; dissolution and value of, 30. Blackfriars precinct, petition of in- habitants of, 17', 27, 53", 128^ 153, 154"; boundaries of, 19-20; a sanctuary inviolate, 30; liberties and privileges of. City and Crown's contention over, 30-2l\ 53, 54, 152-54, 156, 159, 160, 161'- 62; buildings of, 21; granted to Cawarden, 23; changes in, by Cawarden, 33 ; aristocracy of, 23, 36-38, 38, 96, 153; property of Shakespeare in, 36\ 27, 28; poorer inhabitants of, 37 ; on history of, 154'; suppression of Rossiter's theatre in, 154", 161', 161-62. See Blackfriars theatre. City, Eliza- beth. Blackfriars theatre, historical im- portance of, ix, 6, 18, 151, 163; as a model, ix, 8-9, 18°, 35, 36', 36', 39", 43°, 141, 151, 163; size of, ix, 7, 28, 33, 36, 38-39, 43°, 46, 49°, 50-platr-51, 128°; structural details of, ix, 37-54; plat of, ix, 50-51; new documents concerning, ix-x, 10°, 36", 39', 40', 41*, 42, 44'°, 45', 48', 48°, 49', 56', 57, 60'-62, 80°, 84', 84*, 87°, 87°, 89', 95, 106-7', 123°, 125*, 138°, 158'; Elizabeth's relations to, x, xii, 54, 94, 99, 101, 105, 136-39, 148-63; maintenance of Children of the Chapel at, x, 4, 40, 71, 73-76, 91-92, 95, 98-104, 105, 106-7, 136, 137, 138-29, 178- 83; the Queen attends, x, 1, 36, 51, 71, 87, 95-97, 99, 112, 115, 125, 128, 160 ; relations of, to other the- atres, poets, and players, x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66', 167, 168, 169-72, 178-81; and the "stage- quarrel," x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66', 168, 169-73, 178-81; sit- ting on the stage, as a custom at, xi, 7, 43°-43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48', 50-plat-51, 53, 124, 130-47 ; Queen's requirements for training Children in various arts at, xi, 4-5, 9-11, 40, 56, 59°-60, 71, 74, 80', 105-35, 137, 163, 180; singing at, xi, 4, 5, 9, 71, 80', 106-7, 113-14*, 115, 117, 121-23, 163, 180 ; instrumental mu- sic at, xi, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 71, 106-7, 113, 114, 115, 116-18, 121, 122, 163 ; dancing at, xi, 5, 44, 71, 118, 163; masque at, xi, xii, 5, 10*, 44, 113, 114, 119-21, 122-34, 163, 167; Children of the Chapel as act- ors at, 1, 4, 5, 13, 16, 18, 40, 41, 53, 54, 56', 58, 59'-63, 65, 66, 70-73, 73-76, 80', 82, 83, 85, 86, 87-94, 95, 96, 103, 106^-, 113, 113, 115, 117', 131, 133, 126-39, 132°, 141, 150, 151, 163, 165', 166, 174, 176-83, 183 ; Children of the Rev- els to the Queen at, 1, 13, 15, 44'°, 74, 80°, 163, 177', 183; audiences of, select, 6, 7, 8, 35-36, 43, 45, 48°, 51, 53, 71, 82-83, 95, 96, 97, 106-7, 112, 119, 124, 138, 143, 155, 157, 164-66, 175-77, 181-83; boxes or lords' rooms at, 6, 41°-43, 49, 50-plat-51, 134, 140', 141; earliest companies at, 6, 21-22, 23-24, 42°; seats at, 6, 49', 50-plat-51, 53 ; gal- leries at, 6, 41*-43, 46, 50-plat-51, 134; as foremost theatre, 6, 18, 163 ; remodeled from Priory house, 7, 17, 35, 36, 38, 39-54, 153 ; "Great Hall" or auditorium of, 7, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 74; a social centre for the elite, 7, 35-36, 43, 45, 48°, 51, 95-97, 161 ; influence of, on theatre-structures, 8-9, 18°, 35, 36, 39°, 43°, 141; ac- commodations for comfort of au- diences in, 8, 34-35, 50-51, 53; influence of, on accommodations of the new Globe, 8, 35 ; as model for Cockpit and Salisbury Court, 8, 18°, 36, 39°, 43°, 141 ; date of, 9', 53, 56', 57, 128°; leased to Shake- speare and fellows, 10, 34°, 35, 44'°, 45', 56' ; orchestra of, 10*- 11 ; practice of jests at, 15, 48°, 132°, 133*, 163, 165', 177'; not a "nursery," 13 ; opening of, by Ev- ans, 16, 53, 56'; leased to Evans, 17, 40, 56', 57-58, 84, 88, 127, 138°; purchased by Burbage, 17, 35, 36, 53, 138°; cost of, 17, 35; deed for, 17°; petition to Privy Council against, 17°, 27, 53', 128°, 153, 154'; City's order to suppress, 17°, 53°, 154', 161' ; errors in history of, 18- 18', 34°, 107', 107'-8, 130*-30'; present site of, 31, 24-38 ; early use of, for Revels Office and plays, 21- 33, 33-34, 42°; part of royal grant SUBJECT INDEX 189 to Cawarden, 23; Lyly's plays at, 23-34 ; aristocratic environs of, 33, 36-38, 38, 96, 153; pretentiousness of, compared with other theatres, 28-35; annual rental of, 30", 45', 57, 178 ; superior accommodations of, 35-36, 51; Clifton's Complaint against, 36, 70, 71, 73-74, 77-83, 84-87", 100, 101, 103, 113-14', 115, 126, 138", 159, 160, 180; stage at, 36, 43', 43-47, 48, 49', 50-plat-51, 53, 55, 124, 137°, 141-43; materials of, 37, 40'; "the Scholehouse" of, 40, 71, 74, 127 ; rooms above the "Great Hall" of, 40-41, and their use, 41, 74, 128"; resemblance of, to Freiburg Stadttheater, 43*; tir- ing-house of, 47, 48", 50-plat-51; plat of, 47, 50-51'; capacity of, 47, 49, 50-plat-51, 52; balcony of, 48, 50-plat-51 ; place for musi- cians in, 48^ 50-plal^51, 137'; un- historical stage of, 49', 137°; no picture of, 52 ; owned by Richard Burbage, 53, 56' ; whether built to supplant "The Theatre," 54, 128°, 152; provisions for rent, repairs, and expenses of, 57, 89°, 89', 91- 92, 100, 10l'-2, 103, 104, 106-7, 113, 136, 127, 128-29, 173-74, 175, 178-79; number of plays per week at, 71, 106-7, 124-25; plays at, 75, 113-25, 165-72; number of actors at, 74-76, 127 ; names of actors at, 76, 80', 132°, 163, 165", 177'; con- tract for employment of children at, 80°; conduct of, official, 81, 83, 99, 101-3, 136-39, 130; not gentle- men's children at, 82, 180', 180°; Star Chamber decree concerning, 81-83, 87, 88, 93-94, 115, 126, 159; assignment of lease of, by Evans, 85-86 ; new management of, 85, 86, 87-94, 102, 103-4, 113, 115; and Hamlet, 86, 115, 129, 133, 158, 164, 167, 168, 173-85 ; Queen Hen- rietta attends, 97°; status of Chil- dren at, 105-25 ; Duke of Stettin's Diary on, 106-7, 108-35, 138; ar- tificial lighting of, 106-7, 134; popularization and musical in- fluence of concerts at, 117', 121; days of week for acting at, 135 ; imitation of customs of, 130, 136, 141-47, 163; imitation of plays and playwrights of, 166-68; no suppressive order against, 149'-50, 153 ; alliance of City and theatre against, 151, 153-55, 156~57, 158- 62, 168; protected by Queen's the- atrical orders, 153, 161', 175-76; results of Queen's attitude toward, 155, 157, 158, 159, 162, 164-66, 175-76 ; temporary restraint of, 158'; as a "public" theatre, 16l'; relations of, to theatres, poets, and players, 163-73, 178-81; list of dramatists for, 163' ; plays of, with local allusions, 164-72; pat- ronage drawn to, from public the- atres, 164-66, 176, 181-82; as cause of public theatre companies having to travel, 175"; reduced by James I to public-theatre level, 183. See Children, Clifton, Duke, Elizabeth, Evans, Gyles, James, Plays, Shakespeare, Sitting on the stage. Stage, Stage-quarrel, The- atre, &c. Bond, for 400 /., as security to Bur- bage for rent of Blackfriars, 57, 85' ; for 200 1., as security in new management of Blackfriars, 88, 93'; contains terms of agreement, 89'-90, 91-92'; for 50/., for sal- ary, 88, 102°, 135. See Articles, "Eight Shillings." Boxes, private, at Blackfriars, 6, 41°-43, 49, 134, 140', 141; of French theatres, 46, 147 ; of pri- vate theatres, 141 ; origin of mod- ern, 43°, 46, 50-plat-51. Bugle-blast at opening of a play, 11'. Burbage, James, purchase of Black- friars by, 17, 35, 36, 53, 128° ; con- verts Priory into theatre, 17-18, 152; alterations in Blackfriars building by, 7, 17, 35, 36, 38 (See Burbage, Richard) ; death of, 53 ; purpose of, concerning Blackfriars and "The Theatre," 54, 128°, 152. Burbage, Richard, leases Blackfriars to Shakespeare and fellows, 10, 34°, 35, 44' , 45', 56' ; leases Black- friars to Evans, 17, 40, 56', 57-58, 84, 88 ; alterations in Blackfriars by (See Burbage, James), 39-54; owner of Blackfriars, 53, 56' ; dis- proves assignment of Blackfriars lease in trust, 89°. Burbage-Shakespeare company, lease of Blackfriars by, 10, 34°, 35, 44'°, 190 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 45^ 56' ; The Tempest, first play at Blackfriars by, 10°; dramatic freedom conduced to by, 13, 123; profits of, at Blackfriars, 35, 45; retained but restricted by Eliza- beth, 155, 156 ; connection of, with Essex conspiracy, 157 ; strolling or traveling of, 175"; not the com- pany patronized by James VI of Scotland, 175'. Byron tragedies. See Chapman. Campaspe. See Lyly. Candle-light, at Blackfriars, 106-7, 124. Canopy, 48*. Capacity, of the Swan and Hope, 30-31', 33, 50'; of the Fortune and Globe, 49, 50-platr-51, 52; of Blackfriars, 47, 49, 50-plat-51, 52 ; comparison of, in Elizabethan- Jacobean and modern theatres, 50'. Case is Altered, The. See Jonson. Cawarden, Sir Thomas, owner of Blackfriars, 17 ; royal grant of Blackfriars to, 22; not first Mas- ter of the Revels, 2l''-22; uses hall at Blackfriars for play-act- ing, 22'-23'', 42'; makes changes in Blackfriars precinct, 23. Chapel Royal, place of, 2-3 ; uses of, 2, 3 ; constitution of, 2 ; duties of, 2-3 ; James I and choristers of, in Scotland, 3 ; salaries and fees of, 3, 3'', 4 ; Nathaniel