Chapter XXI: Introduction: The Public Theatres (3)

It is unlikely that the Theatre was ever opened again. It is certain that the Chamberlain’s men had moved to the Curtain before the end of 1597, and the abandonment of the old house is referred to unmistakably enough in a satire published in 1598.[1154] The explanation is to be found in the relations of the Burbadges to their ground landlord, Giles Allen. The following account is taken in the main from Cuthbert Burbadge’s allegations in litigation of 1600. On 1 November 1585, shortly before the termination of the first ten years of the lease, James Burbadge, as he was entitled to do, presented Allen with a draft of a new twenty-one years’ lease. This Allen evaded signing, apparently alleging that it was not in verbatim agreement with the old lease, and probably also that some of Burbadge’s covenants under the old lease had remained unfulfilled.[1155] By way of precaution, Burbadge thought it desirable to put on record in his account-book some evidence that he had spent the £200 in improving the tenements, upon which his right to remove the structure of the Theatre depended. He called in expert craftsmen, and took two ‘views’, one on 20 November 1585, another, after some further work had been done, on 18 July 1586. The first estimate was £220, the second £240. This last was later confirmed by a third view taken in connexion with the Brayne litigation in July 1591.[1156] The money had been spent, partly on ordinary repairs, partly on converting the old barn into tenements, partly on putting up two new houses, one of which was for Burbadge’s own occupation.[1157] The matter of the new lease now slumbered until the expiration of the old one on 13 April 1597 drew near. In 1596 negotiations took place between landlord and tenant, and a compromise was mooted, by which the new lease was to be granted, but for an increased rent of £24 instead of £14. Allen afterwards asserted and Cuthbert Burbadge denied that there was a proviso that after five years the building should be converted to some other use than that of a play-house.[1158] Cuthbert continued the negotiations after James Burbadge’s death in February 1597, but they finally broke down, and for a year or so the tenancy was only on sufferance.[1159] Finally, in the autumn of 1598, when Cuthbert had agreed to demands which he thought extortionate, Allen refused to accept his brother Richard as security, and all hope of a settlement disappeared.[1160] Cuthbert now resolved to avail himself of the covenant of the expired lease, under which the tenant was entitled to pull down and remove the Theatre. This he began to do, in spite of a protest from Allen’s representative, on 28 December 1598, with the concurrence of his mother and brother, and the financial aid of one William Smith of Waltham Cross.[1161] The work was still in progress on 20 January 1599, when Burbadge’s agent, Peter Street, carpenter, entered the close with ten or twelve men, and carried the timber to the other side of the river for use in the erection of the Globe. For this act Allen brought an action of trespass against Street in the Queen’s Bench, alleging that he had trampled down grass in the close to the value of 40_s._, and claiming damages for £800 in all, of which £700 represented his estimate of the value of the Theatre.[1162] Burbadge applied to the Court of Requests to stop the common law suit, alleging in effect that he was equitably entitled to act upon the covenant, even though the lease had expired, on account of the unreasonable refusal of Allen to grant the new lease when applied for, under the terms of the old one, in 1585.[1163] The issue really turned upon whether this refusal was reasonable. Allen said that James Burbadge had been a troublesome tenant, that he had converted the barn into eleven tenements, whose inhabitants became a nuisance to the parish by begging for their 20_s._ rents, that he had not repaired the building but only shored it up, that he had not spent the stipulated £200, and that £30 rent was in arrear at the time of the application of 1585 and was still unpaid.[1164] Probably these last two were the only allegations to which the court attached importance. Allen claimed that he had no remedy against James Burbadge’s estate, for he had made deeds of gift to his sons of his property, and his widow and administratrix was without funds. Burbadge, however, produced evidence of the estimates of 1585 and 1586, and suggested that his father had a counter-claim against the rent in the expense to which he had been put in maintaining his possession at the time of Peckham’s claim to the freehold. On 18 October 1600 the Court decided in his favour.[1165] Allen brought a Queen’s Bench action against him in 1601 for breach of agreement, and in 1601 complained to the Star Chamber of perjury on the part of the expert witnesses and other wrongs done him in the course of the earlier proceedings; but, although the conclusions of these suits are not on record, it is not likely that he succeeded in obtaining a favourable decision.[1166]

vii. THE CURTAIN

[_Bibliographical Note._--Some rather scanty material is
brought together by T. E. Tomlins, _Origin of the Curtain
Theatre and Mistakes regarding it_ in _Sh. Soc. Papers_,
i. 29, and Halliwell-Phillipps, _The Theatre and Curtain_
(_Outlines_, i. 345).]

