Shakespearean Playhouses Part 14

THE SWAN

The Manor of Paris Garden,[241] situated on the Bankside just to the west of the Liberty of the Clink and to the east of the Lambeth marshes, had once been in the possession of the Monastery of Bermondsey. At the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII, the property pa.s.sed into the possession of the Crown; hence it was free from the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, and was on this account suitable for the erection of a playhouse. From the Crown the property pa.s.sed through several hands, until finally, in 1589, the entire "lords.h.i.+p and manor of Paris Garden" was sold for 850 to Francis Langley, goldsmith and citizen of London.[242]

[Footnote 241: Or "Parish Garden." See the note on page 121.]

[Footnote 242: The sale took the form of a lease for one thousand years.]

Langley had purchased the Manor as an investment, and was ready to make thereon such improvements as seemed to offer profitable returns.

Burbage and Henslowe were reputed to be growing wealthy from their playhouses, and Langley was tempted to erect a similar building on his newly acquired property. Accordingly at some date before November, 1594, he secured a license to erect a theatre in Paris Garden. The license was promptly opposed by the Lord Mayor of London, who addressed to the Lord High Treasurer on November 3, 1594, the following letter:

I understand that one Francis Langley ... intendeth to erect a new stage or theatre (as they call it) for the exercising of plays upon the Bankside. And forasmuch as we find by daily experience the great inconvenience that groweth to this city and the government thereof by the said plays, I have emboldened myself to be an humble suitor to your good Lords.h.i.+p to be a means for us rather to suppress all such places built for that kind of exercise, than to erect any more of the same sort.[243]

[Footnote 243: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 74-76.]

The protest of the Lord Mayor, however, went unheeded, and Langley proceeded with the erection of his building. Presumably it was finished and ready for the actors in the earlier half of 1595.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE MANOR OF PARIS GARDEN AND THE SWAN

A survey executed in 1627 by royal command.

(Printed from Rendle's _The Bankside_.)]

The name given to the new playhouse was "The Swan." What caused Langley to adopt this name we do not know;[244] but we may suppose that it was suggested to him by the large number of swans which beautified the Thames. Foreigners on their first visit to London were usually very much impressed by the number and the beauty of these birds. Hentzner, in 1598, stated that the river "abounds in swans, swimming in flocks; the sight of them and their noise is vastly agreeable to the boats that meet them in their course"; and the Italian Francesco Ferretti observed that the "broad river of Thames"

was "most charming, and quite full of swans white as the very snow."[245]

[Footnote 244: The swan was not uncommon as a sign, especially along the river; for example, it was the sign of one of the famous brothels on the Bankside, as Stow informs us.]

[Footnote 245: Quoted in Rye, _England as Seen by Foreigners_, p.

183.]

From a map of the Manor of Paris Garden carefully surveyed by order of the King in 1627[246] (see page 163), we learn the exact situation of the building. It was set twenty-six poles, or four hundred and twenty-six feet, from the bank of the river, in that corner of the estate nearest London Bridge. Most of the playgoers from London, however, came not over the Bridge, but by water, landing at the Paris Garden Stairs, or at the near-by Falcon Stairs, and then walking the short distance to the theatre.

[Footnote 246: Reproduced by Rendle, _The Bankside, Southwark, and the Globe Playhouse_.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE SWAN PLAYHOUSE

(From Visscher's _View of London_, 1616).]

An excellent picture of the exterior of the Swan is furnished by Visscher's _View of London_, 1616, (see page 165). From this, as well as from the survey of 1627 just mentioned, we discover that the building was duodecahedral--at least on the outside, for the interior probably was circular. At the time of its erection it was, so we are told, "the largest and the most magnificent playhouse" in London. It contained three galleries surrounding an open pit, with a stage projecting into the pit; and probably it differed in no essential respect from the playhouses already built. In one point, however, it may have differed--although of this I cannot feel sure: it may have been provided with a stage that could be removed so as to allow the building to be used on occasions for animal-baiting. The De Witt drawing shows such a stage; and possibly Stow in his _Survey_ (1598) gives evidence that the Swan was in early times employed for bear-baiting:

And to begin at the west bank as afore, thus it followeth.

On this bank is the bear gardens, in number twain; to wit, the old bear garden [i.e., the one built in 1583?] and the new [i.e., the Swan?], places wherein be kept bears, bulls, and other beasts, to be baited at stakes for pleasure; also mastiffs to bait them in several kennels are there nourished.[247]

[Footnote 247: Stow's original ma.n.u.script (Harl. MSS., 544), quoted by Collier, _History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), III, 96, note 3.