Gyles's connection with, 3^ 58, 59'-62; as a theatre, 4' ; as source of private theatre, 5-6 ; children not to be taken from, 64. See Children, Commission, Elizabeth, Gyles. Chapman, George, source of an un- known play by, xv, 164^; rank of, 12 ; as dramatist for children- companies, 12 ; Biron tragedies, indiscretions of, 15, 163', 177'-78; as writer of masques, 121 ; recip- rocal influences of, on Shake- speare, 167-68. — All Fools, on sitting on the stage, 133-34". — ■ Gentleman Usher, The, act- ors required in, 75"; evidences in, of singing, 114*; music, 116'; dancing, 118"; masque, 119; obli- gations of, to Twelfth Night, 167- 68. — — May Day, actors required in, 75"; as laughing answer to Ham- let, 86, 168; evidences in, of sing- ing, 114'; instrumental music, 116'; dancing, 118"; masque, 120. M. D'Olive, actors required in, 75"; evidences in, of singing, 114'; music, 116'; dancing, 118"; character-extension of Malvolio in, 168. Sir Giles Goosecap, actors required in, 75"; evidences in, of singing, 114*; music, 116'; danc- ing;, 118 ; masque, 119 ; character- extension of Dogberry in, 167. Widdowes Teares, The, act- ors required in, 75"; satire of, on Star Chamber decree, 82-83, 86- 87; date of, 82, 86, 114*-15, 118', 120; evidences in, of singing, 114*; music, 116'; dancing, 118; musical prelude to, 106-7, 115-16, 117-18 ; rpasque in, 120 ; elaborate costuming of, 106-7, 124; obliga- tions of, to The Taming of the Shrew, 168. Qiaracteristics of children-plays, 9- 10, 14-15, 113, 114-19, 119-21, 122, 133-24. Characteristics of theatres, private, 5-7, 18", 35, 43-49, 50-pla(r51, 141-42; public, 7, 18', 42', 44-49, 50-plat-51, 53, 137-38. Charles I, suppresses custom of sit- ting on stage, 143'. Charles II, grant of theatrical mo- nopoly by, 110', 148. Children-companies, on history of, vii, viii, xii ; publications on, vii, xii ; on editing plays of, vii ; re- lations of, to dramatic and his- trionic art, vii, viii, ix, xii, 1, 9, 13, 13, 14-15, 16, 105, 122, 141, 147, 180'; under Elizabeth, 1, 9, 12, 105 ; under James I, 1, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 44'°-45', 74, 105, 110", 113, 117', 131, 163, 177", 183; early, at Blackfriars, 6, 34, 42'; period of, 1, 12, 16 ; imitations and echoes of, 1, 16, 117', 121, 163 ; at White- friars, 1, 6, 13, 14, 15 ; in private theatres, 7; characteristics of plays by, 9-10, 14-15, 113, 114-19, 119-21, 122, 123-24; period of, 1, 12, 16; proportion of plays by, 12, 163-64; chief dramatists as poets SUBJECT INDEX 191 for, 12-14, 163^ not a "nursery," 13 ; and dramatic freedom, 13, 123 ; developed great actors, 13-14, 163, 177', 180"; quality of dramas of, 15, 165. Children of the Chapel, as choris- ters, 1-6, 11, 60-68, 73; Court- service of and its evolution, 1, 4-5, 11, 68-70, 71, 73, 74; secular uses of, 1, and origin, 5; salary and fees of, 3^ 4; maintenance of, 3, 71, 73, 127 ; with James I in Scot- land, 3'; pay of, 3", 4; double functions of, 4, 11, 68-70, 71, 73, 74. as actors, 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 16, 18, 40, 41, 53, 54, 56", 58, 59-62, 65, 66, 68-70\ 70-72, 73-76, 77-83, 92, 105, 106-7, 113, 115, 127, 141, 150, 151, 163, 165", 166, 174, 176-82, 183 ; Puritanic opposition to, 4, 79, 126, 149, 150, 159; evolution of court-service of, 5, 11, 68-70, 71, 73, 74; court-performances of, as source of private theatre, 5 ; with Paul's Boys at Blackfriars, 24. See Chapel, Children at Black- friars, Commission, Elizabeth, Evans, Gyles. Children of the Chapel at Black- friars, maintenance of, x, 4, 40, 71, 73-76, 91-92, 95, 98-104, 105, 106- 7, 126, 127, 128-29, 178-82; Queen's requirements for train- ing of, in various arts, xi, 4-5, 9-11, 40, 56, 59'-60, 71, 74, 80\ 105-25, 127, 163, 180; singing of, xi, 5, 9, 71, 80", 106-7, 113-14*, 115, 121, 163, 180; music of, xi, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 71, 106-^, 113, 114, 115, 116-18, 121, 132, 163; danc- ing of, xi, 5, 44, 71, 118, 163; masque in plays of, xi, xii, 5, 10', 44, 113, 114, 119-21, 122-24, 163, 167; period of, 1, 184-85; Queen's establishment of, as actors, 1, 4, 5, 13, 16, 18, 40, 41, 53, 54, 56', 58, 59"-62, 65, 66, 70-72, 73-76, 80', 82, 83, 85, 86, 87-94, 95, 96, 103, 106-7, 112, 113, 115, 117', 121, 123, 126-29, 132', 141, 150, 151, 163, 165', 166, 174, 176-82, 183; prec- edents for establishment of, 1, 62- 66, 68-70; source of, the Queen's will, 1, 70, 71, 112, 150; as source of Revels children, 1, 74; imita- tions and echoes of, 1, 16, 117', 121, 163 ; evolved performances of, 4-5 ; the lost repertoire of, 5, 122 ; stage-apparel for, furnished by the Queen, 5, 83, 91-92, 99-100, 101, 106-7, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 178, 183; comedy-period of, fol- lowed by tragedy, 5, 183 ; wide influences of, 12, 13, 14-15, 16, 95, 105, 141, 163, 177', 180'; chief dramatists as poets for, 12-14, 163"; conduced to dramatic free- dom, 13, 113, 123; in competition with Shakespeare, 14, 15, 174, 175- 82; and offsprings of, 14, 16; errors in history of, 18', 59", 77", 177'; boarding and lodging of, 41, 71, 73-76, 103; Court-perform- ances of, 72, 96, 112, 115, 121-22', 157; number of, as actors, 74-76, 127; plays of, 75, 113-25, 165-72; names of, 76, 80', 132', 163, 165", 177' ; age of, 76 ; popularity of, 80", 85', 94, 104, 117'-18, 123, 124, 166, 173-74, 176-77; use of, as actors, officially sanctioned, 81, 83, 99, 101-2, 126-29, 130; not gentle- men's children, 82, 180", 180"; un- der new management, 85, 86, 87- 94, 103, 103-4, 113, 115 ; and Ham- let, 86, 115, 129, 133, 158', 164, 167, 168, 173-85; status of, 105-25; Duke of Stettin on, 106-7, 108-25 ; model for Duke of Stettin's es- tablishment, 109-12 ; concert-mu- sic popularized by, 117', 131; as "the fashion," 123, 166, 173-74, 176-77; reduced to public-theatre level, 183. See Blackfriars, Clif- ton, Commission, Duke, Elizabeth, Evans, Gyles, Hamlet, Music, Plays, Singing. Children of her Majesty's Royal Chamber of Bristol, old men as, 117' Children of the King's Revels at Whitefriars, period of, 1; dram- atists and dramas of, 14, 15 ; con- certs by, 117', 121 ; value of ward- robe of, 178". Children of the Revels, three com- panies of, 1 ; source of, 1, 74. Children of the Revels to the Queen at Blackfriars, period of, 1; sup- pressed by James I, 13, 44'°-45', 177"; satirize the King, 15, 163', 193 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFR'IARS 177"; placed on public-theatre level, 74, 183 ; contract for em- ployment of, 80°. Children of the Revels to the Queen at Whitefriars, period of, 1, 13, 16 ; managers of, as founders of German theatre, 110''; and Philip Rossiter, 117'; musical entertain- ments by, 117", 121. _ Children of St. Paul's'. See Paul's Boys. Choristers. See Chapel, Children, Commission, Elizabeth. Chronology, of Blackfriars plays, xi, xii, 75, 114^-18; of events and plays, in stage-quarrel, xi, xii, 169"-73. See play-titles under Chapman, Dekker, Jonson, Mars- ton, Shakespeare. Church, in evolution of private the- atre, 5'. See Paul's. City of London, contention of, with Crown, over Blackfriars, x, xii, 20-21', 53, 54, 153-54, 156, 159, 160, 161-62; order of, to sup- press Blackfriars, 17°, 53', 1'54", 161'; false statement of, concern- ing Privy Council order against Blackfriars, 53-54 ; opposition of, to Elizabeth's theatrical purposes, 129, 149-62 ; requests by, for priv- ilege to suppress theatres, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 160; neglects execution of Queen's orders, 149, 153, 154, 155, 156, 161', 16l'-62; methods of theatrical reformation by, 150-51, 153 ; insincerity of, 151, 153, 159, 160, 16l'-63; alli- ance of, with theatres, against Blackfriars, 151, 153-55, 156-57, 158-63; political chess-game of, 153-54, 160, 161'-63; suppresses Rossiter's Blackfriars theatre, 154^ 161'; connection of, with Clifton's Complaint, 159, 160. See Elizabeth, Reformation. Clifton's Complaint in Star Cham- ber, against Blackfriars, 36, 70, 71, 73-74, 77-83, 84-87°, 100, 101, 102, 113-14*, 115, 136, 138", 159, 160, 180 ; purpose of, 73-74, 79, 82, 126, 159; date of,^ 77'-78, 79, 84; historical unreliability of, 79, 80, 100-1, 10l'-2, 113-14*, 115, 126, 128°, 180; Puritanism in, 79, 136, 150, 159 ; disproof of charges by. 80°, 113, 113°-14*, 115, 180; decree in favor of, 81-83, 159; date of decree for, 84-87°, 159; furthers City's opposition to Elizabeth, 159, 160; false pretenses of, 159. See Decree, Elizabeth, Evans, Star Chamber. Cockpit, the, modeled after Black- friars, 8, 18°, 36, 39°, 43', 141 ; date of, 8', 9'; as private theatre, 8, 130"; music at, 10*; size of, 36, 39°, 43", 141; stage of, 43; sitting on stage of, 44, 130, 136, 141; Queen Henrietta attends, 97°; lo- cation of, 153^ Comfort in theatres, required and provided, 8, 34-35, 35', 50-51, 51', 53. Commission to take up Children, to Edwards, x, 65'; to Hunnis, x, 65, 66', 70; to Nathaniel Gyles, X, 17, 53, 57, 