Shakespearean Playhouses Part 35

That Muse, whose song within another sphere[636]

Hath pleased some, and of the best, whose ear Is able to distinguish strains that are Clear and Phoebean from the popular And sinful dregs of the adulterate brain, By me salutes your candour once again; And begs this n.o.ble favour, that this place, And weak performances, may not disgrace His fresh Thalia.[637] 'Las, our poet knows We have no name; a torrent overflows Our little island;[638] miserable we Do every day play our own Tragedy.

But 't is more n.o.ble to create than kill, He says; and if but with his flame, your will Would join, we may obtain some warmth, and prove Next them that now do surfeit with your love.

Encourage our beginning. Nothing grew Famous at first. And, gentlemen, if you Smile on this barren mountain, soon it will Become both fruitful and the Muses hill.

[Footnote 636: The c.o.c.kpit, for which s.h.i.+rley had been writing.]

[Footnote 637: Cf. "new poets" of Marmion's Prologue.]

[Footnote 638: An allusion to the smallness of the Salisbury Court Playhouse?]

The similarity of this to the Prologue of _Holland's Leaguer_ is striking; and the Epilogue is written in the same vein:

Opinion Comes. .h.i.ther but on crutches yet; the sun Hath lent no beam to warm us. If this play Proceed more fortunate, we shall bless the day And love that brought you hither. 'T is in you To make a little sprig of laurel grow, And spread into a grove.

All scholars who have written on the subject--Collier, Fleay, Greg, Murray, etc.--have contended that the King's Revels Company did not leave Salisbury Court until after January 10, 1632, because Herbert licensed s.h.i.+rley's _The Changes_ on that date,[639] and the t.i.tle-page of the only edition of _The Changes_ states that it was acted at Salisbury Court by His Majesty's Revels. But Herbert records payments for six representations of Marmion's _Leaguer_ by Prince Charles's Men at Salisbury Court "in December, 1631."[640] This latter date must be correct, for on January 26 _Holland's Leaguer_ was entered on the Stationers' Register "as it hath been lately and often acted with great applause ... at the private house in Salisbury Court."

According to the generally accepted theory, however, the King's Men were still at Salisbury Court, and actually bringing out a new play there so late as January 10. This error has led to much confusion, and to no little difficulty for historians of the stage; for example, Mr.

Murray is forced to suppose that two royal patents were granted to Prince Charles's Company.[641] It seems to me likely that the t.i.tle-page of _The Changes_ is incorrect in stating that the play was acted by the King's Revels. The play must have been acted by the new and as yet unpopular Prince Charles's Men, who had occupied Salisbury Court as early as December, and, as Herbert tells us, with poor success. The various dates cited clearly indicate this; and the Prologue and the Epilogue are both wholly unsuited for utterance by the successful Revels Company which had just been "made Fortunate,"

but are quite in keeping with the condition of the newly organized and struggling Prince Charles's Men, who might naturally ask the public to "encourage our beginning."

[Footnote 639: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 232. But Malone was a careless transcriber, and Herbert himself sometimes made errors. Possibly the correct date is January 10, 1631.]

[Footnote 640: _Ibid._, III, 178.]

[Footnote 641: _English Dramatic Companies_, I, 221.]

Whether Prince Charles's Men ultimately succeeded in winning the favor of the public we do not know. Presumably they did, for at some date before 1635 they moved to the large Red Bull Playhouse. Richard Heton wrote: "And whereas my Lord of Dorset had gotten for a former company at Salisbury Court the Prince's service, they, being left at liberty, took their opportunity of another house, and left the house in Salisbury Court dest.i.tute both of a service and company."[642]

[Footnote 642: Richard Heton, "Instructions for my Pattent," _The Shakespeare Society's Papers_, IV, 96.]

This person, Richard Heton, who describes himself as "one of the Sewers of Her Majesty's Chamber Extraordinary," had now obtained control of Salisbury Court, and had become manager of its affairs.[643] He apparently induced the Company of His Majesty's Revels to leave the Fortune and return to Salisbury Court, for in 1635 they acted there Richard Brome's _The Sparagus Garden_. But their career at Salisbury Court was short; on May 12 of the following year all playhouses were closed by the plague, and acting was not allowed again for nearly a year and a half. During this long period of inactivity, the Company of His Majesty's Revels was largely dispersed.

[Footnote 643: We find a payment to Richard Heton, "for himself and the rest of the company of the players at Salisbury Court," for performing a play before his Majesty at Court, October, 1635.

(Chalmers's _Apology_, p. 509.) Exactly when he took charge of Salisbury Court I am unable to learn.]