The text of the edition of 1598 differs very slightly.]

Moreover, in 1613 Henslowe used the Swan as the model for the Hope, a building designed for both acting and animal-baiting. It should be noted, however, that in all doc.u.ments the Swan is invariably referred to as a _playhouse_, and there is no evidence--beyond that cited above--to indicate that the building was ever employed for the baiting of bears and bulls.

In the summer of 1596 a Dutch traveler named Johannes de Witt, a priest of St. Mary's in Utrecht, visited London, and saw, as one of the most interesting sights of the city, a dramatic performance at the Swan. Later he communicated a description of the building to his friend Arend van Buch.e.l.l,[248] who recorded the description in his commonplace-book, along with a crude and inexact drawing of the interior (see page 169), showing the stage, the three galleries, and the pit.[249] The description is headed: "Ex Observationibus Londinensibus Johannis de Witt." After a brief notice of St. Paul's, and a briefer reference to Westminster Cathedral, the traveler begins to describe what obviously interested him far more. I give below a translation of that portion relating to the playhouses:

There are four amphitheatres in London [the Theatre, Curtain, Rose, and Swan] of notable beauty, which from their diverse signs bear diverse names. In each of them a different play is daily exhibited to the populace. The two more magnificent of these are situated to the southward beyond the Thames, and from the signs suspended before them are called the Rose and the Swan. The two others are outside the city towards the north on the highway which issues through the Episcopal Gate, called in the vernacular Bishopgate.[250] There is also a fifth [the Bear Garden], but of dissimilar structure, devoted to the baiting of beasts, where are maintained in separate cages and enclosures many bears and dogs of stupendous size, which are kept for fighting, furnis.h.i.+ng thereby a most delightful spectacle to men. Of all the theatres,[251] however, the largest and the most magnificent is that one of which the sign is a swan, called in the vernacular the Swan Theatre;[252] for it accommodates in its seats three thousand persons, and is built of a ma.s.s of flint stones (of which there is a prodigious supply in Britain),[253] and supported by wooden columns painted in such excellent imitation of marble that it is able to deceive even the most cunning. Since its form resembles that of a Roman work, I have made a sketch of it above.

[Footnote 248: Apparently he allowed Van Buch.e.l.l to transcribe the description and the rough pen-sketch from his notebook or traveler's diary.]

[Footnote 249: This interesting doc.u.ment was discovered by Dr. Karl T.

Gaedertz, and published in full in _Zur Kenntnis der altenglischen Buhne_ (Bremen, 1888).]

[Footnote 250: "Via qua itur per Episcopalem portam vulgariter Biscopgate nuncupatam."]

[Footnote 251: "Theatrorum."]

[Footnote 252: "Id cuius intersignium est cygnus (vulgo te theatre off te cijn)." Mr. Wallace proposes to emend the last clause to read: "te theatre off te cijn off te Swan," thus making "cijn" mean "sign"; but is not this Flemish, and does not "cijn" mean "Swan"?]

[Footnote 253: It is commonly thought that De Witt was wrong in stating that the Swan was built of flint stones. Possibly the plaster exterior deceived him; or possibly in his memory he confused this detail of the building with the exterior of the church of St. Mary Overies, which was indeed built of "a ma.s.s of flint stones." On the other hand, the long life of the building after it had ceased to be of use might indicate that it was built of stones.]

Exactly when the Swan was opened to the public, or what troupes of actors first made use of it, we do not know. The visit of Johannes de Witt, however, shows that the playhouse was occupied in 1596; and this fact is confirmed by a statement in the lawsuit of Shaw _v._ Langley.[254] We may reasonably suppose that not only in 1596, but also in 1595 the building was used by the players.

[Footnote 254: Discovered by Mr. Wallace and printed in _Englische Studien_ (1911), XLIII, 340-95. These doc.u.ments have done much to clear up the history of the Swan and the Rose in the year 1597.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE INTERIOR OF THE SWAN PLAYHOUSE

Sketched by Johannes de Witt in 1596.]

Our definite history of the Swan, however, begins with 1597. In February of that year eight distinguished actors, among whom were Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Gabriel Spencer, William Bird, and Thomas Downton, "servants to the right honorable the Earl of Pembroke," entered into negotiations with Langley, or, as the legal doc.u.ment puts it, "fell into conference with the said Langley for and about the hireing and taking a playhouse of the said Langley, situate in the old Paris Garden, in the Parish of St. Saviours, in the County of Surrey, commonly called and known by the name of the sign of the Swan." The result of this conference was that the members of Pembroke's Company[255] became each severally bound for the sum of 100 to play at the Swan for one year, beginning on February 21, 1597.