The Curtain is included with the Theatre in Stowe’s general description of Holywell as ‘standing on the South-west side towards the field’. That it was somewhat south of the Theatre is indicated by a reference to it in 1601 as in Moorfields, a name given to the open fields lying south of and adjacent to Finsbury Fields. But, although it stood in the parish of Shoreditch and the liberty of Holywell, it was not, like the Theatre, actually within the precinct of the dissolved priory. _Curtina_ is glossed by Ducange as ‘_minor curtis, seu rustica area, quae muris cingitur_’, and the description is sufficiently met by the piece of land lying outside the southern gate of the priory, and on the other side of Holywell Lane into which that gate opened.[1167] A priory lease to the Earl of Rutland of his town house in 1538 described it as ‘_infra muros et portas eiusdem monasterii_’, and part of the holding consisted of stables and a hay-loft ‘_scituata et existentia extra portas eiusdem monasterii prope pasturam dictae Priorissae vocatam_ the Curtene’. Post-dissolution conveyances refer to a ‘house, tenement or lodge’ called the Curtain, and to a parcel of ground, enclosed with a wall on the west and north, called the Curtain close, which lay south of the Earl of Rutland’s house, and on which by 1581 stood various tenements, which were described as ‘sett, lyeng and being in Halliwell Lane’. The property in question formed part of the possessions of Sir Thomas Leigh of Hoxton at his death in 1543 and had formerly been conveyed to him by Lord Wriothesley. Through Leigh’s daughter Katharine it passed to her husband Lord Mountjoy. On 20 February 1567 it was sold for £40 to Maurice Long and his son William, being then in the occupation of one Wilkingeson and Robert Manne. On 23 August 1571 Maurice Long conveyed it for £200 to Sir William Allen, then Lord Mayor, possibly by way of mortgage in connexion with building speculations, since on 18 March 1581 it was in the hands of William Long, who then sold it to Thomas Herbert. There had evidently been an increase in the number of tenements on the site, and Thomas Wilkinson, Thomas Wilkins, Robert Medley, Richard Hicks, Henry Lanman, and Robert Manne are named as tenants.[1168] As Henry Lanman or Laneman had the profits of the theatre in 1585, there can be little doubt that it stood on part of the land dealt with in the conveyances. Halliwell-Phillipps thinks that it must have been situated ‘in or near the place which is marked as Curtain Court in Chassereau’s plan of Shoreditch, 1745’,[1169] and is now known as Gloucester Street. If so, it was very near the boundary between Holywell and Moorfields, much along the line of which now runs Curtain Road. But it must be remembered that Curtain Court may also have taken its name from the ‘house, tenement or lodge’ which already existed in 1567 and is mentioned as the Curtain House in the Shoreditch registers as late as 1639; and certainly in Ryther’s map (_c._ 1636–45) the theatre, though still bordering on Moorfields, is shown a good deal farther, both to the east and the south, than the point indicated by Halliwell-Phillipps.[1170]

The Burbadges claimed that James was the first builder of play-houses, but the Curtain must have followed very soon after the Theatre. It is not mentioned by name with its predecessor in the Privy Council order of 1 August 1577, but is in Northbrooke’s treatise of the following December. Up to 1597 its history is little more than a pendant to that of the Theatre, with which it is generally coupled in the Puritan attacks and in the occasional interferences of authority. From 1585 to 1592, indeed, it was used as an ‘easer’ to the Theatre, and the profits of the two houses were pooled under an arrangement between Henry Lanman and the Burbadges.[1171] The companies who occupied the Curtain can for the most part only be guessed at.[1172] At the time of the inhibition of 14 June 1584 it was probably occupied by Lord Arundel’s men. Tarlton appeared at it, but not necessarily after the formation of the Queen’s company.[1173] Prizes of the School of Defence were occasionally played at it from 1579 to 1583.[1174] Unlike the Theatre, the Curtain was certainly reopened after the inhibition of 1597. It is likely that the Chamberlain’s men repaired to it in October of that year, and remained at it until the Globe was ready in 1599. The same satirist, who tells us that the Theatre was closed in 1598, tells us that the Rose, which was continuously occupied by the Admiral’s men, and the Curtain were open;[1175] and a clue to the actors at it is given by Marston’s reference to ‘Curtain plaudities’ in the closest connexion with _Romeo and Juliet_.[1176] In 1600 Robert Armin, of the Chamberlain’s men, published his _Fool upon Fool_, in which he called himself ‘Clonnico de Curtanio Snuffe’. In the 1605 edition he changed the name to ‘Clonnico del Mondo Snuffe’. The direct connexion of the Chamberlain’s men with the Curtain probably ended on the opening of the Globe. But a share in it belonged to Thomas Pope, when he made his will on 22 July 1603, and another to John Underwood, when he made his on 4 October 1624. Both were of the Chamberlain’s men, although Underwood cannot have joined them until about 1608.

The Curtain did not go entirely out of use when the Chamberlain’s left it. It must have been the theatre near Bishopsgate at which Thomas Platter saw a play in September or October 1599.[1177] It is possible that Kempe (q.v.) was then playing there. In March 1600 one William Hawkins, barber, of St. Giles’s without Cripplegate was charged at the Middlesex Sessions with taking a purse and £1 6_s._ 6_d._ at the Curtain, and Richard Fletcher, pewterer, of Norwich, was bound over to give evidence.[1178]

On 22 June 1600, when the Privy Council gave authority for the opening of the Fortune, they were given to understand by the Master of the Revels that it would replace the Curtain, which was therefore to be ‘ruinated or applied to some other good use’. This arrangement seems to suggest that the Curtain was in some way under the control of Alleyn or Henslowe. It was, however, departed from, and apparently with the tacit consent of the Council, as although they had occasion on 10 May 1601 to instruct the Middlesex justices to suppress a libellous play produced at ‘the Curtaine in Moorefeilds’, they did not take, as they might have done, the point that no play ought to have been produced there at all. On 31 December they were again insisting on the limitation of the theatres in use to two; and on 31 March 1602 they again departed from their own principles by licensing Oxford’s and Worcester’s men to play at the Boar’s Head. Henceforward three companies of men players were regularly tolerated, and when a draft licence was prepared for Worcester’s, or as they had then become Queen Anne’s, men early in the following year the Curtain and the Boar’s Head were named as ‘there now usuall howsen’. The Curtain is also specified for them in the Council’s warrant for the resumption of plays on 9 April 1604. About 1606 they also took into use the Red Bull, and thereafter but little is heard of the Curtain. The Queen’s men, however, played Day, Wilkins, and Rowley’s _The Travels of Three English Brothers_ there at some time before its entry on 29 June 1607. It was still theirs in April 1609, but may perhaps soon have passed to the Duke of York’s men. It is mentioned, with the Globe and Fortune, in Heath’s _Epigrams_ of 1610, and plays heard ‘at _Curtaine_, or at Bull’ and ‘a Curtaine Iigge’ are objects of ridicule in Wither’s _Abuses Stript and Whipt_ of 1613.[1179] It was used by an amateur company for a performance of Wentworth Smith’s _Hector of Germany_ in 1615, and it is obscurely referred to in I. H.’s _This World’s Folly_ of the same year.[1180] Malone gathered from Sir Henry Herbert’s office-book that it was used by Prince Charles’s men in 1622, and soon thereafter only by prize-fighters. It was still in use in 1624, and still standing in 1627.[1181]