60'-63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73^'4, 77-83, 84, 99, 101, 102, 113, 114, 126, 127, 152; precedents for, to Gyles, 62-70; interpreta- tion of Gyles's, in practice, 70-73, 73^'6, 77-83, 95-97, 106-^, 127, 152, 155-63, 175; to Abingdon, 63' ; to Banester, 63' ; to Melyonek, 62°; to Cornysh, 63; to Crane, 63 ; to Van Wilder, 63' ; to Bower, 63*, 64; to [unnamed], 64'; to Thomas Gyles, 67'; to Nathaniel Gyles, at Windsor, 68'. See Blackfriars, Children, Elizabeth, Gyles. "Common." See "Public." Companies, theatres, and poets, re- lated to Blackfriars, x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66', 167, 168, 169-72, 178-81. Comparative view of theatre-struc- tures, ix, 28-54. See Stage, The- atre. Concert, as musicale or "showe," exclusive of drama, by Black- friars Boys, 5, 9, 10, 106-7, 113, 115, 117-18, 121; Blackfriars as source of popularity of, 117'; in- fluence of, 117', 131; first collec- tions of music for, 117'. See Music. Concert-music, first collections of, and Blackfriars, 117'. Construction. See Comparative SUBJECT INDEX 193 Contention between Liberality and Prodigality, 114. Contention, of City and Crown, over Blackfriar's, x, xii, 20-ai\ 53, 54, 152-54, 156, 159, 160, 161 - 62 ; of City and Theatre against Crown, in relation to Blackfriars, X, 129, 149-62, 168. Corporation of the City of London. See City. Court, Paul's Boys at, 4, 24, 67, 157 ; Children of the Chapel at, 4, 24; masques at, 22, 118-19, 122% 123; Children of Blackfriars at, 72, 96, 112, 115, 121-22', 157 ; "showe" at, 115, 121; records of Children of Chapel at, 127 ; late Elizabethan public-theatre companies at, 155; no plays at, Christmas, 1601-[2], 159-60. Court, the, attends Blackfriars, 95- 97, 101, 112, 128, 177' Court-entertainments, rehearsals for, 22; of Children at Blackfriars, 72, 96, 112, 115, 121-22\ 157; in- fluenced by Blackfriars drama, 123; omitted, Christmas, 1601- [2], 159-60. Court-performances of Children in the Chapel, as source of private theatre, 5-6. Court-service of Children of the Chapel, primary, 1, 4; evolution of, 4-5, 11, 68-70, 71, 73, 74. Crown. See Blackfriars, City, Con- tention, Elizabeth, James, Theatre. Cuckqueanes and Cuckolds Errants, The. See Percy. "Cuffs,'' meaning of, 181\ Curtain theatre, the, Thomas Plat- ter on, 7''-8; date of, 9''; archi- tecture of, 18'; cost of, 30; unhistorical stage of, 49', 137" ; sit- ting on the stage of, 138; orders regulating, 148*; opposition to, 149^; orders against, revoked, 149*-50; Cit/s request to sup- press, 152-53 ; orders to suppress, 153, 156, 156'; location of 153'; restrained by Privy Council, 158, 181'. Customs. See Theatrical. Cynthia's Revels. See Jonson. Dancing, taught and practiced at Blackfriars, xi, 4-5, 71, 118; within the play, 5, 44, 118, 163; in early German theatre. 111 ; evi- dences of, in Blackfriars plays, 118'; "the swaggering upspring," 119'. See Masque. Daniel, Samuel, and John, 117'. Dates of plays. See Chapman, Chronology, Dekker, Jonson, Marston, Shakespeare. D'Avenant-Killigrew theatrical mo- nopoly, 11, 110', 148. Davies, Sir John, on sitting on the stage, 132'; on sitting "over" the stage, 135 ; on the "gull," 138'-39. Day, John, The Isle of Guls, indis- cretions of, 15. Decree of Star Chamber, shows grants to Evans, 56, 71-72, 81-83, 99; effect of, on Gyles, 70-71, 83, 127; nature of, 81-83; satirized by Chapman, 82-83, 86-87; effect of, on Blackfriars, 83, 87, 88, 93- 94, 115, 159; prohibitive effect of, on Evans only, 83, 87-91, 93-94, 103, 115, 159 ; date of, 84-87", 159 ; basis of, 126, 159. Dekker, Thomas, new play by, xv, 364'. Guls Home-Book, The, on lords' rooms, 43, 141 ; on sitting on the stage, 46, 133', 140',. 140*; on the "gull," 140'; on stage- quarrel, 133, 140, 172. Patient Grisell, with Chettle and Haughton, plagiarianism of, 170. Satiromastix, on bugle- blast, 11'; at Globe and Paul's, 11', 158, 181 ; on Jonson at Black- friars, 41*, 133 ; thrusts Jonson and Blackfriars Boys, 168; satir- izes Poetaster, 171. See Stage- quarrel. and Wilkins, George, Jests to Make you Merry, on sitting "over" the stage, 135*. Devil is an Ass, The. See Jonson. De Witt, Johannes. See Swan. Diary. See Duke, Henslowe, Plat- ter. Differentiation of "public'' and "pri- vate" theatres, 9, 12, 156-57, 161'. Documents, new. See Blackfriars, Children, Globe, Shakespeare. Documents, original, and archives, xii, xiv-xv. 194 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Drama, Elizabeth's fondness for, 4, 70, 113, 150; private theatre as factor in, 5', 12; characteristics of, 9-10, 14-15, 113, 114-19, 119-21, 122, 123-24; period of splendor in, 12; shaped by conditions, 13- 14, 113, 123; losses in, 14-15, 122, 163-64, 172 ; quality of, 14-15, 165- 66; origin of new features in, at Blackfriars, 122; influences of, at Blackfriars, 167. See Blackfriars, Children, Plays, Theatre. Drama and stage, relations of chil- dren-companies to, vii, viii, ix, xii, 1, 9, 12, 13, 14-15, 16, 105, 122, 141, 147, 180°. Dramatic freedom, allowed at Blackfriars and Globe, 13-14, 123; influences of, on dramatic form, 113, 123. Dramatists, effect of theatrical con- ditions upon, ix, 12-14, 113, 123; relations of, at Blackfriars and other theatres, 163-72; names of, 12-14, 163'. Drolls. See Kirkman. Duke of Stettin, and retinue, at Blackfriars, 106-7, 134; at Globe, 108'; at Fortune, 109'; at Bear Garden, 109 ; chief interest of, in Blackfriars, and establishment of company after, 109-12, 128. Diary, on maintenance, in- struction and performances of Children at Blackfriars, 5, 10, 40^ 74, 99, 106-7, 113-25, 126; on es- tablishment of Blackfriars, 54, 56, 99, 105, 106-7, 126; on apparel, 99, 124 ; value and significance of, 105, 107-8 ; original and transla- tion of, 106-7; disproves Clifton's charges, 115. Dutch Courtezan. See Marston. Eastward Ho. See Marston, Chap- man, Jonson. Edward IV, Liber Niger Domus Regis of, 2; commissions of, to Abingdon and Banester, 62; uses Children of Chapel as actors, 68. Edward VI, uses Blackfriars for Revels Office, 21; grants Black- friars to favorites, 23 ; commission by, to Van Wilder, 63; and to Bower, 63 ; reappointment of of- ficers of, 64; uses Children of Chapel as actors, 69. Edwards, Richard, commission to, to take up children, x, 64, 65', 70; allowances to, for children, 64', 73. "Eight shillings" item, the, as man- ager's salary to Evans, 88, 125; 50 /. bond as security for, 88, 102^ 125; quoted, 98; significance of, 98-100, 102, 1Q4; determines day of week for acting at Blackfriars, 125 ; on official conduct of Black- friars, 126. Elizabeth, Queen, relations of, to Blackfriars, x, xii, 54, 94, 99, 101, 105, 126-29, 148-62; maintains Children at Blackfriars, x, 4, 40, 71, 73-76, 91-92, 95, 98-104, 105, 106-7, 126, 127, 128-29, 178-82; commission by, to take up chil- dren, — to Nathaniel Gyles, x, 17, 53, 57, 60'-63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-74, 77-83, 84, 99, 101, 103, 113, 114, 136, 137, 152;— to Edwards, X, 64, 65', 70 ; — to Hunnis, x, 65, 66", 70; attends Blackfriars, x, 1, 26, 51, 71, 87, 95-97, 99, 112, 115, 135, 128, 160; expenditures by, at Blackfriars, x, 5, 91-92, 100, 101', 103, 104, 126, 137, 138-29, 178; contention of, against City, over Blackfriars, x, xii, 20-21', 53, 54, 152-54, 156, 159, 160, 16l'-63 ; re- quirements of, for training Chil- dren at Blackfriars, xi, 4-5, 9-11, 40, 56, 59'-60, 71, 74, 80', 105-35, 127, 163, 180; masque within play originating under, xi, xii, 5, 10*, 44, 114, 119-21, 132-24, 167; chil- dren-companies under, 1, 9, 12, 105 ; will of, as source of Black- friars, 1, 70, 71, 112, 150; estab- lishes Children of Chapel at Blackfriars, 1, 4, 5, 13, 16, 18, 40, 41, 53, 54, 56', 58, 59'-62, 65, 66, 70-72, 73-76, 80', 82, 83, 85, 86, 87-94, 95, 96, 103, 106-7, 113, 113, 115, 117', 121, 123, 126-39, 132', 141, 150, 151, 163, 165", 166, 174, 176-82, 183; theatrical plans and purposes of, 1, 4, 71, 87, 96, 112, 113, 125, 137, 138", 139, 148-63, 150', 151', 152, 154, 157, 159, 175; patronizes Paul's, 1', 4, 67, 151, 157 ; fondness of, for drama, 4, 70, 113, 150; early used Children of Chapel as actors, 4, 70; Puri- SUBJECT INDEX 195 tank opposition to, 4, 79, 126, 149, 150, 159; functional divisions of Children of the Chapel by, 4, 71, 73-76; stage-apparel provided by, 5, 83, 91-92, 99-100, 101, 106-7, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 178, 183; differentiation of "public" and "private" theatres by, 9, 12, 156- 57, 161', 176'; entertained at Blackfriars, 26; death of, 44, 162', 183 ; orders of, against theatres, 54, 148, 149, 150''-51', 152, 153, 155, 156, 157-58, 160; grants by, to Evans, for using Children as actors, 56, 71-72, 81-82, 99, 101, 126, 127; Latin patent by, to Gyles, as Master of Children, 59'- 60, 71, 73-74; commission by, to take up children, — to [unnamed], 64'' ; — to Bower, 64' ; — to Thomas Gyles, 67"; interpretation of Na- thaniel Gyles's commission al- lowed by, in practice, 