When at last, on October 2, 1637, the playhouses were allowed to open, Heton found himself with a crippled troupe of actors. Again the Earl of Dorset interested himself in the theatre. Queen Henrietta's Company, which had been at the c.o.c.kpit since 1625, having "disperst themselves," Dorset took "care to make up a new company for the Queen";[644] and he placed this new company under Heton at Salisbury Court. Heton writes: "How much I have done for the upbuilding of this Company, I gave you some particulars of in a pet.i.tion to my Lord of Dorset." This reorganization of the Queen's Men explains, perhaps, the puzzling entry in Herbert's Office-Book, October 2, 1637: "I disposed of Perkins, Sumner, Sherlock, and Turner, to Salisbury Court, and joyned them with the best of that company."[645] Doubtless Herbert, like Dorset, was anxious for the Queen to have a good troupe of players. This new organization of the Queen's Men continued at Salisbury Court without interruption, it seems, until the closing of the playhouses in 1642.[646]

[Footnote 644: Cunningham, _The Shakespeare Society's Papers_, IV, 96.]

[Footnote 645: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]

[Footnote 646: For certain troubles at Salisbury Court in 1644 and 1648, see Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), II, 37, 40, 47.]

In 1649 John Herne, son of the John Herne who in 1629 had secured a lease on the property for sixty-one years, made out a deed of sale of the playhouse to William Beeston,[647] for the sum of 600. But the doc.u.ment was not signed. The reason for this is probably revealed in the following pa.s.sage: "The playhouse in Salisbury Court, in Fleet Street, was pulled down[648] by a company of soldiers set on by the sectaries of these sad times, on Sat.u.r.day, the 24 day of March, 1649."[649]

[Footnote 647: William Beeston was the son of the famous actor Christopher Beeston, who was once a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later manager of the Fortune, and finally proprietor of the c.o.c.kpit. In 1639 William had been appointed manager of the c.o.c.kpit Company. (See pages 358 ff.)]

[Footnote 648: That is, stripped of its benches, stage-hangings, and other appliances for dramatic performances.]

[Footnote 649: The ma.n.u.script entry in Stow's _Annals_. See _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314. On the same date the soldiers "pulled down on the inside" also the Phoenix and the Fortune.]

Three years later, however, Beeston, through his agent Theophilus Bird, secured the property from Herne at the reduced price of 408: "John Herne, by indenture dated the five and twentieth day of May, 1652, for 408, to him paid by Theophilus Bird, did a.s.sign the premises and all his estate therein in trust for the said William Beeston."[650]

[Footnote 650: Cunningham, _The Shakespeare Society's Papers_, IV, 103.]

Early in 1660 Beeston, antic.i.p.ating the return of King Charles, and the reestablishment of the drama, decided to put his building back into condition to serve as a playhouse; and he secured from Herbert, the Master of the Revels, a license to do so.[651] On April 5, 1660, he contracted with two carpenters, Fisher and Silver, "for the rebuilding the premises"; and to secure them he mortgaged the property. The carpenters later swore that they "expended in the same work 329 9_s._ 4_d._"[652]

[Footnote 651: Printed in Malone, _Variorum_, III, 243, and Halliwell-Phillipps, _A Collection of Ancient Doc.u.ments_, p. 85. The language clearly indicates that Beeston was to _reconvert_ the building into a theatre.]

[Footnote 652: Cunningham, _The Shakespeare Society's Papers_, IV, 103.]

The reconstructed playhouse was opened in 1660, probably as early as June, with a performance of _The Rump_, by Tatham. It was engaged by Sir William Davenant for his company of actors until his "new theatre with scenes" could be erected in Lincoln's Inn Fields.[653] The ubiquitous Pepys often went thither, and in his _Diary_ gives us some interesting accounts of the performances he saw there. On March 2, 1661, he witnessed a revival of Thomas Heywood's _Love's Mistress, or The Queen's Masque_ before a large audience:

After dinner I went to the Theatre [i.e., Killigrew's playhouse] where I found so few people (which is strange, and the reason I did not know) that I went out again; and so to Salisbury Court, where the house as full as could be; and it seems it was a new play, _The Queen's Masque_, wherein are some good humours: among others a good jeer to the old story of the Siege of Troy, making it to be a common country tale. But above all it was strange to see so little a boy as that was to act Cupid, which is one of the greatest parts in it.

[Footnote 653: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 257; Halliwell-Phillipps, _A Collection of Ancient Doc.u.ments_, p. 27.]

Again, on March 26, he found Salisbury Court crowded:

After dinner Mrs. Pierce and her husband, and I and my wife, to Salisbury Court, where coming late, he and she light of Col. Boone, that made room for them; and I and my wife sat in the pit, and there met with Mr. Lewes and Tom Whitton, and saw _The_ _Bondman_[654] done to admiration.

[Footnote 654: By Philip Ma.s.singer.]