viii. NEWINGTON BUTTS

A theatre, of which the history is very obscure, but which may have been built soon after the Theatre and Curtain, stood at Newington, a village one mile from London Bridge, divided from the Bankside by St. George’s Fields, and reachable by the road which continued Southwark High Street.[1182] Here there were butts for the practice of archery. Plays at Newington Butts, outside the City jurisdiction, are first mentioned in a Privy Council letter of 13 May 1580 to the Surrey justices. A similar letter of 11 May 1586 speaks more precisely of ‘the theater or anie other places about Newington’. A third letter, undated, but probably belonging to 1591 or 1592, recites an order of the Council restraining Strange’s men from playing at the Rose, and enjoining them to play three days a week at Newington Butts, and rescinds it, ‘by reason of the tediousness of the way, and that of long time plays have not there been used on working days’.[1183] Possibly the theatre had come into Henslowe’s hands, for his diary records that it was at Newington that the combined companies of the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s men began their first season after the plague of 1592–4, apparently playing there from 5 to 15 June 1594, and then going their separate ways to the Rose and the Theatre respectively. The theatre is mentioned in the list given by Howes in 1631.[1184] It is said to have been ‘only a memory’ by 1599.[1185] A bad pun is called a ‘Newington conceit’ in 1612.[1186]

ix. THE ROSE

[_Bibliographical Note._--All the more important documents are
printed or calendared from the _Dulwich MSS._ with a valuable
commentary in Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_ and _Henslowe Papers_,
and in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_ and _Henslowe’s Diary_.]

The Rose owed its name to the fact that it stood in what had been, as recently as 1547–8, a rose garden.[1187] On 3 December 1552 Thomasyn, widow of Ralph Symonds, fishmonger, granted to trustees, for her own use during life and thereafter to the charitable uses of the parish of St. Mildred, Bread Street, her ‘messuage or tennement then called the little rose with twoe gardens’ formerly in St. Margaret’s and then in St. Saviour’s, Southwark. St. Mildred’s still has a plan of the estate, which extended to about three roods.[1188] A ‘tenement called the Rose’ is referred to in a recital of a lease of Henry VIII’s reign as the eastern boundary of other tenements, by name the Barge, the Bell, and the Cock, which lay ‘vppon the banke called Stewes’ in St. Margaret’s, afterwards St. Saviour’s, parish, between the highway next the Thames on the north and Maiden Lane on the south.[1189] It is located by Mr. Rendle just to the east of the still existing Rose Alley. The site therefore lay in the Liberty of the Clink midway between those afterwards occupied by the Globe on the east and the Hope on the west. On 20 November 1574 the parish let the property for thirty-one years at £7 annually to William Griffin, vintner. Griffin assigned it on 11 December 1579 to Robert Withens, vintner, and Withens on 24 March 1585 to Henslowe.[1190] There was as yet no theatre. The first mention of one as in contemplation is in an agreement of 10 January 1587 between Henslowe and one John Cholmley, citizen and grocer of London, for partnership during the next eight years and three months, should both parties live so long, in a garden plot ninety-four feet square on the Bankside in the parish of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, and ‘a playe howse now in framinge and shortly to be ereckted and sett vppe vpone the same’. Under this Henslowe undertook to have ‘the saide play house with all furniture thervnto belonginge’ set up ‘with as muche expedicion as maye be’ by John Grigges, carpenter, to pay all rents due on the premisses, and to repair the bridges and wharves belonging to them before the following Michaelmas. Cholmley undertook to bear his share of any further cost of maintaining the premises, and also to pay Henslowe the sum of £816 in quarterly instalments. In consideration of this, he was to take half of all such profits as ‘shall arysse grow be colectted gathered or become due for the saide parcell of grounde and playe howse when and after yt shalbe ereckted and sett vpe by reason of any playe or playes, that shalbe showen or played there or otherwysse howsoever’. The partners are jointly to appoint ‘players to vse exersyse & playe in the saide playe howse’, and collect sums themselves or by deputy of all persons coming to the performances ‘excepte yt please any of the saide partyes to suffer theire frendes to go in for nothinge’. Cholmley is also to have the sole right of selling food or drink on the premises and a small house already in his tenure on the south of the plot close to Maiden Lane, ‘to keepe victualinge in’ or for any other purpose, and with a right of ingress from Thames side by Rose Alley.[1191] The deed does not name the property, but it cannot be doubted that it refers to a part of the Little Rose. Presumably the theatre was to be built on a garden at the back of the holding, and the existing tenement on Bankside was not to be interfered with. Henslowe had ‘Rosse rentes’ of a residential character in 1602 or 1603.[1192] Norden’s map (1593) puts the Rose farther from the river than the Bear Garden. The Delaram and Merian drawings, on the other hand, put it very near the river, and these, although of less authority than Norden, are followed in Mr. Rendle’s plan. Probably Norden’s Bear Garden was an older one than that which afterwards became the Hope.[1193] The provision as to the wharfs and bridges seems to indicate an intention to open the Rose at Michaelmas 1587, and I see no reason to doubt that it was in fact ready for occupation by about that date. On 29 October the Privy Council called the attention of the Surrey justices to complaints from Southwark of breaches of the rule against plays on Sunday, ‘especiallie within the Libertie of the Clincke and in the parish of St. Saviour’s in Southwarke’. There may, of course, have been plays at inns in the Clink, but it is more natural to take the protest as one against the newly opened Rose. No other regular theatre existed in the Clink at this time. That the Rose was built by 1588 appears from a record of the Sewer Commission for Surrey.[1194] It is not in Smith’s plan of 1588, but this may easily not have been quite up to date.