70-72, 73- 76, 77-83, 95-97, 106-7, 127, 152, 155-62, 175 ; theatrical plans and orders of, revoked by James I, 74, 149-50, 161', 183; general pardon by, meaning of, 77"^; and Clifton's Complaint, 81-83, 159 ; attends Blackfriars after Clifton's Com- plaint, 84*, 87, 96*, 160, and before decree, 87'; first sovereign at a theatre, 97'; "showe" at Court of, 115, 121-22; masques at Court of, 118-19, 122', 123; theatrical pur- poses of, official acts by, and op- position to, 129, 148-62, 175; state control of theatres begun by, 148, 148-62; methods of theatrical reformation by, 150°-5l', 152-53, 154-55 ; law of, against strolling players, 150, 152', 175'; purposes of, for Globe and Fortune, 151, 155 ; protects Blackfriars, 153, 154, 155, 156-57, 160-61', 176"; results of theatrical attitude of, 155, 156- 57, 158, 159, 163-72, 175-82; dis- pleasure of, with Globe company, 157, 160; partisanship of, for Blackfriars, censured by Shake- speare, 3 58*, 178-81; law of, against criticism in stage-plays, 164, 176, 181^ See Blackfriars, Chapel, Children, Commission, Gyles, Evans, Orders, Privy. English actors, art of Elizabethan- Jacobean and modern, 134'. English actors in Germany, docu- ments on, 110' ; first companies of, 110-12; imitations of, 110'; throt- tled by monopoly, 110"; patronage of, modeled after London public theatres. 111 ; Duke of Stettin's, and Blackfriars, 111, 128; music and dancing of. 111. "Erect" or "set up," meaning of, 128*. "Escoted," meaning of, 178-79'. Essex conspiracy, Globe company's connection with, 157, 160; cause of closing theatres, 158. Establishment of Blackfriars. See Actors, Blackfriars, Children, Elizabeth. Evans, Henry, opens Blackfriars, 16, 53, 56'; leases Blackfriars, 17, 40, 56', 57-58, 84, 88, 127, 128'; rent by, for Blackfriars, 30', 45', 57, 178; suits at law by, 36*; expen- ditures by, at Blackfriars, 40, 89', 91, 92", 126, 129 ; boards and lodges Children, 41, 71, 73-76, 103; re- sides at Blackfriars, 41, 103 ; sur- renders lease of Blackfriars, 45'; grants to, for using Children as actors, 56, 71^3, 81-82, 99, 101, 126, 127; unites with Gyles, 71- 72, 73-76, 81, 128', 152; as theat- rical proprietor, 77, 87-88 ; im- pressment of Children for, 77-80, 81-82, 114, 126; Clifton's charges against, 79-83, 85-86, 113'-U\ 126 ; Star Chamber decree against, 81-83, 85-87'; effect of decree against, 83, 87-91, 93-94, 103, 115, 159; assignment by, to Hawkins, 85-86, 89-91, 93; circumvents de- cree, 85, 87-91, 103; articles of agreement by, with Kirkham et al., 85, 87-91, 102; compelled to leave London, 87, 93'; "eight shillings" salary of, 88, 102', 103', 125; agreement with Kirkham et at. to share profits and expenses at Blackfriars, 89'-90, 91, 92', 126, ]29. Every Man in his Humour. See Jonson. Every Man out of his Humour. See Jonson. Evidences, summary of, on Black- friars, 126-29. 196 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKp-RIARS Evolution of Court-services of Chil- dren of Chapel, 5, 11, 68-70, Tl, 73, 74. Evolved performances of Children at Blackfriars, 4-5. Expenditures at Blackfriars, agree- ment to share, 89'-90, 91, 92^ royal provisions for, 91-93, 100, 10l'-2, 103, 104, 106-7, 113, 126, 127, 128-29, 173'-74, 175, 178-79". Faery Pastorall, The. See Percy. Favor of Elizabeth to Blackfriars, 94, 95, 96, 99, 126-39, &c. See Actors, Blackfriars, Children, Elizabeth, &c. Fletcher, John. See Beaumont. Ford, John, new-found play by, xv, l64^ Fortune theatre, plat of, ix, 50-51; contract for, 7'-8, 29', 42°, 43', 45', it, 52', 137°; Thomas Platter on, 7^-8; Globe as model for, 7'-8, 29*, 32', 39', 47\ 137; date of, 9', 39, 156; architecture of, 18'; cost of, 39; structure and finishing of, 33\ 42'; burned, and rebuilt with brick veneer, 34'; engraving of, 34'; size of, 39, 49', 50-plat-51, 52, 137 ; gentlemen's rooms of, 43', 50-plat-51, 137-38; size of stage of, 45, 47, 50-plat-51, 137; sitting on the stage at, 45, 137-41; gal- leries in, 47', 50-plat^51, 53; seats and capacity of, 49, 50-plat-53; audiences of, relative to stage, 50- platr51, 53; gentlemen and yard- crowd of, 52; Duke of Stettin at, 109'; Samson at, 109'; sitting "over" stage of, 136; orders against, revoked, 149'-50, 161'; location of, 153', 156; complaints against, 156; company of, re- tained but restricted by Elizabeth, 155, 156; list of drairiatists for, 163'. See Blackfriars, Elizabeth, Globe, Theatre. Freiburg Stadttheater, stage-level gallery in, 43*; resemblance of, to Blackfriars, 43*. French theatre. See Theatre, in France. French Stage. See Stage, in France. Furniture, at Blackfriars, 91-93, 101', 136, 127. G.-F. = Greenstreet's transcripts, in Fleay's Stage, 36*, 36', et passim. Galleries, at Blackfriars, 6, 41*-43, 46, 50-plat-51, 134; not at Paul's and Whitefriars, 7; at public the- atres, 7, 42*, 52; on stage-level, in early and modern theatres, 42*, 52 ; in French theatres, 46-47 ; at Globe and Fortune, 47', 50-plat- 51, 52. "General pardon," meaning of, 77'. Gentleman Usher. See Chapman. Gentlemen, attendance of, at Black- friars and public theatres. See Audiences. Gentlemen's rooms, in public the- atres, 43'-43, 45, 49', 50'-plat-51, 134*, 136, 137°-38, 141; and the yard-crowd, 53 ; in relation to gal- lants on the stage, 44, 45, 134*. 136, 137-41; in private theatres, 141. See Blackfriars, Boxes, Lords' rooms, "Orchestra." German actors, art of, 48*, 134'. German theatre, sitting on the stage of, xi, 46, 146-47 ; acting and stag- ing in, 48*, 134"; Duke of Stet- tin's, modeled after Blackfriars, 109-12, 128; foundation for mod- ern, 110; English actors as founders of, 110', 184'-85; patron- age of early English companies in, after English noble patronage, 111. See Stage, Theatre. Globe theatre, new documents on, ix-x, 10', 34', 44", 45', 56', 123; as model for Fortune, 7'-8, 29*, 32', 39^, 47', 137; influence of Blackfriars on accommodations of, 8, 35; date of, 8, 9', 29, 34, 77', 155 ; Satiromastix at, 11', 158, 181; architecture of, 18'; cost of, 39; erection of, 29, 77', 155-56; structure and finishing of, 32'; burned, 33-34; date, materials, and cost of the new, 34; size of, 36, 39, 52 ; sitting on the stage of, 45, 134*, 136-41; galleries in, 47'; capacity of, 49, 53; unhistorical stage of, 49', 137°; gentlemen and the yard-crowd at, 53; gentlemen and stage-gallants at, 45, 134*, 136, 138 ; strictures in Hamlet at, an- swered by May Day at Black- friars, 86, 168; Duke of Stettin at, 108'; unknown play at, 108'; annexes Malcontent, 134; sitting SUBJECT INDEX 197 "over" stage of, 136; orders against, revoked, 149^-50, 161'; location of, 153'; company of, re- tained but restricted by Elizabeth, 155, 156 ; connected with Essex conspiracy, 157, 160; Richard II at, 157, 160 ; list of dramatists for, 163^; plays of, with local allu- sions, 164, 166 ; decency of plays at, 165. See Blackfriars, Eliza- betli. Fortune, Shakespeare, The- atre. ''Great Hall" or auditorium, of Blackfriars, 7, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 74; of Whitefriars, 7; earliest use of, for play-acting, 31-22, 23-24, 42'; rooms above, at Blackfriars, 40-41, and their uses, 41, 74, 128". Gull, the, subject of satire, 138'; Davies on, 138°-39; Skialetheia on, 138'-39; Follie's Anatomie on, 138'-40 ; as pretended gallant, 139 ; The Guls Home-Book on, 140^. Gyles, Nathaniel, commission to, to take up children, x, 17, 53, 57, 60'-62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-74, 77-83, 84, 99, 101, 102, 113, 114, 136, 127, 152; and augmentation of Chapel salaries, 3^; not lessee of Blackfriars, 56' ; biography of, 58° ; succeeds Hunnis, 58 ; privy seal and patent to, as Master of Chapel Children, 59'-60, 71, 74, 77; allowances to, for keep of Children, 59'-60, 64', 73; commis- sion to, as Master at Windsor, 68'; interpretation of commission to take up children, in practice, 70-72, 73-76, 77-83, 95-97, 106-7, 137, 152, 155-62, 175; effect of Star Chamber decree on, 70-71, 83, 127; unites with Evans, 71-73, 73-76, 81, 128°, 152; Clifton's charge against, 77-83, 113M4*, 136. Hamlet. See Shakespeare. Hawkins, Alexander, surety for rent of Blackfriars, 57, 90; as- signment of lease to, 85-86, 89-91 ; partner in Blackfriars manage- ment, 88. See Evans, Kirkham. Heminges and Condell, on sitting on the stage, 136. Henrietta, Queen, attends theatre, 97°. Henry VII, and Master of the Chil- dren, 63 ; uses Children of Chapel as actors, 69. Henry VIII, dissolves monasteries, and grants Blackfriars to favor- ites, 30-31; residents of Black- friars under, 37; and Master of Children, 63 ; uses Children of Chapel as actors, 69. Henslowe, Philip, contract by, for Fortune, 7^-8, 29 ; contract by, for Hope, 7''-8, 30; list of dramatists employed by, 163^; lost dramas of, with local allusions, 164; on Rose players in the country, 175^. History of children-companies, un- known, vii, viii. Histriomastix. See Marston. Hope theatre, contract for, 7"-8, 30^ 31; date of, 9^;, cost of, 30, 33; size and capacity of, 30-31, 33, 50'; modeled on Swan, 30, 31'; engraving of, 32'; stage of, 33, 45, 134, 138; document on uses of, 33°; location of, 33°, 153'; gen- tlemen's rooms of, 42°; "orches- tra" of, 42°, 138. Hunnis, William, commission to, to take up children, x, 65, 66-, 70; death of, 58'; succeeded by Gyles as Master of Children of Chapel, 58', 128°. Imitations, of Blackfriars Children and offsprings, 1, 16, 117', 131, 163; of Blackfriars in Germany, 109, 111; of English actors in Germany, 110°; of Court of Louis XIV, 111 ; of Blackfriars customs, 130, 136, 141-47, 163; of Black- friars plays, 166-68; evidences of, incomplete, 166 ; by Blackfriars dramatists, 167-68. Impressment of children, under Elizabeth, x, 60'-63, 64", 65', 66", 67^ before Elizabeth, 63-64. See Commission. InterludiOj at Blackfriars, and of modern drama, 9, 122. See Mu- sic, Singing. Intermezzos, at Blackfriars, and in modern drama, 9, 133. See Mu- sic, Singing. Internal evidences of plays, historic- al unsubstantiativeness of, 7'-8, 49', 131°, 137°, 167, 167*. See Stage-directions. 