Shakespearean Playhouses Part 29

[Footnote 530: Greenstreet, _The New Shakspere Society's Transactions_ (1887-90), p. 283.]

The new Whitefriars troupe acted five plays at Court during the winter of 1609-10. Payments therefor were made to Robert Keysar, and the company was referred to merely as "The Children of the Whitefriars."

But on January 4, 1610, the company secured a royal patent authorizing the use of the t.i.tle "The Children of the Queen's Revels."[531] The patent was granted to Robert Daborne, Philip Rosseter, John Tarbock, Richard Jones, and Robert Browne; but Keysar, though not named in the grant, was still one of the important sharers.[532]

[Footnote 531: Printed in The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 271.]

[Footnote 532: See Keysar _v._ Burbage _et al._, printed by Mr.

Wallace, in his _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, pp. 80 ff.]

The troupe well deserved the patronage of the Queen. Keysar described the Blackfriars Children whom he had reorganized as "a company of the most expert and skillful actors within the realm of England, to the number of eighteen or twenty persons, all or most of them, trained up in that service in the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth for ten years together."[533] And to these, as I have pointed out, it seems likely that the best members of the bankrupt Children of His Majesty's Revels had been added. The chief actor of the new organization was Nathaniel Field, whose histrionic ability placed him beside Edward Alleyn and Richard Burbage. One of the first plays he was called upon to act in his new theatre was Jonson's brilliant comedy, _Epicoene_, in which he took the leading role.

[Footnote 533: _Ibid._, p. 90.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE SITES OF THE WHITEFRIARS AND THE SALISBURY COURT PLAYHOUSES

The Whitefriars Playhouse was just north of "K. 46"; the Salisbury Court Playhouse was just south of the court of that name. (From Ogilby and Morgan's _Map of London_, 1677.)]

The idea then occurred to Rosseter to secure a monopoly on child-acting and on private playhouses. The Children of His Majesty's Revels had ceased to exist. The Blackfriars Playhouse had been closed by royal command, and its lease had been surrendered to its owner, Richard Burbage. The only rival to the Children at Whitefriars was the troupe of Paul's Boys acting in their singing-school behind the Cathedral. How Rosseter attempted to buy them off is thus recorded by Richard Burbage and John Heminges:

There being, as these defendants verily think, but only three private playhouses in the city of London, the one of which being in the Blackfriars and in the hands of these defendants or of their a.s.signs, one other being in the Whitefriars in the hands or occupation of the said complainant himself [Keysar], his partners [Rosseter, _et al._], or a.s.signs, and the third near St. Paul's Church, then being in the hands of one Mr. Pierce, but then unused for a playhouse. One Mr. Rosseter, a partner of the said complainant [Keysar] dealt for and compounded with the said Mr. Pierce [Master of the Paul's Boys] to the only benefit of him, the said Rosseter, the now complainant [Keysar], the rest of their partners and company, and without the privity, knowledge, or consent of these defendants [the King's Company], or any of them, and that thereby they, the said complainant [Keysar] and the said Rosseter and their partners and company might advance their gains and profit to be had and made in their said house in Whitefriars, that there might be a cessation of playing and plays to be acted in the said house near St. Paul's Church aforesaid, for which the said Rosseter compounded with the said Pierce to give him, the said Pierce, twenty pounds per annum.[534]

[Footnote 534: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p.

95.]

By this means Rosseter disposed of the compet.i.tion of the Paul's Boys.

But, although he secured a monopoly on child-acting, he failed to secure a monopoly on private playhouses, for shortly after he had sealed this bargain with Pierce, the powerful King's Men opened up at Blackfriars. Rosseter promptly requested them to pay half the "dead rent" to Pierce, which they good-naturedly agreed to do.

In 1613 Whitefriars was rented by certain London apprentices for the performance "at night" of Robert Taylor's _The Hog Hath Lost His Pearl_. The episode is narrated by Sir Henry Wotton in a letter to Sir Edmund Bacon:

On Sunday last, at night, and no longer, some sixteen apprentices (of what sort you shall guess by the rest of the story) having secretly learnt a new play without book,[535]

ent.i.tled _The Hog Hath Lost His Pearl_, took up the Whitefriars for their theatre, and having invited thither (as it should seem) rather their mistresses than their masters, who were all to enter _per buletini_ for a note of distinction from ordinary comedians. Towards the end of the play the sheriffs (who by chance had heard of it) came in (as they say) and carried some six or seven of them to perform the last act at Bridewell. The rest are fled. Now it is strange to hear how sharp-witted the city is, for they will needs have Sir John Swinerton, the Lord Mayor, be meant by the Hog, and the late Lord Treasurer by the Pearl.[536]

[Footnote 535: Miss Gildersleeve, in her valuable _Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama_, p. 112, says: "Just what is the meaning of 'a new Play without Book' no one seems to have conjectured." And she develops the theory that "it refers to the absence of a licensed play-book," etc. The phrase "to learn without book" meant simply "to memorize."]

[Footnote 536: _Reliquiae Wottonianae_ (ed. 1672), p. 402. The letter is dated merely 1612-13. In connection with the play one should study _The Hector of Germany_, 1615.]

Apparently the Children of the Queen's Revels continued successfully at Whitefriars until March, 1613. On that date Rosseter agreed with Henslowe to join the Revels with the Lady Elizabeth's Men then acting at the Swan. The new organization, following the example of the King's Men, used Whitefriars as a winter, and the Swan as a summer, house.

Thus for a time at least Whitefriars came under the management of Henslowe.

Rosseter's lease of the building was to expire in the following year.