The next that is heard of the Rose is probably in 1592.[1195] In March and April of that year Henslowe, who had recently taken his famous ‘diary’ into use as a financial memorandum book, noted in it some building expenditure, and a little later set out ‘a note of suche carges as I haue layd owt a bowte my playe howsse in the yeare of our lord 1592’.[1196] Henslowe is not known to have owned Newington Butts, or any other theatre except the Rose, and it is reasonable to assume that this is what he meant by ‘my playe howsse’. The work probably began in or before January, as an entry halfway through the list is dated on 6 February. It entailed the purchase of a barge and a certain amount of breaking up and paling and wharfing. Henslowe appears to have done the work himself and not by contract. He bought a mast, turned balusters, boards and laths, in part from the carpenter Grigges who is named in the agreement with Cholmley, and in part from a ‘timber man’ called Lee. He bought bolts, hinges, and nails from the ironmonger at the Fryingpan in Southwark and from one Brader. He bought lime, sand, chalk, and bricks. He paid wages to carpenters, workmen, and labourers, and employed painters and a thatcher. The exact nature and extent of the work are not specified, but it included the painting of the stage, the ceiling of ‘my lords rome’, and ‘the rome ouer the tyerhowsse’, and the ‘makeinge the penthowsse shed at the tyeringe howsse doore’. It has sometimes been supposed that the Rose never got built in 1587, and that these are the accounts, or part of them, for the original construction. This seems to me most unlikely. The total expense, with the exception of a small number of items lost by the mutilation of a page, only amounted to about £108. This could not cover more than repairs. On the other hand, these were clearly substantial repairs, and the fact that they were needed suggests that the building cannot have been a very new one. The lapse of five years since 1587 would, however, be consistent with the necessity for them. Almost simultaneously with the earliest dated entries in the building account, begins on 19 February 1592 the record of performances by Lord Strange’s men, which continues to the following 22 June. If these were at the Rose, the paint on the stage can hardly have been dry in time for them, unless, as Dr. Greg suggests, the payments made in March and April were for work done a little earlier. That it was at the Rose that Strange’s men played seems indicated by the Privy Council order, reciting the restraint of this company ‘from playinge at the Rose on the Banckside’, which it is difficult to assign to any year but 1591 or 1592.[1197] It is a little curious that nothing more is heard of John Cholmley, and I think the natural inference is that he was dead and that the partnership had thereby, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, been automatically dissolved.[1198]

The assumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that until he acquired a share in the Fortune Henslowe had no proprietary interest in any other theatre must explain the assignment to the Rose of all the playing recorded in the diary between 1592 and the autumn of 1600, with the exception of the few performances definitely stated to have been at Newington Butts. The further conjecture must, I think, be accepted that the season begun by the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s men at Newington Butts in the summer of 1594 was transferred, so far as the Admiral’s men were concerned, to the Rose after 15 June. If so, the Rose housed Strange’s men again from 29 December 1592 to 1 February 1593, Sussex’s from 26 December 1593 to 6 February 1594, the Queen’s and Sussex’s together from 1 to 9 April 1594, and the Admiral’s from 14 to 16 May 1594, and then regularly from the following June until their transference to the Fortune in 1600. The only actual mentions of the theatre by name in the diary during this period are in the agreements of 1597 between Henslowe and the players Jones and Borne, in which Henslowe specifies ‘the Rosse’ as ‘my howsse’ in which they are to play. It was no doubt in use when Guilpin’s _Skialetheia_ (S. R. 8 September 1598) was written.[1199] In the Lenten interval of 1595 Henslowe made ‘A nott of what I haue layd owt abowt my playhowsse ffor payntynge & doinge it abowt with ealme bordes & other repracyones’. The expenditure reached a total of £108 19_s._, which was much about the same as that of 1592, and was supplemented in the following June by a further £7 2_s._ for carpenters’ work, including ‘mackinge the throne in the heuenes’.[1200] The accounts of 1592 and 1595 suggest that the building was of wood and plaster on a brick foundation, and this is consistent with Hentzner’s statement of 1598. Part of it, at least, was thatched. If the maps can be trusted, it was octagonal. In 1600 Henslowe had to find new occupants for the Rose. He records that Pembroke’s men began to play there on 28 October, but only enters two unprofitable performances. Possibly the Privy Council, who had decreed in the previous July a limitation of houses to one on each side of the river, interfered. But this limitation was certainly not permanent. There is a receipt for a play bought for Worcester’s men ‘at the Rose’, and they probably used the house during the term of their account with Henslowe between August 1602 and May 1603. Subsequently they moved to the Curtain and Boar’s Head. Henslowe’s lease of the site was due to expire at the end of 1605, and this explains to some extent the following entry in the diary:

‘The 25 of June 1603 I talked with M^r. Pope at the scryveners
shope wher he lisse consernynge the tackynge of the leace a new
of the littell Roosse & he showed me a wrytynge betwext the
pareshe & hime seallfe which was to paye twenty pownd a yeare
rent & to bestowe a hundred marckes vpon billdinge which I sayd
I wold rather pulle downe the playehowse then I wold do so & he
beade me do & sayd he gaue me leaue & wold beare me owt for yt
wasse in him to do yt.’[1201]

It is impossible to say whether ‘Mr. Pope’ was Thomas Pope of the King’s men at the neighbouring Globe, or Morgan Pope, who was formerly interested in the Bear House, or some other Pope; nor is it clear how he was in a position to authorize Henslowe to pull down the theatre. Dr. Greg draws the natural inference from the wording that he may have given his consent as a prospective lessee of the property.[1202] In any case the Rose was not pulled down until two or three years later. The Sewers records show that in January 1604 not Philip but Francis Henslowe was amerced 6_s._ 8_d._ for it, which may mean that Lennox’s men were playing there; that on 4 October 1605 Philip Henslowe was amerced, but return was made that it was ‘out of his hands’; that on 14 February 1606 Edward Box, of Bread Street, London, was amerced for it; and that on 25 April 1606 Box was amerced for the site of ‘the late play-house in Maid lane’.[1203]