198 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Isle of Dogs. See Nash. Isle of Guls. See Day. lack Drum's Entertainment. See Marston. James I, masque within the play under, xii, 5, 113; children-com- panies under, 1, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 44'°-45', 74, 105, 110=, 113, 117', 121, 163, 177=, 183; offends Scotland with choristers, 3;' fu- neral of, 3; music and dancing in plays under, 5, 113; private the- atres under, 7, 8, 9'; suppresses Blackfriars children, 13, 44'°-45', 177"; satirized by Blackfriars, 15, 163\ 177=-78; and building of new Globe, 34'; reduces Blackfriars to public-theatre level, 74, 183; state control of theatres under, 74, 148, 183; Court-entertainments of, and Blackfriars influences, 123; re- vokes Elizabeth's theatrical or- ders, 149^-50, 161'; contention of, with City over Blackfriars, 154"; as James VI of Scotland, patron- izes Fletcher's actors, 175^ Jests at Blackfriars, in Byron trag- edies 15, 44", 163; in Cynthia's Revels, 132°, 165=; on my fine gentleman, 48', 132°, 133*. 165= 177=. Jests to Make you Merry. See Dekker. Jig, 118. Jonson, Ben, in stage-quarrel, x-xi, xil, 133, 140, 158, 165-66=, 168. 169-72, 178-81; rank of, 12; as dramatist for children-companies, 12, 41', 171; "in a gallery" at Blackfriars, 41'; and "gallants in the lords' rooms," 41'; and Chap- man as writers of masques, 121'; Malcontent dedicated to, 172. Apologetical Dialogue, reply to Satiromastix, 171. — ; — Case is Altered, The, ear- liest play at Blackfriars, 58; act- ors required in, 75=; evidences in of smging, 114'; music, 116'; dancing, 118; satirizes "public" theatres and their audiences, 176'. ■ Cynthia's Revels, on bugle- blast at opening of play, 11'; on music and tiring-house at Black- friars, 48=; actors in, 75=, 76', 133°; masque in, and Queen's re- quirements at Blackfriars, 97', 322 ; evidences in, of singing. 114 ; music, 116'; dancing, 118'; masque within, 119; on sitting on stage, 132'; on audiences, 165; satirizes Marston and Dekker, 170; satirized in What you Will 171; satirizes "public" theatres! 176'. ' ;— Devil is an Ass, The, on sitting on the stage, 142'. Epicoene, and children-act- ors, 12. Every Man in his Humour, and stage-quarrel, 170. Every Man out of his Hu- mour, on sitting on the stage, 132 ; on Marston, 170; plagiarized by Dekker et al., 170. — — Page of Plymouth, with Dekker, 170. Poetaster, on hugle-blast at opening of play, 11'; satirized in ^atiromastix, 41', 133, 171; actors in, 75 , 76 ; evidences in, of sing- '"f J 11* ; music, 116' ; dancing, 118 ; masque within, 119; satir- izes Dekker, 133; Dekker's late reference to, 133'; on audiences, 165—66. — -^"ftf^ // King of Scots, with Dekker, 170. See Blackfriars, quarrel. Jonson-Marston-Dekker, quarrel of x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66'' 168, 169-72, 178-81. ' Plays, Stage- Killigrew. See D'Avenant-Killi- grew. Kirkham, Edward, suits at law by ^^'.,P9~91; provides apparel for Children, 83, 98-100, 103-4 126- articles by, with Evans et 'al., 85* 87-91 102; as Yeoman of the Revels, 87', 89', 99, 101, 103-4; as important factor at Blackfriars, oni' ™u®''ability of testimony of, 89 ; the said complainant," 98- Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall, ar- ticles of agreement by, with Ev- ans, 85, 87=-91 ; new partners with Evans at Blackfriars, 87, 102, 103- 4; agreement of, to share profits SUBJECT INDEX 199 and expenses at Blackfriars, 89'- 90, 91, 92', 126, 129; carry out Queen's will, 113, 115. Kirkman's Drolls, picture of Red Bull from, 7'-8. Law, against strolling players, 150, 152', 175'; against criticism in stage-plays, 164, 176, 181". Lease of Blackfriars, to Shakespeare and fellows, 10, M', 35, 44", 45', 56'; to Evans, 17, 40, 56', 57-58, 84, 88, 127, 128'; date of, 10, 17, 35, 44'°, 57, 84; amount for, 45', 57 ; surety and bond for, 57, 85', 90; term of, 57, 84; assignment of, to Hawkins, 85-86, 89°. Light. See Candle. Local allusions. See Plays. London. See City. London social centre, at Blackfriars, 7, 35-36, 43, 45, 48', 51, 95-97; and other theatres, 51, 161. Lord Mayor. See City. Lords' rooms, at Blackfriars, 6, 41°- 43, 49, 50-plat-51, 124, 140, 141. Lyly, John, Campaspe and Sapho and Phao, at Blackfriars, 24. Maintenance of Children at Black- friars, by the Queen, x, 3, 4, 40, 71, 73-76, 91-92, 95, 98-104, 105, 106-7, 126, 127, 128-29, 178-82; expenditures for, x, 5, 91-92, 100, 101', 103, 104, 136, 127, 128-29, 178. Malcontent, The. See Marston. Marston, John, in stage-quarrel, x- xi, xii, 169-72, 178-81; as writer of masques, 121 ; as Blackfriars poet, 171. Antonio and Mellida, and stage-quarrel, 170. Antonio's Revenge, and stage-quarrel, 170. Dutch Courtezan, The, on galleries at Blackfriars, 42; actors required in, 75' ; evidences in, of singing, iW; music, 116'; danc- ing, 118' ; masque within, 120 ; and stage-quarrel, 171. Histriomastix, songs in, 10; touches Jonson, 169; jibed at by Jonson, 170. Jack Drum's Entertainment, Malcontent, The, on music in theatres, 10', 116'; actors re- quired in, 75'; evidences in, of singing, 114*; music, 116'; danc- ing, 118'; masque within, 121; an- nexed by Globe, 134; on sitting on the stage, 134*, 138; at Black- friars and Globe, 134; and stage- quarrel, 171; dedicated to Jonson, 172. Scourge of Villainy, The, glances at Jonson, 169; jibed at by Jonson, 170. What You Will, on size of and stage-quarrel, 171. Paul's stage, 43, 130; evidences in, of singing, 114*; music, 116'; dancing, 118'; on sitting on the stage, 130-31; satirizes Cynthia's Revels, 171. Marston, Chapman, Jonson, East- ward Ho, indiscretions of, 15. Masque, within the play, at Black- friars, xi, xii, 5, 10*, 44, 97', 113, 114, 119-21, 122-24, 163, 167; in- fluences of, xi, 123, 167 ; under Elizabeth, xi, xii, 5, 10*, 44, 114, 119-21, 122-24, 163, 167; under James I, xii, 5, 113; character of, 119; Bacchanalian features in, 119'; as new dramatic feature, 119, 132-23 ; list of, at Blackfriars, 119-21; origin of, 122'; elaborate requirements of, 123-34. with antimasque, 10*. at Court, 33, 118-19, 132', 133. Master of the Revels, and origin of private theatre, 6 ; Cawarden as, 21 ; the first, 21' ; Blackfriars as office of, 21-23; Whitefriars as office of, 22*; Tilney as, 23*, 87*, 101; Buck as, 87*; duties of, 100' ; accounts of, 101 ; Queen's order to, 155. May Day. See Chapman. Messalina picture of theatre-inte- rior, 7'. Middleton, Thomas, Roaring Girl, The, on sitting on the stage, 137. Model of theatre, Blackfriars as, ix, 8-9, 18', 35, 36', 36', 39', 43', 141, 151, 163; Globe as, 7'-8, 29*, 32', 39', 47', 137; Swan as, 30, 31*. Monopoly. See Theatrical. Monsieur D' Olive. See Chapman. Morris dance, 118. 200 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Much Ado about Nothing. See Shakespeare. Music, taught and practiced at Blackfriars, xi, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 71, 106-7, 113, 114, 115, 116-18, 121, 122, 163; Duke of Stettin's Diary on, 5, 10, 106-7, 113, 117; within the play, 5, 9-10, 114, 116, 121, 122; preceding the play, 5, 9, 10, 106-7, 113, 115, 117-18, 122; char- acteristic of children-plays, 9-10, 113, 116-18, 121, 122; character- istic of private theatre, 9-10', 122; in public theatres, 9, lO'-ll, 116'. 122; at Paul's, 9, 122; source of praeludia, interludia, and inter- mezzos in modern drama, 9, 122; stage-directions for, 10, 113, 116'- 18, 121; Malcontent on, 10', 116'; in The Tempest, 10'; of Black- friars orchestra, 10*, 48^; The Actors Remonstrance on, 10*; Cynthia's Revels on, 48''; in early German theatre. 