No More Learning

266 (#284) ############################################

266
The Elizabethan Theatre
7
1
1
1
from spectators the preparations for the next scene going on
behind it.
The attempt to work out this 'alternation' theory by dividing
the extant plays of the period into front and back scenes has not
been successful'. A further difficulty arises from the fact that not
all the spectators were in front of the stage. A traverse between
the pillars would not conceal what was going on behind it from
people on either side of the stage. To block out their view, further
traverses at right angles to that between the pillars would be
necessary. The result, inevitably, would be to conceal not only
the back scene from them, but a great deal of the front scene, too,
on which action would be in progress. An even greater difficulty
attends the suggestion that, since there are notable instances
where it would be absurd for actors to enter the front scene by the
only available entrance, that is, through the traverse, there must
have been hangings all along both sides of the stage so that actors
might enter from the sides. It is to be noted, too, that this theory
supposes the upper stage or balcony to be concealed by the
traverse. This would mean that all scenes in which the balcony
was occupied must be back scenes, which is not easy to establish,
and makes it impossible that the audience should ever have used
the balcony; while three extant illustrations of the stage—the
title-pages to Richards's Messallina (1640) and Alabaster's Roxana
(1632), and the picture of a 'droll' on the stage of the Red Bull
which forms the frontispiece to Kirkman's The Wits (1673)-dis-
tinctly show the traverse hanging from below the balcony, while the
first and the last show a separate curtain for the balcony itself.
This theory seems to lose sight of the simple origin of the stage
-a temporary platform erected in the midst of a crowd and sur-
rounded by spectators regarding it from nearly all the four sides-
and to err from over-anxiety to credit an Elizabethan audience with
a susceptibility to the incongruous. The very naïve tradition of the
miracles and early moralities, in which two or more scenes, some-
times representing localities hundreds of miles apart, were on the
stage simultaneously, had not died out; and the audience may be
fairly supposed to have been no more offended by the conventions
of dramatic space than is a modern audience by those of dramatic
1 See Reynolds, op. cit. , and Wegener, R. , Die Bühneneinrichtung des Shake-
speareschen Theaters, Halle, 1907. For the practical defects of Brodmeier's proposed
reconstruction, see Archer, W. , in The Quarterly Review, no. 415, April 1908. The
*Elizabethan' stage reconstructed at Harvard in 1904 was planned on the alterna-
tion theory. For an illustration and description, see 'Hamlet on an Elizabethan Stage,'
by Baker, G. P. , Shakesp. Jahrbuch, vol. XLI (1905), pp. 296 ff.
6


## p. 267 (#285) ############################################

The Swan and the Hope Stages
267
time, which allow an imaginary half-hour to pass in an actual five
minutes. In his Apologie for Poetrie (written about 1580—1),
Sidney writes:
For where the stage should alwaies represent but one place, . . . there is . . .
many places, inartificially imagined. But if it be so in Gorboduck, how much
more in al the rest, where you shal have Asia of the one side, and Affrick of
the other, and so many other ander-kingdoms, that the Player, when he
commeth in, must ever begin with telling where he is, or els the tale wil not
be conceived ?
His words are borne out by numerous cases in extant plays, where
two or more places are imagined to be on the stage at the same
time; and it scarcely needs the evidence of ascertainable instances
to prove that an Elizabethan audience would not have the least
objection to seeing properties (such as the bench in the drawing
of the Swan) brought on the stage without concealment and left
there after they had served their turn, though it is extremely
likely that susceptibility to the incongruous grew, as time went on,
under the influence of Jonson and the classical playwrights. In
spite of this, it is abundantly clear that there was a back stage,
which could be revealed by drawing a curtain.
The fact is significant that, just as the Hope, though planned on
the lines of the Swan, was to be built of wood, not ilint, so, in the
contract with the builder, it is directly stated that he shall also
builde the Heavens all over the saide stage to be borne or carryed
without any postes or supporters to be fixed or sett uppon the
saide stage. ' It is possible, therefore, that the pillars of the Swan
were as the drawing shows them, and that the pentroof covered
half or nearly half the stage; but that the plan was found incon-
venient, was confined to the Swan and was discarded by Henslowe
when he built the Hope. In that case, the Swan may have had
the front and back scenes divided by the lofty traverse, and have
used them as suggested by the theory summarised above; but it is
at least unfortunate that the draughtsman should have hit on a
playhouse the arrangement of which was unique and discredited.
The construction may well have been different in different
houses; and there are several ways in which the necessary back
stage may be reconstructed and the requirements of stage direc-
tions fulfilled, without imposing a strict ‘alternation theory' or
incurring the difficulties referred to above. According to one
scheme', the pillars supporting the 'heavens' (if pillars there be)
play no part in the division of the stage. The stage proper runs
* This account follows, in the main, that suggested by Chambers, E. K. , 'The Stage
of the Globe,' in the Stratford-on-Avon Shakespeare, vol. 2, pp. 351 f.
6
9