There is no record of plays at the Rose after 1603.[1204] It is in the Delaram engravings, but not in any later views except those of the Merian group, where it appears, flagged but unnamed, on the river edge.[1205] Nor is it mentioned with the Hope, Globe, and Swan in _Holland’s Leaguer_ (1632). The explanation may perhaps be that the Merian engraver followed some out-of-date authority, such as Delaram, which had got the house farther north than Norden puts it, and as it had long ceased to exist, did not know its name. On the other hand, it is also just conceivable that for a short period the Rose, or some other building at the north end of the Rose site, had a renewed life as a place of public entertainment. Alleyn was paying ‘tithe dwe for the Rose’ in 1622.[1206] And Malone cites Herbert’s ‘office-book’ for a statement that after 1620 the Swan and the Rose were ‘used occasionally for the exhibition of prize-fighters’.[1207]

x. THE SWAN

[_Bibliographical Note._--John de Witt’s description and plan
are published in K. T. Gaedertz, _Zur Kenntnis der altenglischen
Bühne_ (1888), and more exactly by H. B. Wheatley in _On a
Contemporary Drawing of the Swan Theatre_, 1596 (_N. S. S.
Trans. 1887–92_, 215). They are discussed by H. Logemann in
_Anglia_, xix. 117, by W. Archer in _The Universal Review_
for June 1888, by W. Rendle in _7 N. Q._ vi. 221, by J. Le G.
Brereton, _De Witt at the Swan_ (1916, _Sh.-Homage_, 204), by
myself in a paper on _The Stage of the Globe_ in _The Stratford
Town Shakespeare_, x. 351, and in most recent treatises on
Elizabethan staging; cf. chh. xviii, xx. Earlier material is
collected by W. Rendle in _The Play-houses at Bankside in the
Time of Shakespeare_ (_Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer_,
1885, vii. 207). The facts as to Langley’s purchase and the
pleadings and order in the suit of _Shawe et al. v. Langley_
before the Court of Requests in 1597–8 (cited as _S. v. L._)
are given by C. W. Wallace, _The Swan Theatre and the Earl of
Pembroke’s Servants_ (1911, _E. S._ xliii. 340). T. S. Graves,
_A Note on the Swan Theatre_ (_M. P._ ix. 431), discusses the
light thrown on the internal arrangements of the Swan by the
accounts of _England’s Joy_ in 1602.]

The Swan stood in the Liberty and Manor of Paris Garden, at the western end of the Bankside. This manor, from which the royal ‘game’ of bear-baiting took its traditional appellation, had come into the hands of the Crown as part of the possessions of the dissolved monastery of Bermondsey. It was granted in 1578 to nominees of Henry, Lord Hunsdon, conveyed by them to the Cure family, and sold for £850 on 24 May 1589 by Thomas Cure the younger to Francis Langley, a citizen and goldsmith of London. Langley, who was brother-in-law to Sir Anthony Ashley, one of the clerks to the Privy Council, held the office of Alnager and Searcher of Cloth, to which he had been appointed by the Corporation on the recommendation of the Privy Council and Sir Francis Walsingham in December 1582.[1208] The site of the theatre can be precisely identified from a plan of the manor dated in 1627, but based on a survey of 1 November 1624.[1209] It was in the north-east corner of the demesne, east of the manor-house, twenty-six poles due south of Paris Garden stairs, and immediately west of a lane leading to a house called Copt Hall. The outline shown is that of a double circle, or perhaps dodecahedron, divided into twelve compartments, with a small porch or tiring-house towards the road. The exact date of building is unknown. On 3 November 1594 the Lord Mayor wrote to Burghley that Langley ‘intendeth to erect a niew stage or Theater (as they call it) for the exercising of playes vpon the Banck side’, and detailed the usual civic objections to the stage as arguments in favour of the suppression of the project.[1210] It is probable that Burghley refused to intervene and that Langley proceeded at once with the erection of the Swan, which may then have been ready for use in 1595. It is impossible, without the Swan, to make up the tale of four ‘spielhäuser’ seen by the Prince of Anhalt in 1596 (360). To 1596 again is assigned, although with probability rather than certainty, the visit of John de Witt, who not only names but also describes and delineates the Swan.[1211] In any case the Swan had already been in use by players before February 1597, when Langley entered into an arrangement for its occupation by Lord Pembroke’s men.[1212] The terms of the lease provided that he should make the house ready and furnish apparel, which he alleged cost him £300, and should get his return for this expenditure out of the company’s moiety of the gallery takings, in addition of course to the other moiety which in accordance with theatrical custom went to him as rent.[1213] The enterprise was rudely interrupted by the production of _The Isle of Dogs_ at the Swan itself, and the restraint of 28 July 1597 which was the result. The leading members of Pembroke’s company joined or rejoined the Admiral’s at the Rose, and became involved in litigation with Langley on account of their breach of covenant.[1214] For a time Langley succeeded in keeping a company together, and the Swan remained open.[1215] It was perhaps the intention of the Privy Council order of 19 February 1598, against an intrusive ‘third company’ which was competing with the Chamberlain’s and the Admiral’s, to close it.[1216] If so, Langley may still for a time have found means of evasion, since on the following 1 May the vestry of St. Saviour’s were viewing new buildings of his, and at the same time negotiating with Henslowe and Meade for money for the poor ‘in regarde of theire playe-houses’.[1217] During the next few years, however, such notices as we get of the Swan, while showing that it was still in existence and available for occasional entertainments, carry no evidence of any use by a regular company. Francis Meres, in his _Palladis Tamia_ of 1598, tells us that it was the scene of a challenge in ‘extemporall’ versifying by Robert Wilson.[1218] It was one of the wooden theatres which were seen by Hentzner in the same year, and no doubt the one near which he describes the royal barge as lying.[1219] On 15 May 1600 the Council sanctioned its use for feats of activity by Peter Bromvill.[1220] On 7 February 1602 it was occupied by fencers, and while two of these, by names Turner and Dun, were playing their prizes upon its stage, Dun was unfortunate enough to receive a mortal wound in the eye.[1221] On 6 November 1602 it was chosen by Richard Vennar for his impudent mystification of _England’s Joy_. The accounts of this transaction show that it was fitted with ‘hangings, curtains, chairs, and stools’, and capable of scenic effects, such as the appearance of a throne of blessed souls in heaven and of black and damned souls with fireworks from beneath the stage.[1222] Meanwhile Langley had died in 1601 and in January 1602 the Paris Garden estate was sold to Hugh Browker, a protonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, in whose family it remained to 1655.[1223] About 1611 it was once more taken into use for plays. _The Roaring Girl_ (1611), itself a Fortune play, has an allusion to a knight who ‘lost his purse at the last new play i’ the Swan’,[1224] and the accounts of the overseers of Paris Garden contain entries of receipts from ‘the play house’ or ‘the Swan’ in each April from 1611 to 1615.[1225] The last entry is of so small an amount that it probably only covered a fraction of a year, and I think the inference is that the Swan was disused on the opening of the Hope in 1614.[1226] If so, it had probably been taken over by Henslowe for the use of the Lady Elizabeth’s men, who came into existence in 1611, and whose _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ was published in 1630 as ‘often acted at the Swan on the Bankeside’. The Hope itself was modelled structurally upon the Swan. Its measurements were the same, and it had similar partitions between the rooms and external staircases. Its heavens, however, were to be supported without the help of posts from the stage, since this had to be removable on days of bear-baiting. It is obviously illegitimate to infer from this specification that the stage of the Swan, which was not used for bear-baiting, was also removable. The accounts of the overseers show one more payment from the ‘players’ in 1621, which perhaps supports the statement contained in one of Malone’s notes from Sir Henry Herbert’s office-book, that after 1620 the Swan was ‘used occasionally for the exhibition of prize-fighters’.[1227] The theatre is marked ‘Old Play-house’ in the manor map of 1627. The last notice of it is in _Holland’s Leaguer_ (1632) as a famous amphitheatre, which was ‘now fallen to decay, and like a dying swanne hanging downe her head seemed to sing her own dierge’.[1228]