111; "shows" containing, 115, 12l'-22; concerts, popularized by Blackfriars, 117', 121; publications of, for concerts, 117'. Musical entertainments. See Con- cert. Musical instruments, at Blackfriars, 106-7, 116, 117'. Musicale. See Concert. Musicians, in balcony, at Blackfri- ars, 48^ 50-plat-51; not in "or- chestra" of public theatres, 42°, 45, 137'. Nash, Thomas, Isle of Dogs, re- strained at Rose, 155, 181'. Necromantes. See Percy. Newington Butts theatre, date of, 9'; location of, 153'; dramatists for, 163'. Nobility, in evolution of private theatre, 5'-6, 22'; patronage of public theatres by, as model for German patronage, 111; Eliza- beth's law for patronage of the- atres by, 152, 152', 175'. Official conduct of Blackfriars, x, 1, 4, 26, 40, 51, 71, 73-76, 87, 91-92, 95-97, 98-104, 105, 106-7, 112, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128-29, 160, 173-74, 175-82; summary of evidences on, 126-29. Official orders. See Orders. Orchestra at Blackfriars, excellence of, 10; Whitelocke on, 10*. "Orchestra" in London theatres, meaning of, 42°-43, 45, 137"-38. See Gentlemen's rooms. Orchestral praeludia, interludia, and intermezzos, origin of, 9, 122. See Music, Singing. Orders, official, against theatres, significance of, cleared up, x, xii; false statement of City concern- ing, against Blackfriars, 53-54; Elizabeth's purposes in, 125, 129, 150, 151, 152, 154-55, 157, 175; limiting number of plays per week, 125, 156; period and num- ber of, 148; early, by Elizabeth, regulating Curtain and "Thea- tre," 148*; Puritanism not cause of, 148-50; request of City for, to suppress theatres, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 160; City neglects exe- cution of, 149, 153, 155, 156, 161', 16l'-62; revocation of, by James I, 149*-50, 161'; protective to Blackfriars, 153, 161", 175-76; against Rose, 155, 181'; favorable to Globe and Fortune, 155, 156; differentiating "public" and "pri- vate" theatre, 156-57; restraining Curtain, 158, 181' ; touching Black- friars and Paul's, 158'; general, against "public" theatres (1597), 149, 153; (1597-[8]), 155; (June, 1600), 125, 149, 156, 161'; (March II, 1601), 157-58; (Dec. 31, 1601), 125, 149, 160, 161'; (March 19, 1602-[3]), 162'. by City of London, to sup- press Blackfriars, 17", 53', 154', 161'. Page of Plymouth. See Jonson. "Pardon, general," meaning of, 77'. Patient Grisell. See Dekker. Paul's, the church Singing-school, 7, 107'; as private theatre, 7, 130', 153'; size and capacity of, 7; no galleries in, 7 ; date of, 8, 9', 153' ; music at, 9, 122; Satiromastix at, 11', 181; size of stage at, 43, 44, 130-31'; sitting on stage of, 44, 46', 130-31'; location of, 153'; re- strained, 158'; list of dramatists for, 163'; plays of, with local al- SUBJECT INDEX 201 lusions, 164; plays of, influenced by Blackfriars poets, 166-67. Paul's Boys, relations of, to pres- ent history, 1'; patronized by Elizabeth, 1', 4, 67, 151, 157; first at Blackfriars, 24; commission to Thos. Gyles to take up children for, 67', 107'; used as actors, 34, 69-70; music and singing in plays of, 9, 123; list of dramatists for, les'' ; plays of, with local allusions, 164 ; plays of, influenced by Black- friars poets, 166-67. Percy, W., The Faery Pastorall, Necromantes, and The Cuck- queanes and Cuckolds Errants, never acted, 49', ISl''; impossible stage-directions of, 131^. Phoenix theatre. See Cockpit. Plat, suggestive, of Blackfriars, ix, 47, 50-51, 52; of the Fortune, ix, 50-51, 52. Platter, Thomas, Diary (1599), on Curtain, Bear-Garden, and Globe, 7^-8; on comfort in London the- atres, 51'; on stage-apparel, 178". Play-acting, taught at Blackfriars, xi, 5, 71, 106-7, 113, 121-32', 124- 25, 180. Players. See Actors. Playhouse. See Theatre. Plays, recent discoveries of, xv, 164"; losses in, 14-15, 122, 163- 64, 172; law restricting criticism in, 164, 176, 181". at Blackfriars, chronology of, xi, xii, 75, 114°-18 ; influences of, on Shakespeare and contem- poraries, xi, 12-15, 123, 166-68, 174-82; masques within, xi, xii, 5, 10*, 44, 113, 114, 119-31, 123- ' 24, 163, 167; singing within, 5, 9-10, 113-15, 121, 163, 180; sing- ing preceding, 5, 9, 106-7, 115, 163, 180; music within, 5, 9-10, 114, 116, 121, 122, 163 ; music pre- ceding, 5, 9, 10, 106-7, 113, 115, 117-18, 163 ; dancing within, 5, 44, 118, 119, 163; shaped by condi- tions of dramatic freedom, 13-14, 113, 123 ; with local allusions, 15, 164-73 ; quality of, 15, 165 ; num- ber of, acted per week, 71, 106-7, 124-25; number of actors in, 74- 76, 127; list of, 75, 114-18; names of actors in, 76, 80', 132', 163, 165', 177'; Puritanic opposition to, 79, 126, 159; stage-directions corrob- orative of Duke of Stettin's Diary concerning, 113, 131; masque as new feature in, 119, 133-23; as comedies in high life, 124; imi- tated, 166-68 ; imitative, 167-68. _ by children-companies, sci- entific editing of, vii; character- istics of, 9-10, 14-15, 113, 114-19, 119-21, 122, 123-24 ; proportion of, 12, 163-64. Heminge and Condell's ad- dress in 1623 folio of Shake- speare's, on sitting on stage, 136. with local allusions, 14-15, 83-83, 86-87, 163-73, 177-78; the Byron tragedies as, 15, 163 ; evi- dences of losses of, in Henslowe's Diary, 14-15, 163-64; Hamlet among, 164, 173-82. Poets. See Dramatists. Popularity of Children at Black- friars, 80°, 85', 94, 104, 117'-18, 123, 124, 166, 173-74, 176-77. Praeludia, of early and modern drama, 9, 122. See Music, Sing- ing. Precedents for Children of Chapel at Blackfriars as actors, 1, 63-66, 68-70. "Private" and "public" theatres dif- ferentiated, 9, 12, 156-57, 161', 165", 176'. Privy Council, petition to, against Blackfriars, 17', 37, 53', 54, 128', 152, 154"; takes no action against Blackfriars, 53, 54, 128', 152; or- ders of, against public theatres, 54, 148, 149, 150'-51", 152, 153, 155, 156, 157-58, 160; City's re- quests to, to suppress theatres, 149, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160; orders of, not executed by City, 149, 153, 154, 155, 156, 161', 16l"-63 ; under James I, revokes Elizabethan or- ders, 149''-50, 161'; restrains Rose, 155, 181"; restrains Curtain, 158, 181". See City, Elizabeth, Orders. Profits at Blackfriars, by Burbage- Shakespeare company, 35, 45; agreement by Evans, Kirkham et al. to share, 89'-90, 91-93"; failure of, in public theatres, through Blackfriars, causes companies to travel, 173"-74, 175'. 202 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS "Public" and "private" theatres dif- ferentiated, 9, 12, 156-57, 161', 165", 176\ Publications on children-companies, vii, xii. Puritanism, opposition of, to Eliza- beth's theatrical purposes, 4, 79, 126, 149, 150, 159; in Clifton's attack, 126, 150, 159; not cause of orders against theatres, 148- 00, 156. Purposes, theatrical, of Elizabeth, 1, 4, 71, 87, 96, 112, 113, 125, 137, 128^ 129, 148-62, 150', 151", 153, 154, 157, 159, 175. Queen. See Elizabeth, Henrietta. Realism, influence of Blackfriars plays on, 167. Red Bull theatre, picture of, 7'-8, 52, 135, 138; date of, 9"; audience of, in relation to stage, 52; sitting "over" stage at, 135 ; sitting on the stage at, 138. Reformation of theatres, Elizabeth's plans and purposes in, 1, 4, 71, 87, 96, 112, 113, 125, 127, 128", 129, 148-62, 150', 151", 153, 154, 157, 139, 175; methods of, by City, 150-51, 153; methods of, by Eliz- abeth, 150°-51", 152-53, 154-55; duplicity of City in, 151, 153, 159,' 160, 16l'-63. Relations, of children-companies to dramatic and histrionic art, vii, viii, ix, xii, 1, 9, 12, 13, 14-15, 16, 105, 123, 141, 147, 180=; of audi- ences to stage, ix, 50-plat-51, 53; of Blackfriars to other theatres, poets, and players, x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66", 167, 168, 169^'2, 178-81 ; of gentlemen to yard- crowd, 53 ; of Der Bestrafte Bru- dermord to Hamlet, 184'. Rent, repairs, and expenses at Blackfriars, provisions for, 57, 89°, 89', 91-92, 100, 101'-2, 103, 104, 106-7, 113, 126, 127, 128-39, 173"-74, 175. Rental of Blackfriars, amount of, by Evans, 30', 45', 57, 178; amount of, by Shakespeare and associates, 45'; agreement by Ev- ans, Kirkham et al. to share, 89'- 90, 91, 92", 136, 139. Repertoire of Children at Black- friars, viii, 5, 75, 123. Revels. See Children of. Master of. "Revels" festival, meaning of, 6. Richard II, at Globe, in Essex con- spiracy, 157, 160. Richard IH, commission by, to take up children, 62°; reign and death of, 62"-63. Roaring Girl, The. See Middleton. Robert II King of Scots. See Jon- son. Rose theatre, date of, 9", 138; archi- tecture of, 18°; cost of, 30; rental value of, 30'; sitting on stage of, 138 ; location of, 153' ; restrained, 155, 181" ; Worcester's men at, go into country, 175^ Rossiter, Philip, lutenist, and man- ager of the Children of the Rev- els to the Queen at Whitefriars, 117' ; theatre of, in Blackfriars precinct, suppressed, 154", 161', 16l"-63. Rowley, William, new-found play by, XV, 164". Roxana picture of theatre-interior, 7" ; on sitting "over" stage, 135. Salisbury Court theatre, as private theatre, 9, ISC'* ; date of, 9' ; music at, 10*; modeled after Blackfriars, 18°, 36, 39°, 43°, 141; size of, 36, 39°, 43°, 141 ; documents concern- ing, 36°, 39°; stage of, 43-43°; Queen Henrietta at, 