Chapter III: The Theatres (2)

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

THE CURTAIN THEATRE

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

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

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

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

“Luscus, what’s play’d to-day? faith now I know
I set thy lips abroach from whence doth flow
Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.
Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio,
Now I have him nere of ought did speak,
But when of Plays or Players he did treat
Hath made a common place book out of plays,
And speaks in print at least what ere he says
Is warranted by Curtaine plaudites.
If ere you heard him courting Lesbia’s eyes
Say, courteous Sir, speaks he not movingly
From out some new pathetic Tragedy.
He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts what not
And all from out his huge long scraped stock of well-penned plays.”

THE
HECTOR
OF
GERMANIE,

_OR_
THE PALSGRAVE;
PRIME ELECTOR.

A New Play, an Honourable Hystorie.

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

Made by W. SMITH, with new Additions.

_Historia vita Temporis._

LONDON,

Printed by _Thomas Creede_, for _Iosias Harrison_, and
are to be solde in Pater-Noster Row, at the
Signe of the _Golden Anker_. 1615.
]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Base fellows whom mere time
Hath made sufficient to bring forth a rhyme,
A Curtain Jig, a libel a ballad.”

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

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

NEWINGTON BUTTS

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

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

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

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

The 3rd of June, 1594, Ry. at Hester and Askeweros
(Hester and Assuerus).
„ 4th „ “The Jewe of Malta.”
„ 5th „ “Andronicous.”
„ 6th „ “Cutlacke.”
„ 8th „ “Bellendon.”
„ 9th „ “Hamlet.”
„ 10th „ “Heaster” (Hester and Assuerus).
„ 11th „ “The tamyinge of A Shrowe.”
„ 12th „ “Andronicous.”
„ 13th „ “The Jewe” (“The Jew of Malta”).

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

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

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

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

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

“Clodius methinks looks passing big of late,
With Dunstons browes and Allens Cutlacks gate.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ROSE THEATRE

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

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

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

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

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

“the gresyan comodey. The Grecian comedy.
Seser and Pompe. Cæsar and Pompey.
the frenshe docter. The French Doctor.
doctor fostes.” Doctor Faust.

and many other items equally ludicrous and illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the 29th of July, 1598--xll xiiijs.

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

“In the last great fire
The Rose did expire.”

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

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

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

A
CHAST MAYD
_IN_
CHEAPE-SIDE.

_A_
Pleasant conceited Comedy
neuer before printed.

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

By THOMAS MIDELTON Gent.

_LONDON_,

Printed for _Francis Constable_ dwelling at the
signe of the _Crane_ in _Pauls_
Church-yard.
1630.
]

THE SWAN THEATRE

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

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

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

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

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

(Fol. 131 verso).

Ex Observationibus Londinensibus Johannis De Witt.

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

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

(_Translation_).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The separate items are:

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

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

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

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

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

The boxes are marked “Orchestra” in the sketch.

4. Turned columns upon and over the stage.

5. Principals and forefront of the playhouse to be of oak; no fir to be used in the lowermost or under stones, except the upright posts or the back part of the said stones, all binding joists to be of oak.

6. To new tyle with English tyles all the upper roof of the said playhouse.

7. Also a louvre or storey over the said playhouse as it now is.

Several of the above particulars confirm the exactness of the drawing. It must not be forgotten that between the building of the Swan and that of the Hope nearly twenty years had intervened; in that time many improvements had taken place, but the essentials remain the same.

The Swan Theatre has little interest for students, the entertainments being chiefly devoted to bear-baiting, and other sports of a less exciting nature.

Francis Meres, the author of _Palladis Tamia_, published in 1598, refers to the Swan in the following passage: “As Antipater Sidonius was famous for extemporal verse in Greek.... And so is now our wittie Wilson, who, for learning and extemporal witte in this facultie, is without compare or compeere, as to his great and eternall commendations he manifested in his chalenge at the Swanne on the Banke-side.” A very interesting account of Shakespeare occurs in the same book: “As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honeytongued Shakespeare, witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred sonnets among his private friends, etc.”