## p. 268 (#286) ############################################

268
The Elizabethan Theatre
right back to the wall of the tirehouse. The gallery either
does not project, or projects only very slightly, in front of
that wall. From the level of its floor, hangings fall to the
stage, occupying, not the whole width of the stage, but most, or
the whole, of that part of it which lies between the two doors, the
doors being left uncovered. For this purpose, it is necessary to
suppose the doors further apart than they are in the drawing
of the Swan. These hangings, when drawn back, reveal the lower
chamber of the tirehouse in use as part of the stage, possibly with
a floor raised slightly above the stage level. Here, the strolling
players in Hamlet would perform, and here, Henry VIII would sit
in his closet. The room would be big enough to hold a fair
number of people; in the Fortune, for instance, an inner chamber
20 feet wide would still leave 114 feet on either side for the doors.
And the scene could always overflow on the stage proper. And,
since a third entrance is frequently mentioned and almost always
necessary, a door in the back of this chamber must also be
supposed, large enough to admit of 'properties' such as beds,
banqueting tables and so forth being brought through it. The
stage proper is thus entirely free of hangings, except those in front
of the chamber under the tirehouse; and the fact that this chamber
must have been low and dark seems of less importance when it
is remembered that plays were acted in unencumbered daylight.
There were hangings, also, in front of the balcony above. The
theory is not without its difficulties, the chief of which are that
many of the audience must have been unable, from their position in
the house, to see into the inner chamber, and that, when there were
actors or spectators in the balcony, they, too, would have been
unable to see into it? This view, to some extent, is borne out by
the title-pages of Messallina and Roxana mentioned above; but,
as neither of these shows the whole width of the stage, no certain
conclusions can be drawn from them. Another scheme makes
the gallery project some feet from the wall of the tirehouse, with
the traverse hanging from its floor and concealing all the doors
when it is drawn. There is, thus, a kind of corridor stage behind
the stage proper ; but, once more, any actors or spectators there
may be in the gallery will be unable to see what is taking place on
the back stage, and it is also necessary to imagine that every scene
in which doors are mentioned must have been a scene in which
1 Wegener's suggestion (op. cit. ), that there was a kind of ekkyklema on which
deathbeds and the like could be wheeled over the back stage and brought forward,
does not seem to be supported by sufficient evidence, though such a contrivance
would certainly have been useful.


## p. 269 (#287) ############################################

6
Stage Appliances and Properties 269
the back stage was used. To obviate these difficulties, a suggestion
has recently been put forward that the two side doors were not
flat in the wall of the tirehouse but set in walls slanting towards
it, while the traverse before the corridor hangs further up the
stage (i. l. nearer the back wall) and, when drawn, conceals only
the third, central door. The same suggestion curves the gallery
forward at each side, at an angle corresponding with that of the
walls containing the side doors, so that its occupants might see the
back stage, and even provides semicircular projections, or bays, in
order to make quite sure? .
The space beneath the stage was sometimes 'paled in' by
boarding, which, though not shown in the drawing of the Swan,
must have been a common feature, because many instances occur of
actors (especially when playing ghosts) appearing and disappearing
through trapdoors, and of dead bodies being thrown down through
them. We read of flames and even of a “brave arbour' appearing
from below. If the stage was strewn with rushes, as it seems to
have been, the use of the trap must, sometimes, have been difficult;
and, in any plays where the trapdoor was needed, the 'matting' on
the stage, which Sir Henry Wotton mentions, apparently as an
unusual thing, in his account of the burning of the Globe in 1613,
must have been out of the question. There was also, in some
playhouses at all events, an appliance by which players could be
let down from above, as if descending from heaven, though it
appears to have been more difficult to draw them up again.
Whether the appliance worked from the balcony or the heavens'
is not ascertained.
Painted scenery on the public stage there was none, though the
mention in an inventory of the Admiral's men's properties, compiled
by Henslowe in 1598, of 'the clothe of the Sone and Mone,' certainly
seems to imply some attempt of this nature, and though the figures
of men and animals frequently appeared in the woven or painted
hangings. But there is abundant evidence that the properties were
many and elaborate. Houses, beds, rocks, ramparts, wells, property
horses, and even structures serving as shops, are mentioned as being
brought on the stage, and there is strong evidence for the solid
1 By Archer, U. S. See, in particular, the reproduction of a model by an
architect, Walter H. Godfrey, of & stage according to the specification of the Fortune,
illustrating Archer's article. The model itself was on view in the Exposition théâtrale,
Paris, 1908.
One objection to this arrangement is that it would make the drawing of the
traverse (which we know the gallery to have had) a very complicated affair.