97°; sitting on stage of, 130, 141 ; location of, 153". Sapho and Phao. See Lyly. Satiromastix. See Dekker. School, the, in evolution of private theatre, 5'. Scourge of Villainy, The. See Marston. Seating capacity. See Capacity. Seats, at Blackfriars, 6, 49", 50- plat-51, 52; general comfort of, in theatres, 8, 34-35, 35', 50-51, 51', 52; at public theatres, 7, 136; prices of, at Blackfriars and vari- ous theatres, 112"-13. Secular uses of Children of Chapel, 1 ; origin of, 5. See BlacTcfriars, Children, Elizabeth. Shakespeare, William, new docu- SUBJECT INDEX 803 ments concerning, ix-x, 26\ 27*, 34', 44'°, 45\ 56', 123°; and asso- ciates lease Blackfriars theatre, 10, 34', 35, 44", 45', 56'; only great dramatist not writing for Chil- dren, 12; effect of theatrical con- ditions oi;i dramatic freedom of, 13-14, 123; as individual genius, 13-14, 167"; in competition with Blackfriars Boys, 13, 14, 15, 167- 68, 173-74, 175-82; errors con- cerning connection with Black- friars, 18 ; Blackfriars property of, 26', 27, 28 ; Heminge and Con- dell's address in 1623 edition of plays by, on sitting on stage, 136; on stage-quarrel, 158*, 168, 172, 173'-74, 180*-81, 183; influence of Blackfriars dramas on, 167 ; in- fluences of, on Blackfriars dramas and Chapman, 167-68 ; as giver and receiver of influences, 167''- Hamlet, date of, established. lations of, to Der Bestrafte Bru- dermord, 184'. Much Ado about Nothing, xi, 86, 168', 174-75', 182', 183" 84'; historical problems of, xi, 182-84'; historical value of chil- dren-passage in, as an original document, xi, 164, 173, 183; ante- dates Star Chamber decree, 86; satirized in May Day, 86, 168 ; on singing of Blackfriars Children, 115, 180 ; champions cause of pub- lic theatres against Blackfriars, 129, 168, 176; influence of Black- friars vogue on, 133, 167 ; minia- tures Blackfriars fad of sitting on stage, 133 ; local allusions of, 133, 164, 173'-74; censures Eliza- beth's theatrical partisanship, 158*, 178-81; on stage-quarrel, 158*, 178-82; escapes penalty of law against criticism, 164, 176, 181' ; on losses of genteel audi- tors to Blackfriars, 164, 175^7, 181-82; children-passage of, in Qi, Qj, Fi, quoted, 173'-74; and interpreted on historical basis, 173-85 ; holds Queen's patronage of Blackfriars as cause of com- panies traveling into country, ]75°-76; "logic" of art in chil- dren-passage of, 178-81'; cause of partial omissions in 1604 quarto of, 182-83 ; new significance to quarto and folio differences in children-passage of, 183-84'; re- character-extensions of, in Sir Giles Goosecap, 167; date of, 167. The Taming of the Shrew, traces of influences of, in The Widow's Tears, 168 ; why men- tions strolling players, 175'-76; probable date of, 168, 175'. The Tempest, as first play by Burbage-Shakespeare company at Blackfriars, 10"; influences on, by Blackfriars vogue, 10, 167; date of, 10. Troilus and Cressida, theat- rical partisanship of, 168, 172; date of, 168. Twelfth Night, character- extensions of, in The Gentleman Usher, 167-68 ; and in M. D' Olive, 168; date of, 168. Shirley, James, The Triumph of Peace, masque with antimasque of, 10*. "Showe, a," at Court, by Black- friars Boys, 115, 121 ; probable authors of, 121'. See Concert, Music, Singing, taught and practiced at Blackfriars, xi, 4, 5, 9, 10, 71, 80', 106-7, 113-14*, 115, 117, 121-23, 163, 180; Duke of Stettin's Diary on, 5, 10, 106-7, 113, 115, 117-18, 121 ; within the play, 5, 9-10, 113- 14*, 115, 163, 180; preceding play, 5, 9, 10, 106-7, 113, 115-16, 117, 163, 180; in concert, musicale, "showe," or praeludia, 5, 9, 10, 106-7, 113, 115, 117-18, 121, 122; characteristic of private theatre and children-plays, 10, 122; Clif- ton's charges concerning, 80-80', 114, 115 ; Clifton's charges dis- proved, 80, 113M4*, 115, 180; stage-directions for, 113, 114*, 121 ; Hamlet on, at Blackfriars, 115, 180; chief exhibitions of, by Blackfriars Boys, not in plays, 115, 117, 121. Sir Giles Goosecap. See Chapman. Sitting on the stage, a custom at Blackfriars, xi, 7, 42°, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48', 50-plat-51, 53, 124, 130-47 ; at other private theatres, 44, 130, 136, 137*; not at Paul's 204 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS nor Whitefriars, 44, 130-31; as hindrance to players, 44, 142, 143- 46 ; at public theatres, 44, 45, 131*. 136-41; at Globe, 44, 134*, 136-41; in France, 46, 143-47 ; Guls Horne- Booke on, 46, 133*, 140", 140*; in Germany, 46, 146-47 ; origin of custom of, at Blackfriars, 130-34; a Blackfriars fad, 130, 141; at Cockpit, 130, 136, 137*, 141; at Salisbury Court, 130, 141, 143'; history of custom of, 130-47; Paul's plays on, 131', 131"; evi- dences of, 131-34, 136-41 ; Sir John Davies on, 132' ; Every Man out of his Humour on, 132" ; Cynthia's Revels on, 132°; Hamlet's utter- ance on, 133"; Blackfriars fad, miniatured in Hamlet, 133 ; All Fools on, 133-34"; Malcontent on, 134*, 136; Heminges and Condell on, in address to 1623 edition of Shakespeare's plays, 136* ; Follie's Anatomie on, 136'; Roaring Girl on, 137'; Devil's Last Will and Testament on, 138'; spread of the fashion, 141-47 ; Devil is an Ass on, 143; suppressed by Charles I, 143'; influences of, on French drama and acting, 143; D'Au- bignac on, 143; Tallemant des Reaux on, 143^"; Les Facheux on, 143-45 ; Voltaire's Discourse on Tragedy on, 145'; S emir amis on, 145^^-46; suppressed in France, 146 ; Goethe's Wahrheit u. Dicht- ung on, 146''-47. See Stage. Sitting "over" the stage, origin of, 134; as choice position, 134"; at public theatres, 134-36; evidences of, 134-35. See Davies, Dekker, Fortune, Globe, Red Bull, Rox- ana, Skialetheia. Size, of Blackfriars, ix, 7, 28, 35, 36, 38-39, 43', 46, 49', 50-plat-51, ]28''; of Paul's, 7; of Whitefriars, 7, 36; of Cockpit, 8, 36, 39^ 141; of Fortune and Globe, 39, 49', 50- 51, 52, 137. See Capacity, Stage. Skialetheia, on sitting "over" stage, 135'; on the "gull," 138'-39. Social centre, at Blackfriars, 7, 35- 36, 43, 45, 48', 51, 95-97 ; at other theatres, 51, 161. Songs. See Singing. Source, of Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, 1, 70, 71, 112, 150; of Children of Revels, 1, 74; of music in modern drama, 9, 122; of private theatre, 5-6, 13. Sources, for knowledge of public theatre, 7"-8. Spectacular effect, at Blackfriars, 106-7, 124, 177. Stage, at Blackfriars, location of, ix, 36, 43', 141-42; position of, relative to audience, ix, 50-plat- 51, 52; gallants on, xi, 7, 42", 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48', 50-plat-51, 52, 124, 130-47 ; size of, 38, 43-47, 50- platr51 ; position of, relative to lords' rooms, 42", 46-49, 50-plat- 51; structure of, 42", 45, 46, 47, 141-42; equipment of, at acquisi- tion of Blackfriars by Shakespeare and fellows, 45'; influences of, on French stage, 46, 143-47; plastic, 47, 48-49; plat of, 47, 50-51; and modern, 47^ 47'; balcony of, 48, 50-plat-51; curtains or traverses of, 48', 50-T)lat-51; canopy on, 48*; furnishing and equipment of, 48"-49, 55; individuality of, 49; unhistorical, 49', 137"- at Cockpit, size of, 43; sit- ting on, 44, 130, 136, 141. at Curtain, unhistorical, 49', 137'; sitting on, 138.. at Fortune, size of, 45, 47, 50-plat-51 ; sitting on, 45, 137-38 ; position of audience relative to, 52; position of gentlemen's rooms and yard-crowd relative to, 52; sitting "over," 136. at Globe, size of, 45; sitting on, 45, 134*, 136-41; relation of gentlemen's rooms to stage-gal- lants on, 45, 134*, 136, 138; un- historical, 49', 137° ; position of audience relative to, 52 ; position of gentlemen's rooms and yard- crowd relative to, 52; sitting over, 136. at Hope, removable, 33; po- sition of, 45, 138; sitting on, 45, 138 ; sitting "over," 134. at Paul's, size of, 43, 44, 130- 31'; sitting on, 44, 46', 130-31'. at Red Bull, relation of au- dience to, 52; sitting "over," 135; sitting on, 138. SUBJECT INDEX 205 at Salisbury Court, size of, 43 ; sitting on, 44, 130, 141. at Swan, removable, 33 ; po- sition of, 45, 138; sitting on, 45, 138; sitting "over," 135. at "The Theatre," unhistori- cal, 49', 137*. at Whitefriars, size of, 43; sitting on, 44, 130. in France, sitting on, ix, 46, 143-47 ; modeled after Blackfriars, 46, 147. in Germany, sitting on, at Frankfurt, reported by Goethe, 46 ; modern, 48*. modern, size of, 47^; view of actors on, 47°; acting on, 134°. See Theatre. Stage and audience, relative posi- tions of, ix, 50-plat-51, 53; and gallants, in relation to gentlemen's rooms, 44, 45, 134', 136, 137-41. Stage and drama, relations of chil- dren-companies to, vii, viii, ix, xij, 1, 9, 12, 13, 14-15, 16, 105, 122, 141, 147, 180'. Stage-apparel, of Blackfriars chil- dren, furnished by Elizabeth, 5, 83, 91-92, 99, 100, 106-7, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 178, 183; furnished through Kirkham, 83, 99-100, 103- 4, 126; furnishing of, official, 100, 101, 103-4 ; superabundance and elegance of, 106-^, 124, 127, 178; expensiveness of, 126, 129, 178. of Children of King's Rev- els, value of, 178l of public theatre companies. 