Shakespearean Playhouses Part 31

[Footnote 559: Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), III, 102; Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, p. 237.]

On January 14, 1647, at the disposition of the Church lands, the Hope was sold for 1783 15_s._[560]

[Footnote 560: Arthur Tiler, _St. Saviour's_, p. 51; Reed's Dodsley, IX, 175.]

In certain ma.n.u.script notes entered in the Phillipps copy of Stow's _Annals_ (1631), we read:

The Hope, on the Bankside, in Southwarke, commonly called the Bear Garden, a playhouse for stage-plays on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sat.u.r.days, and for the baiting of Bears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the stage being made to take up and down when they please. It was built in the year 1610, and now pulled down to make tenements, by Thomas Walker, a petticoat-maker in Cannon Street, on Tuesday, the 25 day of March, 1656. Seven of Mr. G.o.dfrey's bears, by the command of Thomas Pride, then high sheriff of Surrey, were then shot to death on Sat.u.r.day the 9 day of February, 1655 [i.e. 1656], by a company of soldiers.[561]

[Footnote 561: Printed in _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314. As to "Mr. G.o.dfrey" see Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), III, 102.]

The mistakes in the earlier part of this note are obvious, yet the latter part is so circ.u.mstantial that we cannot well doubt its general accuracy. The building, however, was not pulled down "to the ground,"

though its interior may have been converted into tenements.

At the Restoration, when the royal sport of bear-baiting was revived, the Hope was again fitted up as an amphitheatre and opened to the public. The Earl of Manchester, on September 29, 1664, wrote to the city authorities, requesting that the butchers be required, as of old, to provide food for the dogs and bears:

He had been informed by the Master of His Majesty's Game of Bears and Bulls, and others, that the Butchers' Company had formerly caused all their offal in Eastcheap and Newgate Market to be conveyed by the beadle of that Company unto two barrow houses, conveniently placed on the river side, for the provision and feeding of the King's Game of Bears, which custom had been interrupted in the late troubles when the bears were killed. His Majesty's game being now removed to the usual place on the Bankside, by Order of the Council, he recommended the Court of Aldermen to direct the Master and Wardens of the Butchers' Company to have their offal conveyed as formerly for the feeding of the bears, &c.[562]

[Footnote 562: _The Remembrancia_, p. 478. Quoted by Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, p. 241.]

For some years the Bear Garden flourished as it had in the days of Elizabeth and James. It was frequently visited by Samuel Pepys, who has left vivid accounts of several performances there. In his _Diary_, August 14, 1666, he writes:

After dinner with my wife and Mercer to the Bear-garden; where I have not been, I think, of many years, and saw some good sport of the bull's tossing of the dogs: one into the very boxes. But it is a very rude and nasty pleasure. We had a great many hectors in the same box with us (and one, very fine, went into the pit, and played his dog for a wager, which was a strange sport for a gentleman), where they drank wine, and drank Mercer's health first; which I pledged with my hat off.

John Evelyn, likewise, in his _Diary_, June 16, 1670, records a visit to the Bear Garden:

I went with some friends to the Bear Garden, where was c.o.c.k-fighting, dog-fighting, bear- and bull-baiting, it being a famous day for all these butcherly sports, or rather barbarous cruelties. The bulls did exceeding well; but the Irish wolf-dog exceeded, which was a tall greyhound, a stately creature indeed, who beat a cruel mastiff. One of the bulls tossed a dog full into a lady's lap as she sat in one of the boxes at a considerable height from the arena.

Two poor dogs were killed; and so all ended with the ape on horseback, and I most heartily weary of the rude and dirty pastime, which I had not seen, I think, in twenty years before.

On January 7, 1676, the Spanish Amba.s.sador was entertained at the Bear Garden, as we learn from a warrant, dated March 28, 1676, for the payment of 10 "to James Davies, Esq., Master of His Majesty's Bears, Bulls, and Dogs, for making ready the rooms at the Bear Garden, and baiting of the bears before the Spanish Amba.s.sador, the 7 January last, 1675 {6}."[563]

[Footnote 563: British Museum Additional MSS. 5750; quoted by Cunningham, _Handbook of London_ (1849), I, 67.]

Rendle[564] quotes from _The Loyal Protestant_ an advertis.e.m.e.nt of an entertainment to be given so late as 1682 "at the Hope on the Bankside, being His Majesty's Bear Garden." And Malcolm writes the following account of the baiting of a horse there in April of the same year:

Notice was given in the papers that on the twelfth of April a horse, of uncommon strength, and between 18 and 19 hands high, would be _baited to death at his Majesty's Bear-Garden_ at the Hope on the Bankside, for the amus.e.m.e.nt of the Morocco amba.s.sador, many of the n.o.bility who knew the horse, and any others who would pay the price of admission.