## p. 270 (#288) ############################################

270
The Elizabethan Theatre
t
representation of woods and separate treesThough there was no
attempt at creating a picture, considerable care and expense were
incurred in the provision of properties. Yet these attempts at
realism, for which an Elizabethan audience, according to its lights,
had as keen a desire as a modern audience, long went hand in
hand with the simplest devices. The names of the places were
fastened over the doors, especially in cases where the stage re-
presented two scenes at once; and where the presence of specta-
tors on the stage reduced the space, the properties for which there
was not room were sometimes indicated by nuncupative cards, a
practice which prevailed, at this time, also in France. Such cards,
however, must be distinguished from the 'title-boards,' which, in
private theatres, were fastened up, or held up by the speaker of
the prologue, to give the title of the play.
Performances at private playhouses? may be taken to have
approximated to those at universities, inns of court and royal
residences, in aiming at the taste of more refined audiences than
did the public playhouse—though too much stress should not be
laid on the supposition. Noblemen, ambassadors and other great
.
,
people went to the public playhouses; but, while it is on record
that Elizabeth went to the Blackfriars, she is not known to
have ever visited the Globe. Private playhouses were completely
roofed over, and, though performances took place there in the
afternoons as in public playhouses, they were, occasionally at all
events, performed in artificial light, the windows being covered
over. Instead of the 'yard' filled with 'understanding' spectators
or 'groundlings,' there was a pit, with seats.
The evidence shows that a performance at court was very
different from a performance in a public or private playhouse.
It was for this honour, ostensibly, that the company worked all the
year, and, when the master of the revels had selected, after com-
petition, the companies and the plays they should perform, the
author was often called upon to revise his play; and the perform-
ance ended with prayers for the queen. Elizabeth's accounts show
an annual outlay for airing and furbishing up the court stock of
costumes and appliances, besides considerable expense for wires,
lights, properties and mechanical contrivances". The old domus
of the miracles survive in the 'painted houses' of the players at
1 On properties, see Reynolds, op. cit. , and his article, "Trees on the stage of Shake-
speare'in Modern Philology, vol. v, p. 153.
On this question, see Wallace, op. cit.
3 All the evidence has been collected by Feuillerat, A. , Documents relating to the
Office of the Revels.
6