178; Thomas Platter on excel- lence of, 178'; value of, 178'; Robert Green's report on value of, 178'. Stage-directions, as corroborative but unsubstantiative evidence, 7'- 8, 49\ 113, 121, 131°, 137°, 167, 167' ; as sources on public theatre, 7'-8; for music, 10, 113, 116'-18, 121; for singing, 113, 114*, 121; in Percy's plays, impossible and valueless, 131°. Stage-history, of 1597-1603, x, 148- 72; new perspective of, x, 54, 99, 105, 126-29, 148-62. Stage-quarrel, impersonal side of, as incidental to relations of Black- friars to theatres, poets and play- ers, xi, xii, 165-66', 168, 169-72, 180*; at Globe and Blackfriars. 158, 168-72, 181 ; Shakespeare cen- sures Elizabeth's partisanship in, 158*, 178-81; Shakespeare's atti- tude toward, in Hamlet, 158*, 173- 82; and in Troilus and Cressida, 168, 172; given wrong historical aspects, 169'. personal side of, Jonson- Marston-Dekker in, x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66', 168, 169-72, 178- 81. Star Chamber, Court of, Clifton's Complaint in, against Blackfriars, 36, 70, 71\ 73-74, 77-83, 84-87°, 100, 101, 102, 113-14*, 115, 128, 128°, 159, 160, 180; interpretation of Gyles's commission by, in prac- tice, 70-^1, 83, 127; decree of, against Evans, 81-83, 84-87°, 87- 91, 93-94, 103, 115, 126, 159; de- cree of, satirized by Chapman, 82, 86-87. See Clifton, Decree, Eliz- abeth, Evans, Gyles. State control of theatres, Elizabeth to Victoria, 148. Status of Blackfriars Children, 105- 25. Street, Peter, contractor for For- tune, 7'-8, 29*; builder of Globe, 29*. Strolling players, law against, 150, 152°, 175°; history of, 175°-76; Shakespeare's company as, 175°; other companies of, with dates, and Blackfriars as a cause, 175*. Structural details of Blackfriars, ix, 37-54 ; of other theatres, see Com- parative view. Summary of evidences on official conduct of Blackfriars, 126-29. Swan theatre, De Witt — Van Buchell sketch of, 7', 31', 33', 33*, 42*, 42°, 45, 52, 134, 137°; date of, 9'; ar- chitecture of, 18° ; De Witt's view and estimate of, 30-33 ; model for Hope, 30, 31*; size and capacity of, 30-31, 33, 50'; cost of, 31, 33; structure and finishing of, 32; • stage of, 33, 45, 135, 138 ; gentle- men's rooms in, 43°, 45 ; "orches- tra" of, 42°, 45, 137°; sitting on stage of, 45, 138; sitting "over" stage of, 135; location of, 153'. 206 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS Taming of the Shrew. See Shake- speare. Theatre, the, as a native instinct in- stitutionalized, 5'-6; as centre of social contact, 51, 95, 161; Puri- tan opposition to, 79, 149. Theatre, Chapel Royal as, 4'. Theatre, to "erect" or "set up" a, meaning of, 128*. "Theatre, The," date of, 9", it ; not first English theatre, 17'; archi- tecture of, 18^; cost of, 28-29; demolition of, 28''-29, 77% 155 ; un- historical stage of, 49", 137'; whether to be supplanted by Blackfriars, 54, 128', 152; orders regulating, 148'; opposition to, 149^; City's request to suppress, 152-53; location of, 153\ Theatre, private, sources of, 5-6, 12; characteristics of, 5-7, 18', 35, 43-49, 50-plat-51, 141-42; as fac- tor in the drama, 5\ 12 ; admis- sion price of, 6, 36, 112, 112", 177 ; Blackfriars as, of first impor- tance, 6, 18, 163; Master of Rev- els in relation to origin of, 6; galleries in, 6, 7, 41^-43, 46, 50- plat-51; gentlemen's or lords' rooms of, 6, 41', 41°, 42, 42°, 50- plat-51, 124, 140\ 141; only chil- dren-companies occupy, 7; list of, 7, 130", 136 ; accommodations for comfort of audiences in, 8, 34-35, 35\ 50-51, 51", 52; influences of, on theatre-structures, 8-9, 18', 35, 36, 39', 43', 141; differentiated from "public" theatre, 9, 12, 156- 57, 161' ; music and singing as fea- tures of, 9-10\ 122; becomes "public" in performances, 9; whether "small," 35, 38-39, 50- plat-51 ; stage-structure of, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 141; stages of, 43-47, 50-plat-51, 141; sitting on the stage of, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48", 50- plat-51, 52, 124, 130, 136, 137°, 140, 141, 142; capacity of, 47, 49, 50-plat-51, 52; unhistorical stage of, 49', 137'; location of, 153". See Blackfriars, Cockpit, Paul's, Salisbury, Whitefriars. public, relations of audience of, to stage, ix, 50-plat-51, 52; admission price at, comparative view of, ix, 6, 112''; plebeian ori- gin of, 7; characteristics of, 7, 18', 42", 44-49, 50-plat-51, 52, 137- 38; galleries in, 7, 42*, 52; stages of, 7, 33, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49', 50-plat-51, 52, 134*, 135, 136-41; seats in, 7, 136; structural fea- tures of, 7, 18°; sources of infor- mation on, 7^-8; provisions for comfort in, 8, 34-35, 35', 50-51, 51', 52; influences of Blackfriars on, 8, 9, 18', 35, 141; becomes "private" in form, 8, 9, 18°; dif- ferentiated from "private," 9, 12, 156-57, 161', 165', 176'; lack of music in, 9, lO'-ll, 116', 122; compared with Blackfriars in pre- tentiousness, 28-35 ; capacity of, 30-31', 33, 49, 50-platr51, 51', 52; materials of, 31°, 32', 34, 34'; stage-level gallery in, 42*, 42', 52; gentlemen's rooms in, 42'-43, 45, 49', 50-plat-51, 134*, 136, 137°-38, 141 ; "orchestra" of, 42'-43, 45, 50- plat-51, 137'-38; sitting on stage of, 44, 45, 131*, 136-41; gentle- men's rooms of, in relation to stage-gallants, 44, 45, 134*, 136, 137-41 ; unhistorical stages of, 49', 137°; relative positions of gentle- men to yard-crowd of, 50-platr- 51, 52 ; capacity of, compared with modern, 50'; noble patronage of, as model for German patronage, 111 ; unfriendliness of, to Eliza- beth, 129, 157, 148-62, 168; silting "over" stage of, 134-36; Eliza- beth's plans and purposes for, 129, 148-62, 175 ; state control of, Eliz- abeth to Victoria, 148 ; City's re- quests to suppress, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 160; official orders against, 149, 153, 156, 157-58, 160, 161', 162'; City neglects Queen's orders against, 149, 153, 154, 155, 156, 161', 16l'-62; City's method of reformation of, 150-51, 153; Elizabeth's method of reforma- tion of, 150°-5l', 152-53, 154-55; alliance of, against Blackfriars, 151, 153-55, 156-57, 158-62, 168; Elizabeth's law on noble patron- age of, 152, 152', 175'; location of. 153"; results of Queen's attitude toward, 155, 156-57, 158, 159, 163- 72, 175-82; Globe and Fortune companies retained but restricted SUBJECT INDEX 207 by Elizabeth, 155, 156; Black- friars attacked by City as, 161'; losses of patronage by, to Black- friars, 164-66, 176, 181-82; ob- scenity of plays at, 165-66. See Audiences, City, Elizabeth, Or- ders, Stage, Stage-quarrel, and individual theatres. in France, sitting on stage of, and stage-structure, imported, ix, 46, 143-47; galleries in, 46-47, 52. in Germany. See German. modern, stage-level galleries of European and American, 42*; of Freiburg, 42"; size of stage in, 47"; view of actors in, 47'; ca- pacities of American, compared with Elizabethan-Jacobean, 50' ; seats in, 51°; art of acting in, compared, 134'. Theatre and City vs. Crown, in re- lation to Blackfriars, x, 129, 149- 62, 168. See Blackfriars, City, Elizabeth, James, Shakespeare, Theatre, public. Theatres, companies, poets, and players, in relation to Blackfriars, x-xi, xii, 133, 140, 158, 165-66", 167, 168, 169-72, 178-81. Theatrical modes and customs, ori- gin of certain, 129. See Imita- tion, Masque, Music, Singing, Sit- ting on. Sitting "over." Theatrical monopoly, of D'Avenant and Killigrew, music regarded as an essential by, 11; throttles art of acting in England and Ger- many, 110° ; granted by Charles II, 148. Theatrical reformation. See Refor- mation. Theatrical relations. See Relations. Tilney, Edmund, Master of the Revels, Whitefriars as office for, 22'; accounts of, 101; salary of, 103". Training of Children of Chapel at Blackfriars by Queen's require- ment, xi, 4-5, 9-11, 40, 56, 59' -60, 71, 74, 80', 105-25, 127, 163, 180. Traveling of companies into the country. See Strolling. Triumph of Peace, The. See Shir- ley. Troilus and Cressida. See Shake- speare. Twelfth Night. See Shakespeare. Van Buchell. See Swan. Wardrobe. See Stage-apparel. Webster, John, new-found play by, XV, 164". What You Will. See Marston. Whitefriars, Children of King's Revels at, 1, 14, 15, 117', 121, 178"; Children of Revels to Queen at, 1, 13, 16, 110", 117', 121 ; early children-companies at, 6; as "Great Hall" of monastery, 7; as private theatre, 7, 9', 130'; size and structural features of, 7, 36; capacity of, 7 ; no galleries in, 7 ; date of, 8, 9'; dramatists for, 13- 14 ; on dramas of, 15 ; stage of, 43, 44, 130; sitting on stage of, 44, 130; location of, 153". Whitelocke, Bulstrode. See Or- chestra. Widdowes Teares, The. See Cliap- man. Yeoman of the Revels, provides ap- parel for Children at Blackfriars, 83, 99-100, 103-4, 126; Kirkham as, 87*, 89', 98-100, 101, 103-4; duties of, 99'-100'; expenditures by, oflScial, 100, 101, 103-4.