It seems this animal originally belonged to the Earl of Rochester, and being of a ferocious disposition, had killed several of his brethren; for which misdeed he was sold to the Earl of Dorchester; in whose service, committing several similar offenses, he was transferred to the worse than savages who kept the Bear-Garden. On the day appointed several dogs were set upon the vindictive steed, which he destroyed or drove from the arena; at this instant his owners determined to preserve him for a future day's sport, and directed a person to lead him away; but before the horse had reached London Bridge the spectators demanded the fulfilment of the promise of baiting him to death, and began to destroy the building: to conclude, the poor beast was brought back, and other dogs set upon him, without effect, when he was stabbed to death with a sword.[565]

[Footnote 564: _The Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer_, VIII, 59.]

[Footnote 565: James Peller Malcolm, _Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London from the Roman Invasion to the Year 1700_ (London, 1811), p. 425.]

This is the last reference to the Hope that I have been able to discover. Soon after this date the "royal sport of bulls, bears, and dogs" was moved to Hockley-in-the-hole, Clerkenwell, where, as the advertis.e.m.e.nts inform us, at "His Majesty's Bear Garden" the baiting of animals was to be frequently seen.[566] Strype, in his _Survey of London_, thus describes Bear Garden Alley on the Bankside:

Bear Alley runs into Maiden Lane. Here is a Gla.s.s House; and about the middle is a new-built Court, well inhabited, called Bear Garden Square, so called as built in the place where the _Bear Garden_ formerly stood, until removed to the other side of the water: which is more convenient for the butchers, and such like who are taken with such rustic sports as the baiting of bears and bulls.[567]

[Footnote 566: The earliest advertis.e.m.e.nt of the Bear Garden at Hockley-in-the-hole that I have come upon is dated 1700. For a discussion of the sports there see J.P. Malcolm, _Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London during the Eighteenth Century_ (1808), p. 321; Cunningham, _Handbook of London_, under "Hockley"; W.B.

Boulton, _Amus.e.m.e.nts of Old London_, vol. I, chap. I.]

[Footnote 567: Ordish (_Early London Theatres_, p. 242) is mistaken in thinking that the old building was converted into a gla.s.s house. He says: "The last reference to the Hope shows that it had declined to the point of extinction," and he quotes an advertis.e.m.e.nt from the _Gazette_, June 18, 1681, as follows: "There is now made at the Bear Garden gla.s.s-house, on the Bankside, crown window-gla.s.s, much exceeding French gla.s.s in all its qualifications, which may be squared into all sizes of sashes for windows, and other uses, and may be had at most glaziers in London." From Strype's _Survey_ it is evident that the gla.s.s house was in Bear Garden Alley, but not on the site of the old Bear Garden.]

In the map which he gives of this region (reproduced on page 245) the position of the Hope is clearly marked by the square near the middle of Bear Alley.

CHAPTER XVII

ROSSETER'S BLACKFRIARS, OR PORTER'S HALL

Philip Rosseter, the poet and musician, first appears as a theatrical manager in 1610, when he secured a royal patent for the Children of the Queen's Revels to act at Whitefriars. This company performed there successfully under his management until March, 1613, when, for some unknown reason, he formed a partners.h.i.+p with Philip Henslowe, who was managing the Lady Elizabeth's Men at the Swan. The two companies were combined, and the new organization, under the name of "The Lady Elizabeth's Men," made use of both playhouses, the Swan as a summer and the Whitefriars as a winter home.

As already explained in the preceding chapters, Rosseter's lease on the Whitefriars Playhouse was to expire in 1614, and apparently he was unable to renew the lease.[568] Naturally he and his partner Henslowe were anxious to secure a private playhouse in the city to serve as a winter home for their troupe, especially since the Swan was poorly situated for winter patronage. This may explain the following entry in Sir George Buc's Office-Book: "July 13, 1613, for a license to erect a new playhouse in Whitefriars &c. 20."[569] The new playhouse, however, was not built. Probably the opposition of the inhabitants of the district led to its prohibition.

[Footnote 568: Nathaniel Field, the leading actor at Whitefriars, published _A Woman is a Weatherc.o.c.k_ in 1612, with the statement to the reader: "If thou hast anything to say to me, thou know'st where to hear of me for a year or two, and no more, I a.s.sure thee." Possibly this reflects the failure of the managers to renew the lease; after 1614 Field did not know where he would be acting. But editors have generally regarded it as meaning that Field intended to withdraw from acting.]

[Footnote 569: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 52.]

At the expiration of one year, in March, 1614, Rosseter withdrew from his partners.h.i.+p with Henslowe, and on the old patent of the Children of the Queen's Revels (which he had retained) organized a new company to travel in the country.