He seems to have made plans--possibly with the a.s.sistance of Henslowe--to erect in Whitefriars a more suitable playhouse for the newly organized company; at least that is a plausible interpretation of the following curious entry in Sir George Buc's Office Book: "July 13, 1613, for a license to erect a new playhouse in Whitefriars, &c.

20."[537] But the new playhouse thus projected never was built, doubtless because of strong local opposition. Instead, Henslowe erected for the company a public playhouse on the Bankside, known as "The Hope."

[Footnote 537: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 52.]

In March, 1614, at the expiration of one year, Rosseter withdrew from his partners.h.i.+p with Henslowe. On December 25, 1614, his lease of the Whitefriars expired, and he was apparently unable to renew it.

Thereupon he attempted to fit up a private playhouse in the district of Blackfriars, and on June 3, 1615, he actually secured a royal license to do so. But in this effort, too, he was foiled.[538]

[Footnote 538: See the chapter on "Rosseter's Blackfriars." The doc.u.ments concerned in this venture are printed in The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 277.]

After this we hear little or nothing of the Whitefriars Playhouse. Yet the building may occasionally have been used for dramatic purposes.

Cunningham says: "The case of Trevill _v._ Woodford, in the Court of Requests, informs us that plays were performed at the Whitefriars Theatre as late as 1621; Sir Anthony Ashley, the then landlord of the house, entering the theatre in that year, and turning the players out of doors, on pretense that half a year's rent was yet unpaid to him."[539] I have not been able to examine this doc.u.ment. Neither Fleay nor Murray has found any trace of a company at Whitefriars after Rosseter's departure; hence for all practical purposes we may regard the Whitefriars Playhouse as having come to the end of its career in 1614.

[Footnote 539: _The Shakespeare Society's Papers_, IV, 90. The doc.u.ment printed by Collier in _New Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare_ (1835), p. 44, as from a ma.n.u.script in his possession, is, I think, an obvious forgery.]

CHAPTER XVI

THE HOPE

On August 29, 1611, Henslowe became manager of the Lady Elizabeth's Men. Having agreed among other things to furnish them with a playhouse,[540] and no longer being in possession of the Rose, he rented the old Swan and maintained them there throughout the year 1612.

[Footnote 540: The agreement has been lost, but for a probably similar agreement, made with the actor Nathaniel Field, see Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 23.]

In March of the following year, 1613, he entered into a partners.h.i.+p with Philip Rosseter (the manager of the private playhouse of Whitefriars), and "joined" the Lady Elizabeth's Men with Rosseter's excellent troupe of the Queen's Revels. Apparently the intention of Henslowe and Rosseter was to form a company strong enough to compete on equal terms with the King's Men. In imitation of the King's Men, who used the Globe as a summer and the Blackfriars as a winter home, the newly amalgamated company was to use the Swan and the Whitefriars.[541] And the chief actor of the troupe, corresponding to Richard Burbage of the King's Men, was to be Nathaniel Field, then at the height of his powers:

_c.o.kes._ Which is your Burbage now?

_Leatherhead._ What mean you by that, sir?

_c.o.kes._ Your best actor, your Field.

_Littlewit._ Good, i' faith! you are even with me, sir.[542]

[Footnote 541: Daborne writes to Henslowe on June 5, 1613: "The company told me you were expected there yesterday to conclude about their coming over ... my own play which shall be ready before they come over." This, I suspect, refers to the moving of the company to the Swan for the summer. (See Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 72.) That Henslowe was manager of a "private" house in 1613 is revealed by another letter from Daborne, dated December 9, 1613. (See Greg, _ibid._, p. 79.)]

[Footnote 542: _Bartholomew Fair_, V, iii. The part of Littlewit was presumably taken by Field himself.]

Among their playwrights were Ben Jonson, Philip Ma.s.singer, John Fletcher, and Robert Daborne, not to mention Field, who in addition to acting wrote excellent plays.

If it was the purpose of Henslowe and Rosseter to compete with the Globe Company in a winter as well as in a summer house, that purpose was endangered by the fact that Rosseter's lease of his private theatre expired within a year and a half, and could not be renewed.

Rosseter and Henslowe, as pointed out in the preceding chapter, seem to have attempted to erect in Whitefriars a winter home for their troupe; so, at least, I have interpreted the curious entry in Sir George Buc's Office Book: "July 13, 1613, for a license to erect a new playhouse in the Whitefriars, &c. 20."[543] The attempt, however, was foiled, probably by the strong opposition of the inhabitants of the district.

[Footnote 543: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 52.]

Shortly after this, Henslowe made plans to provide the company with a new and better public playhouse on the Bankside, more conveniently situated than the Swan. The old Bear Garden was beginning to show signs of decay, and, doubtless, would soon have to be rebuilt. This suggested to Henslowe the idea of tearing down that ancient structure and erecting in its place a larger and handsomer building to serve both for the performance of plays and for the baiting of animals. To this plan Jacob Meade, Henslowe's partner in the owners.h.i.+p of the Bear Garden, agreed.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE HOPE PLAYHOUSE, OR SECOND BEAR GARDEN

From Hollar's _View of London_ (1647).]

Accordingly, on August 29, 1613, Henslowe and Meade signed a contract with a carpenter named Katherens to pull down the Bear Garden and erect in its place a new structure. The original contract, preserved among the Henslowe Papers, is one of the most valuable doc.u.ments we have relating to the early theatres. It is too long and verbose for insertion here, but I give below a summary of its contents.[544]

Katherens agreed:

1. To "pull down" the Bear Garden and "the stable wherein the bulls and horses" had been kept; and "near or upon the said place where the said game-place did heretofore stand,"