## p. 271 (#289) ############################################

Costumes.
The Audience
271
court; and there can be little question that painted scenery was
not unknown! Under James I, great advances were achieved by
the arts of stage decoration and production through the masques
written by Ben Jonson and mounted by Inigo Jones; but the
public stage was little affected, if at all. Not until the return of
D'Avenant and other adherents of Charles I and II from France
and Italy, to be followed by Betterton's mission to Paris-not
until the drama became more nearly dependent on court favour
than it had been made even by the exclusive royal patronage of
companies on the accession of James I, did the public stage
make a corresponding advance; and then it drew its inspiration
from other sources. The main appeal to the eye in public
playhouses before the rebellion was made by the costumes of
actors. Now and then, as in miracles, a rudimentary attempt
at dramatic propriety in costume was made. For the most part,
players wore the ordinary dress of the day, some, even of the
male characters, appearing in wigs, and some—especially, it would
seem, in cases of disguise and of minor players acting more than
one part-having their faces concealed by masks. Makeshift and
errors of taste were not unknown even in London playhouses ;
but Henslowe's extant accounts show that the costumes were
splendid and costly-velvet, gold lace, copper lace and other
rich materials being freely used. The speaker of the prologue
appeared in a black cloak.
The creation of an atmosphere for the play (which is the aim
that modern stage production is endeavouring, often in strangely
inartistic fashion, to achieve by scenery) was left to the descriptive
words of the poet, the voice of the actor and the imagination of the
audience. The audience of those days must certainly be supposed
to have been more susceptible to the message to the ear, and less
to deficiencies in the message to the eye, than that of our own
time; but, while taking into account the larger part played by
the Elizabethan drama in intellectual life, we must be careful not
to credit the spectators with a much greater earnestness in the
playhouse. Abundant evidence proves that-what with the throng
of groundlings in the yard, intent mainly on the fighting and the
broader humour; what with the gallants making their way through
the tirehouse and lying or sitting on stools on the stage', smoking
the pipes which their pages filled for them, and intent on display-
ing themselves rather than on listening to the play; what with the
1 For distinct evidence of scene shifting in a university performance, see Nichols :
Progresses of King James 1, vol. 1, p. 538.
On this subject, see Wallace, op. cit. chap. XI.


## p. 272 (#290) ############################################

272
The Elizabethan Theatre
women of the town and their admirers in the galleries ; what with
here and there a Bobadill or Tucca ready to brawl at any moment
-the Elizabethan audience, whether in a public or in a private
playhouse, was not the rapt body of enthusiasts which later times
have been tempted to imagine it. It included, however, Walsing-
hams and Southamptons, refined and intellectual admirers of the
drama, and their numbers must have exceeded those of the Sidneys
who scoffed and of the Northbrookes who railed. It is impossible
to reconstruct past acting ; but it is safe to conclude that the
players whose duty it was to embody the creations of Shakespeare,
Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, to the satisfaction of the best
intellects of the reigns of Elizabeth and James, with practically no
scenic illusion to aid them, must have cultivated to a high degree
the arts both of declamation and of expressing character. The
improvement in the drama consequent on the coming of uni-
versity wits probably called forth a corresponding improvement
in the actor's art, and there is some evidence that a decline
in acting followed or accompanied the decline of the drama in
the seventeenth century. That declamation was often attended
by its besetting sin of rant is recorded in Hamlet's advice to the
players (Hamlet, act III, sc. 2) as well as in various passages of other
contemporary writers, which imply that the actors of the Fortune
(in its later days), the Red Bull and the Cockpit were great offenders
in this respect, and that the evil grew during the latter half of the
period. The player's response, however: 'I hope we have reform'd
that indifferently with us, Sir,' coupled with the admonition of
Hamlet, is pretty good evidence that, at the Globe, declamation
was not allowed to degenerate. As to the quality of the character
acting, the elegy on Richard Burbage shows how vivid this was at
its best; though, of course, it is impossible to tell how deeply, even
under Shakespeare's guidance, Burbage penetrated into the signi-
ficance of the characters he played. The evidence of Flecknoe,
who, in his Short Discourse of the English Stage (1664) praises
Burbage for a 'delightful Proteus' that maintained his character
throughout, even in the tyring-house,' must represent a tradition
and an ideal rather than the statement of an eyewitness. That
the female characters were all played in the playhouses by
boys, youths, or young men, generally implies, to modern minds,
incongruity and poor acting; but the popularity of boys'
companies goes to show that boys, when thoroughly trained, can
do better than we give them credit for today'. The spectacle,
1 See Wallace, op. cit. chaps, Iv and ix; and cf. Raleigh, W. , Shakespeare (1907),
pp. 119-120.
>