Many of the maps of the Bankside do not extend far enough west to take in the Swan. It is named and shown as an octagonal or decagonal building by Visscher (1616) and in maps of the Merian group (1638), but not by Hollar (1647).

xi. THE GLOBE

[_Bibliographical Note._--The devolution of the Globe shares
can be traced in the documents of three lawsuits: (_a_) _Ostler
v. Heminges_, in the Court of King’s Bench in 1616 (_Coram Rege
Roll_ 1454, 13 Jac. I, Hilary Term, m. 692), described by C.
W. Wallace in _The Times_ of 2 and 4 Oct. 1909, and in part
privately printed by him in _Advance Sheets from Shakespeare,
the Globe, and Blackfriars_ (1909), here cited as _O. v. H._;
(_b_) _Witter v. Heminges and Condell_, in the Court of Requests
(1619–20), described by C. W. Wallace in _The Century_ of Aug.
1910, and printed by him in _Nebraska University Studies_, x
(1910), 261, here cited as _W. v. H._; and (_c_) the proceedings
before the Lord Chamberlain in 1635 known as the _Sharers
Papers_, and printed by Halliwell-Phillipps in _Outlines_, i.
312. Professor Wallace’s descriptive articles require some
corrections from the texts of his documents. Much evidence
bearing upon the site of the theatre was collected by W. Rendle
in _The Bankside, Southwark, and the Globe Play-house_ (1877),
printed by the N. S. S. as an appendix to Harrison, pt. ii
(cited as Rendle, _Bankside_), in _Walford’s Antiquarian_,
viii (1885), 209, and in _The Anchor Brewery_ (1888, _Inns of
Old Southwark_, 56), by G. Hubbard in _Journal of the Royal
Institute of British Architects_, 3rd series, xvii. 26, and
_London and Middlesex Arch. Soc. Trans._ n. s. ii (1912), pt.
iii, and most fully by W. Martin in _Surrey Archaeological
Collections_, xxiii (1910), 149. Some additional facts, from
records of the Sewers Commission for Kent and Surrey in the
possession of the London County Council, and from deeds
concerning the Brend estate, were published by Dr. Wallace in
_The Times_ of 30 April and 1 May 1914, and led to discussion
by Dr. Martin, Mr. Hubbard, and others in _11 N. Q._ x. 209,
290, 335; xi. 447; xii. 10, 50, 70, 121, 143, 161, 201, 224,
264, 289, 347, and by W. W. Braines in _The Site of the Globe
Play-house_ (1921). A paper by the present writer on _The Stage
of the Globe_ is in the _Stratford Town Shakespeare_, x. 351.]