[Footnote 255: I cannot agree with Mr. Wallace that Langley induced these players to desert Henslowe, secured for them the patronage of Pembroke, and thus was himself responsible for the organization of the Pembroke Company.]

This troupe contained some of the best actors in London; and Langley, in antic.i.p.ation of a successful year, "disbursed and laid out for making of the said house ready, and providing of apparel fit and necessary for their playing, the sum of 300 and upwards." Since he was at very little cost in making the Swan ready, "for the said house was then lately afore used to have plays in it," most of this sum went for the purchase of "sundry sort of rich attire and apparel for them to play withall."

Everything seems to have gone well until near the end of July, when the company presented _The Isle of Dogs_, a satirical play written in part by the "young Juvenal" of the age, Thomas Nashe, and in part by certain "inferior players," chief of whom seems to have been Ben Jonson.[256] The play apparently attacked under a thin disguise some persons high in authority. The exact nature of the offense cannot now be determined, but Nashe himself informs us that "the troublesome stir which happened about it is a general rumour that hath filled all England,"[257] and the Queen herself seems to have been greatly angered. On July 28, 1597, the Privy Council sent a letter to the Justices of Middles.e.x and of Surrey informing them that Her Majesty "hath given direction that not only no plays shall be used within London or about the city or in any public place during this time of summer, but that also those playhouses that are erected and built only for such purposes shall be plucked down." Accordingly the Council ordered the Justices to see to it that "there be no more plays used in any public place within three miles of the city until Allhallows [i.e., November 1] next"; and, furthermore, to send for the owners of the various playhouses "and enjoin them by vertue 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."[258]

[Footnote 256: For an account of _The Isle of Dogs_ see E.K. Chambers, _Modern Language Review_ (1909), IV, 407, 511; R.B. McKerrow, _The Works of Thomas Nashe_, V, 29; and especially the important article by Mr. Wallace in _Englische Studien_ already referred to.]

[Footnote 257: _Nashes Lenten Stuffe_ (1599), ed. McKerrow, III, 153.]

[Footnote 258: Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, XXVII, 313.

Possibly the other public playhouses were suppressed along with the Swan in response to the pet.i.tion presented to the Council on July 28, (i.e. on the same day) by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen requesting the "final suppressing of the said stage plays, as well at the Theatre, Curtain, and Bankside as in all other places in and about the city."

See The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 78.]

The Council, however, did not stop with this. It ordered the arrest of the authors of the play and also of the chief actors who took part in its performance. Nashe saved himself by precipitate flight, but his lodgings were searched and his private papers were turned over to the authorities. Robert Shaw and Gabriel Spencer, as leaders of the troupe, and Ben Jonson, as one of the "inferior players" who had a part in writing the play,[259] were thrown into prison. The rest of the company hurried into the country, their speed being indicated by the fact that we find them acting in Bristol before the end of July.

[Footnote 259: In a marginal gloss to _Nashes Lenten Stuffe_ (1599), ed. McKerrow, III, 154, Nashe says: "I having begun but the induction and first act of it, the other four acts without my consent or the best guess of my drift or scope, by the players were supplied, which bred both their trouble and mine too."]

Some of these events are referred to in the following letter, addressed by the Privy Council "to Richard Topclyfe, Thomas Fowler, and Richard Skevington, esquires, Doctor Fletcher, and Mr.

Wilbraham":

Upon information given us of a lewd play that was played in one of the playhouses on the Bankside, containing very seditious and slanderous matter, we caused some of the players [Robert Shaw, Gabriel Spencer, and Ben Jonson[260]]

to be apprehended and committed to prison, whereof one of them [Ben Jonson] was not only an actor but a maker of part of the said play. Forasmuch as it is thought meet that the rest of the players or actors in that matter shall be apprehended to receive such punishment as their lewd and mutinous behaviour doth deserve, these shall be therefore to require you to examine those of the players that are committed (whose names are known to you, Mr. Topclyfe), what is become of the rest of their fellows that either had their parts in the devising of that seditious matter, or that were actors or players in the same, what copies they have given forth[261] of the said play, and to whom, and such other points as you shall think meet to be demanded of them, wherein you shall require them to deal truly, as they will look to receive any favour. We pray you also to peruse such papers as were found in Nashe his lodgings, which Ferrys, a messenger of the Chamber, shall deliver unto you, and to certify us the examinations you take.[262]