In the following year, 1615, he and certain others, Philip Kingman, Robert Jones, and Ralph Reeve, secured a lease of "diverse buildings, cellars, sollars, chambers, and yards for the building of a playhouse thereupon for the better practising and exercise of the said Children of the Revels; all which premises are situate and being within the precinct of the Blackfriars, near Puddlewharf, in the suburbs of London, called by the name of the Lady Saunders's House, or otherwise Porter's Hall."[570] It was their purpose to convert this hall into a playhouse to rival the near-by Blackfriars; and in accordance with this purpose, on June 3, 1615, Rosseter secured a royal license under the Great Seal of England "to erect, build, and set up in and upon the said premises before mentioned one convenient playhouse for the said Children of the Revels, the same playhouse to be used by the Children of the Revels for the time being of the Queene's Majesty, and for the Prince's Players, and for the Lady Elizabeth's Players."[571]

[Footnote 570: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 277. For the location of Puddlewharf see the map of the Blackfriars precinct on page 94.]

[Footnote 571: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 277.]

The work of converting Porter's Hall into a playhouse seems to have begun at once. On September 26, 1615, the Privy Council records "that one Rosseter, and others, having obtained license under the Great Seal of England for the building of a playhouse, have pulled down [i.e., stripped the interior of] a great messuage in Puddlewharf, which was sometimes the house of the Lady Saunders, within the precinct of the Blackfriars, and are now erecting a new playhouse in that place."[572]

[Footnote 572: _Ibid._, p. 373.]

The city authorities, always hostile to the actors and jealous of any new theatres, made so vigorous a complaint to the Privy Council that the Lords of the Council "thought fit to send for Rosseter." He came, bringing his royal license. This doc.u.ment was carefully "perused by the Lord Chief Justice of England," who succeeded in discovering in the wording of one of its clauses a trivial flaw that would enable the Privy Council, on a technicality, to prohibit the building: "The Lord Chief Justice did deliver to their Lords.h.i.+ps that the license granted to the said Rosseter did extend to the building of a playhouse without the liberties of London, and not within the city."[573] Now, in 1608 the liberty of Blackfriars had by a special royal grant been placed within the jurisdiction of the city. Rosseter's license unluckily had described the Lady Saunders's house as being "in the suburbs," though, of course, the description was otherwise specific enough: "all which premises are situate and being within the precinct of the Blackfriars, near Puddlewharf, in the suburbs of London, called by the name of the Lady Saunders's House, or otherwise Porter's Hall."

[Footnote 573: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 373.]

Since "the inconveniences urged by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen were many," the Lords of the Privy Council decided to take advantage of the flaw discovered by the Lord Chief Justice, and prohibit the erection of the playhouse. Their order, issued September 26, 1615, reads as follows:

It was this day ordered by their Lords.h.i.+ps that there shall be no playhouse erected in that place, and that the Lord Mayor of London shall straightly prohibit the said Rosseter and the rest of the patentees, and their workmen to proceed in the making and converting the said building into a playhouse. And if any of the patentees or their workmen shall proceed in their intended building contrary to this their Lords.h.i.+ps' inhibition, that then the Lord Mayor shall commit him or them so offending unto prison and certify their Lords.h.i.+ps of their contempt in that behalf.[574]

[Footnote 574: _Ibid._]

This order, for the time being, halted work on the new playhouse. The Children of the Revels were forced to spend the next year traveling in the provinces; and the Lady Elizabeth's Men and Prince Charles's Men had to remain on the Bankside and endure the oppressions of Henslowe and later of Meade. Possibly their sufferings at the hands of Meade led them to urge Rosseter to complete at once the much desired house in the city. At any rate, in the winter of 1616, Rosseter, believing himself strongly enough entrenched behind his royal patent, resumed work on converting Porter's Hall into a theatre. The city authorities issued "diverse commandments and prohibitions," but he paid no attention to these, and pushed the work to completion. The building seems to have been ready for the actors about the first of January, 1617. Thereupon the company which had been occupying the Hope deserted that playhouse and "came over" to Rosseter's Blackfriars.[575] In the new playhouse they presented Nathaniel Field's comedy, _Amends for Ladies_, which was printed the following year "as it was acted at the Blackfriars both by the Prince's Servants and the Lady Elizabeth's."

[Footnote 575: See the chapter on "The Hope."]

The actors, however, were not allowed to enjoy their new home very long. On January 27, 1617, the Privy Council dispatched the following letter to the Lord Mayor:

Whereas His Majesty is informed that notwithstanding diverse commandments and prohibitions to the contrary, there be certain persons that go about to set up a playhouse in the Blackfriars near unto His Majesty's Wardrobe, and for that purpose have lately erected and made fit a building, which is almost if not fully finished. You shall understand that His Majesty hath this day expressly signified his pleasure that the same shall be pulled down, so as it be made unfit for any such use; whereof we require your Lords.h.i.+p to take notice and to cause it to be performed accordingly, with all speed, and thereupon to certify us of your proceeding.