In the building of the Globe use was made of the materials of the old Theatre (q.v.) which, according to _Allen v. Burbadge_ (1602), the Burbadges, with Peter Street and others, pulled down on 28 December 1598, carried ‘all the wood and timber therof unto the Banckside in the parishe of St. Marye Overyes, and there erected a newe playehowse with the sayd timber and woode’.[1229] An earlier account gives the date of the audacious proceeding as 20 January 1599. The formal lease of the new site from the freeholder, Nicholas Brend of West Molesey, was executed on 21 February 1599. No doubt Street, who had assisted in the transfer, was the builder and had finished his job when on 8 January 1600 he contracted with Henslowe and Alleyn to put up the Fortune (q.v.) on the model, with certain modifications, of ‘the late erected plaiehowse on the Banck in the saide parishe of St. Saviours called the Globe’. This contract allowed twenty-eight weeks for the work. Probably the Globe took about the same time, for it is described as ‘de novo edificata’ in the inquisition on the property left by the lessor’s father, Thomas Brend, which is dated on 16 May 1599.[1230] It may not then have been quite finished, but it was doubtless ready for the occupation of the Chamberlain’s men by the beginning of the autumn season of 1599. One of the earliest plays there produced by them was Shakespeare’s _Julius Caesar_ which on 21 September Thomas Platter crossed the water to see ‘in dem streüwinen Dachhaus’.[1231] Whether the Globe or its predecessor the Curtain was the ‘wooden O’ of _Henry V_, 1, prol. 13, must be more doubtful, as the prologue to Act V of the same play contemplates the triumphant return of Essex from Ireland, and in fact Essex left England on 27 March and returned, not triumphant, on 28 September 1599.[1232] Jonson refers to ‘this faire-fild Globe’ as the scene of his _Every Man Out of his Humour_, produced in the autumn of 1600.[1233] The Privy Council order of the previous 22 June, which enacts that there shall be one allowed house only ‘in Surrey in that place which is commonlie called the Banckside or there aboutes’, goes on to recite that the Chamberlain’s men had chosen the Globe to be that one. The allowance of the house ‘in Surrey called the Globe’ is confirmed by the Privy Council letter of 27 December 1601. The order of 9 April 1604 authorizes the opening after the plague of ‘the Globe scituate in Maiden Lane on the Banckside in the Countie of Surrey’. This order evidently contemplates that the King’s men will use the house, which was assigned to them by name as ‘theire nowe vsual howse called the Globe within our County of Surrey’ by the terms of the patent of 19 May 1603. The precedent is followed in the later patents of 1619 and 1625, and there is nothing to indicate that any other company than the Chamberlain’s or King’s men ever performed, even temporarily, at the theatre.

The Globe was held by a syndicate, composed mainly of members of the company, on a leasehold tenure. The site, which had been garden ground, was described in the original lease with some minuteness as follows:[1234]

‘totam illam parcellam fundi nuper praeantea inclusam & factam
in quatuor separalia gardina nuper in tenuris & occupacionibus
Thomae Burt & Isbrand Morris diers & Lactantii Roper Salter
civis Londoniae continentem in longitudine ab oriente vsque
occidentem ducentos & viginti pedes assisae vel eo circiter
iacentem & adiungentem viae sive venellae ibidem ex vno
latere & abbuttantem super peciam terrae vocatam the Parke
super boream & super gardinum tunc vel nuper in tenura siue
occupacione cuiusdam Johannis Cornishe versus occidentem &
super aliud gardinum tunc vel nuper in tenura sive occupacione
cuiusdam Johannis Knowles versus orientem cum omnibus domibus
aedificiis structuris vijs easiamentis commoditatibus &
pertinentiis adinde spectantibus vel aliquo modo pertinentibus
quae dicta praemissa sunt scituata iacentia & existentia infra
parochiam sancti Salvatoris in Southwarke in Comitatu Surria
aceciam totam illam parcellam terrae nuper praeantea inclusam
& factam in tria separalia gardina vnde duo eorundem nuper in
tenura sive occupacione cuiusdam Johannis Robertes carpenter
ac aliud nuper in occupacione cuiusdam Thomas Ditcher civis &
mercatoris scissoris Londoniae scituatam iacentem & existentem
in parochia praedicta in praedicto comitatu Surria continentem
in longitudine ab oriente ad occidentem per estimacionem centum
quinquaginta & sex pedes assisae vel eo circiter & in latitudine
a borea ad austrum centum pedes assisae per estimacionem vel eo
circiter iacentem & adiungentem super alio latere viae sive
venellae praedictae & abbuttantem super gardinum ibidem tunc vel
nuper praeantea in occupacione Willelmi Sellers versus orientem
& super vnum aliud gardinum ibidem tunc vel nuper praeantea
in tenura Johannis Burgram sadler versus occidentem & super
venellam ibidem vocatam Mayden lane versus austrum cum omnibus
domibus aedificijs structuris vijs easiamentis commoditatibus &
pertinentiis ultimis recitatis praemissis seu alicui parti vel
parcellae inde spectantibus seu aliquo modo pertinentibus simul
cum libero ingressu egressu & regressu & passagio ... per &
trans praedictam viam sive venellam iacentem & existentem inter
praemissa praedicta.’

The lease was granted for a term of thirty-one years from Christmas 1598 to Christmas 1629, and conveyed the property in two equal moieties, the one to Cuthbert and Richard Burbadge and the other to William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, and William Kempe.[1235] With the exception of Cuthbert Burbadge these were all members of the Chamberlain’s company. Each moiety was charged with a ground-rent of £7 5_s._ There is nothing to show how the funds for building were found. ‘Wee’, said the Burbadges in 1635, ‘at like expence built the Globe, with more summes of money taken up at interest, which lay heavy on us many yeeres; and to ourselves wee joyned those deserveing men, Shakspere, Hemings, Condall, Philips, and others, partners in the profittes of that they call the House, but makeing the leases for twenty-one yeeres hath beene the destruction of ourselves and others, for they dyeing at the expiration of three or four yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres became dissolved to strangers, as by marrying with their widdowes and the like by their children.’[1236] This is, however, not a strictly accurate account of what took place in 1599, for Condell was not one of the original ‘housekeepers’, and the original lease was for thirty-one, not twenty-one, years. In any case, the Burbadges contributed the woodwork of the Theatre.