A few more references to the Swan are still extant. A certain Peter Bromville appeared at this theatre in 1600, performing acts of activity, he having exhibited the same before the Queen. Acts of activity correspond to those acrobatic feats often seen at our present day music halls.

Another extract is from Dekker’s play “Satiromastic,” 1602. Tucca: “Thou hast been at Paris Garden, hast not?” Horace: “Yes, Captain, I have played Zulziman there.” I have searched in vain to find the name of the play in which the part of Zulziman occurs. Ben Jonson acted the part of Zulziman.

The Swan was often alluded to as Paris Garden. Middleton’s play of “A Chaste Maid in Cheapside” was performed there. Another notice relates how a knight, witnessing the last new play at the Swan, lost his purse containing seven angels. An angel was a gold coin, valued at ten shillings. A man named Turner was thrust through the eye and killed here whilst contesting there for a prize.

During the last years of the Swan, only fencing matches and gladiatorial exhibitions were given. The last notice of this theatre appeared in a pamphlet entitled “Holland’s Leaguer,” by N. Goodman, published in 1632: “Three famous amphitheatres can be seen from the turret, one the continent of the world (_i.e._, the Globe), to which, half the year, a world of beauties and brave spirits resort. A building of excellent hope for players, wild beasts and gladiators and another, that the lady of the Leaguer in fortress could almost shake hands with, now fallen to decay and like a dying swan, hangs her head and sings her own dirge.” A dying swan evidently refers to this playhouse. It was a popular belief that a swan fluted a wild carol in her death.

Mr. Ordish attributes this pamphlet to Shakerley Marmion, who wrote a play called “Holland’s Leaguer.” Mr. Ordish has by a clerical error mixed the babies up.

Before taking leave of the fortunes of the Swan Theatre I wish to relate an interesting event which took place there in the year 1602, which incidently throws considerable light on how Elizabethan managers advertised their special shows on important occasions. The circumstances are described in a letter from John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton in 1602.

“And now we are in mirth I must not forget to tell you of a cosening prank of one Venner, of Lincoln’s Inn, that gave out bills of a famous play on Saturday, was sevennight on the Bankside, to be acted only by certain gentlemen and gentlewomen of account. The price at coming was two shillings or eighteenpence at least, and when he had gotten most part of the money into his hands he would have shewed them a fair pair of heels, but he was not so nimble to get upon horseback, but that he was fain to forsake that course and betake himself to the water, where he was pursued and taken and brought before the Lord Chief Justice, who would make nothing of it but a jest and a merriment and bound him over on five pounds to appear at the sessions. In the meantime the common people, when they saw themselves deluded, revenged themselves upon the hangings, curtains, chairs, stone walls, and whatsoever came in their way, very outrageously and made great spoil, there was great store of good company and many noblemen.”

This event is referred to by Ben Jonson in his “Masque of Angurs, 1622.” Three of these gentlemen should have acted in that famous matter of “England’s Joy,” in 1603, but the date should be 1602. In a poetical effusion by Taylor, the Water Poet, he relates how one Fenner often confused with the real writer of “England’s Joy,” Venner, advertised himself as the author of this piece. This Fenner was the rival of Taylor as an extempore rhymester, and being challenged and the bills set up advertising the literary duel, Taylor prepared himself for the meeting. On the day appointed Fenner failed to come to the scratch, thereby causing Taylor to be branded as an impostor, which drew from him the following lines, published in his “A Cast over Water,” 1615:

“My defence against thy offence.”

“Thou bragst what fame thou gottst upon the stage,
Indeed, thou set’st the people in a rage
In playing ‘England’s Joy’ that every man
Did judge it worse than that done at the Swan.
To all your cost he will his wits employ
To play the second part of ‘England’s Joy,’
And poor old Venner that plain-dealing man,
Who acted ‘England’s Joy’ first at the Swan,
Paid eight crowns for the writing of these things,
Besides the covers and the silken strings.”