The history of the playhouse during these years falls outside the scope of this volume. Suffice it to say that before Beeston finished paying the carpenters for their work of reconstruction, the great fire of 1666 swept the building out of existence; as Fisher and Silver declared: "The mortgaged premises by the late dreadful fire in London were totally burned down and consumed."[655]

[Footnote 655: The subsequent history of Salisbury Court is traced in the legal doc.u.ments printed by Cunningham. Beeston lost the property, and Fisher and Silver erected nearer the river a handsome new playhouse, known as "The Duke's Theatre," at an estimated cost of 1000.]

CHAPTER XX

THE c.o.c.kPIT-IN-COURT, OR THEATRE ROYAL AT WHITEHALL

On birthdays, holidays, and festive occasions in general the sovereigns of England and the members of the royal family were wont to summon the professional actors to present plays at Court. For the accommodation of the players and of the audience, the larger halls at Hampton, Windsor, Greenwich, St. James, Whitehall, or wherever the sovereign happened to be at the time, were specially fitted up, often at great expense. At one end of the hall was erected a temporary stage equipped with a "music-room," "players' houses of canvas," painted properties, and such other things as were necessary to the actors. In the centre of the hall, on an elevated dais, were provided seats for the royal family, and around and behind the dais, stools for the more distinguished guests; a large part of the audience was allowed to stand on platforms raised in tiers at the rear of the room. Since the plays were almost invariably given at night, the stage was illuminated by special "branches" hung on wires overhead, and carrying many lights. In the accounts of the Office of the Revels one may find interesting records of plays presented in this manner, with the miscellaneous items of expense for making the halls ready.

Usually the Court performances, like the masques, were important, almost official occasions, and many guests, including the members of the diplomatic corps, were invited. To provide accommodation for so numerous an audience, a large room was needed. Hampton Court possessed a splendid room for the purpose in the Great Banqueting Hall, one hundred and six feet in length and forty feet in breadth. But the palace at Whitehall for many years had no room of a similar character.

For the performance of a masque there in 1559 the Queen erected a temporary "Banqueting House." Again, in 1572, to entertain the Duke of Montmorency, Amba.s.sador from France, she had a large "Banketting House made at Whitehall," covered with canvas and decorated with ivy and flowers gathered fresh from the fields. An account of the structure may be found in the records of the Office of the Revels. Perhaps, however, the most elaborate and substantial of these "banqueting houses" was that erected in 1581, to entertain the amba.s.sadors from France who came to treat of a marriage between Elizabeth and the Duc d'Anjou. The structure is thus described by Holinshed in his _Chronicle_:[656]

This year (against the coming of certain commissioners out of France into England), by Her Majesty's appointment, on the sixth and twentieth day of March, in the morning (being Easter Day), a Banqueting House was begun at Westminster, on the south-west side of Her Majesty's palace of Whitehall, made in manner and form of a long square, three hundred thirty and two foot in measure about; thirty princ.i.p.als made of great masts, being forty foot in length apiece, standing upright; between every one of these masts ten foot asunder and more. The walls of this house were closed with canvas, and painted all the outsides of the same most artificially, with a work called rustic, much like stone. This house had two hundred ninety and two lights of gla.s.s. The sides within the same house was made with ten heights of degrees for people to stand upon; and in the top of this house was wrought most cunningly upon canvas works of ivy and holly, with pendants made of wicker rods, garnished with bay, rue, and all manner of strange flowers garnished with spangles of gold; as also beautified with hanging toseans made of holly and ivy, with all manner of strange fruits, as pomegranates, oranges, pompions, cuc.u.mbers, grapes, carrots, with such other like, spangled with gold, and most richly hanged.

Betwixt these works of bays and ivy were great s.p.a.ces of canvas, which was most cunningly painted, the clouds with stars, the sun and sun-beams, with diverse other coats of sundry sorts belonging to the Queen's Majesty, most richly garnished with gold. There were of all manner of persons working on this house to the number of three hundred seventy and five: two men had mischances, the one broke his leg, and so did the other. This house was made in three weeks and three days, and was ended the eighteenth day of April, and cost one thousand seven hundred forty and four pounds, nineteen s.h.i.+llings, and od mony, as I was credibly informed by the wors.h.i.+pful master Thomas Grave, surveyor unto Her Majesty's works, who served and gave order for the same.

[Footnote 656: Edition of 1808, IV, 434. See also Stow's _Chronicle_, under the year 1581.]

Although built in such a short time, and of such flimsy material, this expensive Banqueting House seems to have been allowed to stand, and to have been used thereafter for masques and plays. Thus, when King James came to the throne, he ordered plays to be given there in November, 1604. We find the following entry in the Treasurer's accounts:

For making ready the Banqueting House at Whitehall for the King's Majesty against the plays, by the s.p.a.ce of four days ... 78_s._ 7_d._