Between the execution of the lease and the completion of the play-house, Shakespeare and his four fellows assigned their moiety to William Levison and Thomas Savage, who ‘reassigned to euerye of them seuerally a fift parte of the said moitie’, so that after the building each of the five had a ‘ioynt tenancie’ with the other four in a moiety of the ground and galleries, and was also ‘tenant in common’ during the term of the lease.[1237] Professor Wallace explains that ‘the purpose of a joint-tenancy was to prevent the breaking up and scattering of an estate into fractions by keeping the property always in the hands of the members, or the longest survivors, or survivor, of them all, thus not allowing it to descend to heirs’. The legal distinction is no doubt sound, but we shall find that, whatever the intention of the assignment and reassignment may have been, the Globe shares did in fact descend to heirs, and that a good deal of trouble and litigation was thereby caused.[1238]

Shortly after the house was built Kempe, no doubt on his withdrawal from the company, assigned his interest to Shakespeare, Heminges, and Phillips, who by further assignments to and from one Thomas Cressey brought in Pope, with the result that each of the four now held a fourth part of the moiety.[1239] Pope died before 13 February 1604 and left his interest to Mary Clark, _alias_ Wood, and Thomas Bromley. Mary Clark must have married John Edmonds, another legatee under the will, for in 1612 an interest corresponding to Pope’s was held by John and Mary Edmonds and Basil Nicoll.[1240] Nicoll, who was Pope’s executor, was presumably acting as trustee for Thomas Bromley. Edmonds, though an actor, belonged not to the King’s men, but was a Queen’s man by 1618. One-eighth of the house, therefore, was alienated from the company in 1604. A further alienation, which proved particularly troublesome in its results, took place on the death of Phillips in May 1605. The exact facts became a matter of legal dispute. But it appears that Phillips’ interest passed first to his widow Anne as executrix, and, when her marriage in the course of 1606 to the spendthrift John Witter became known, to Heminges, who succeeded her as executor under the terms of the will. In this capacity Heminges leased an interest to the Witters on 14 February 1611 for a term of eighteen years from Christmas 1610.[1241] This interest was not a fourth, but only a sixth of the moiety, since at some date between the death of Phillips and that of Sly on 16 August 1608 the moiety had been redivided to allow of the introduction of Henry Condell and William Sly into the syndicate of housekeepers.[1242] A similar transaction took place on 20 February 1612, when Basil Nicoll and John and Mary Edmonds, then holding one-sixth of the moiety, Shakespeare and Witter, each also holding one-sixth, and Heminges and Condell, holding three-sixths, joined to convey one-seventh of the moiety to William Ostler.[1243] It must, I think, be assumed that Heminges and Condell had together purchased the share left by Sly to his son Robert.

The acquisition of the Blackfriars by the King’s men in 1608 did not, at first at least, detract from the importance of the Globe as the leading London theatre. It is so accepted by foreign visitors in 1610 and again in 1611.[1244]

On 29 June 1613 the house was ‘casually burnt downe and consumed with fier’.[1245] The event was important enough to find a record in Howes’ continuation of Stowe’s _Annales_:[1246]

‘Upon S. Peters day last, the play-house or Theater, called the
Globe, upon the Banckside near London, by negligent discharging
of a peal of ordinance, close to the south-side thereof, the
thatch took fire, and the wind sodainly disperst the flame round
about, and in a very short space the whole building was quite
consumed, and no man hurt; the house being filled with people to
behold the play, viz. of Henry the Eighth. And the next spring
it was new builded in far fairer manner than before.’

Many other contemporary accounts exist. Thus Thomas Lorkin wrote to Sir Thomas Puckering on 30 June:[1247]

‘No longer since than yesterday, while Burbage’s company were
acting at the Globe the play of Henry VIII, and there shooting
off certain chambers in way of triumph, the fire catched and
fastened upon the thatch of the house, and there burned so
furiously, as it consumed the whole house, all in less than two
hours, the people having enough to do to save themselves.’

On 2 July Sir Henry Wotton wrote to his nephew Sir Edmund Bacon:[1248]

‘Now, to let matters of state sleep, I will entertain you at
the present with what has happened this week at the Bank’s
side. The King’s players had a new play, called _All is True_,
representing some principal pieces of the reign of Henry VIII,
which was set forth with many extraordinary circumstances
of pomp and majesty, even to the matting of the stage; the
Knights of the Order with their Georges and garters, the Guards
with their embroidered coats, and the like: sufficient in
truth within a while to make greatness very familiar, if not
ridiculous. Now, King Henry making a masque at the Cardinal
Wolsey’s house, and certain chambers being shot off at his
entry, some of the paper, or other stuff, wherewith one of them
was stopped, did light on the thatch, where being thought at
first but an idle smoke, and their eyes more attentive to the
show, it kindled inwardly, and ran round like a train, consuming
within less than an hour the whole house to the very grounds.
This was the fatal period of that virtuous fabric, wherein
yet nothing did perish but wood and straw, and a few forsaken
cloaks; only one man had his breeches set on fire, that would
perhaps have broiled him, if he had not by the benefit of a
provident wit put it out with bottle ale.’

On 8 July John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Ralph Winwood:[1249]

‘The burning of the Globe, or play-house, on the Bankside, on
St. Peter’s day, cannot escape you; which fell out by a peal of
chambers (that I know not upon what occasion were to be used in
the play), the tamplin or stopple of one of them lighting in the
thatch that covered the house, burn’d it down to the ground in
less than two hours, with a dwelling-house adjoining, and it was
a great marvaile and fair grace of God, that the people had so
little harm, having but two narrow doors to get out.’

Nor was poetic chronicles of the disaster lacking. On the day after the fire took place, two ballads about it were entered in the Stationers’ Register.[1250] Neither is known in print, but the use of the word ‘doleful’ suggests that one of them, of which the author was William Parrat, is probably identical with the following set of verses, preserved in manuscript:[1251]

_A Sonnett upon the pittiful burneing of the Globe playhowse
in London._

Now sitt the downe, Melpomene,
Wrapt in a sea-cole robe,
And tell the dolefull tragedie,
That late was playd at Globe;
For noe man that can singe and saye
[But ?] was scard on St. Peters daye.
Oh sorrow, pittifull sorrow, and yett all this is true.