## p. 273 (#291) ############################################

Variety of Appeal
273
at any rate, must have been pleasanter than that of women
playing male parts, and 'squeaking Cleopatra' may have boyed
her greatness with better artistic effect than some actresses have
achieved
Much of the inequality in the plays of Shakespeare, as well
as of their popularity during his lifetime, can be explained by the
consideration that he wrote for a mixed audience, and succeeded
in pleasing all? . The appeal of his plays to the best intellects of
the time needs no showing. For the more intelligent of the
common spectators, in whose lives the drama filled the place now
occupied by the lending library, the press and, to some extent, the
pulpit, there was not only the strong story but the expression of
comment and criticism on many aspects of life and on facts of
the varied world, some of them only remotely connected with
the actual plot. For lovers of sport and action, there were ex-
hibitions of swordplay, wrestling and so forth, which the drama
had woven into its own texture, besides battles, murders and
other incidents which, as St Évremond noticed a century later, the
English public liked to see on the stage. For all amateurs of
wit, there were exhibitions or contests in punning and jesting-
another form of entertainment which the drama, to a great ex-
tent, absorbed into itself-ranging from the keen wordplay and
literary parody to the gross joke or hint for the groundlings.
That Shakespeare would willingly have dispensed with the latter,
we know from the passage in Hamlet referred to above. The
'gag' of the clown must have been the more annoying because
it was the common practice to conclude a performance, and some-
times to interrupt it, with a 'jig,' performed by Tarlton, Kemp,
Armin, or some other ‘fool'--an indispensable member of every
company_answering to the 'laughable farce' which followed the
tragedy until days within the memory of living men. To the
possible attractions of the playhouse must be added music, played
both during and between the acts. That at Blackfriars was
especially esteemed, as was, naturally, that of the children's com-
panies, and public theatres attempted to emulate their success
in this matter. Where the 'noise,' or orchestra, sat is not certain;
it was not till after the Restoration that it was placed between
the stage and the audience, and, in the period under notice, it
probably occupied in some playhouses the space marked orchestra
in the drawing of the Swan, perhaps on both sides of the stage.
1 On this question, see Bridges, R. , in the Stratford-on-Avon Shakespeare, vol. x,
and contrast Bradley, A. C. , in Oxford Lectures on Poetry, pp. 361 ff.
18
6
E. L. VI.
CH, X


## p. 274 (#292) ############################################

274
The Elizabethan Theatre
The occurrence of songs in plays is well known; and we read that
in the country, at any rate, the music was more popular than the
play itself.
Another fact to be noticed is the intimate connection be-
tween author and company. It was not only actor-authors, like
Shakespeare and Nathan Field, who attached themselves to one
company and wrote their plays for it during life or a term of
years. The tradition that Hamlet was made ‘fat' because Burbage
was fat, and the still less trustworthy tradition that Iago was
written for a comedian, with opportunities introduced into the
part for making the audience laugh, do not go so far to prove the
effect of this practice on Shakespeare's work as does the con-
sideration that any sensible playwright writing for a certain
company will take care that the parts are adapted to its members.
Authors often worked very fast, plays being written sometimes
in the short space of a fortnight; and they looked for very little
reward. The Admiral's company seems to have ordered and
produced more new plays than the Chamberlain's and King's com-
pany', whose plays, possibly, could bear more frequent repetition;
and they only paid sums varying from £5 to £8 for a play until
1602, though as much as £25 seems to have been obtainable later
in the period under notice. The author seems to have received a
fee for altering his play for production at court; but, though the
company received a regular fee of £6. 138. 4d. , with a present of
£3. 68. 8d. for each play performed at court in London, and double
those sums when the performance entailed a journey to Hampton
court or Windsor, the author cannot be proved to have had a share
of this reward. He was present, no doubt, when the company
assembled at an inn to read and consider his new play over re-
freshments paid for by the company, and he had a right to free
admission to the playhouse a privilege which Ben Jonson used
to abuse by sitting in the gallery and making wry faces at the
actors' delivery of his lines. The author received a fee for altering
his play for a revival, 58. for a prologue and epilogue and, some-
times, a bonus at the first performance; and there is good evidence
that, in certain cases, if not regularly, the author had a 'benefit,' as
later times would have phrased it, on the second or third day of
performance. If his play was published, he could gain 40s. by
dedicating it to a patron.
a
a
So Fleay, Stage, p. 117, says that he has not been able to trace. . . more than
four new plays produced by them (the Chamberlain's company) in any one year. '
Greg, Henslowe's Diary, vol. 11, p. 112, n. 1, suggests that the preservation of Henslowe's
and the loss of the King's company's papers may partly account for the disproportion.


## p. 275 (#293) ############################################

Finance
275
The play was bought by the company, though there are scattered
cases in which individual persons exercised the rights of ownership;
the manuscripts formed part of the stock owned in shares by the
company, who could sell the play, if they wished, to another
company, but, naturally, disliked printing it, lest a rival company
should produce it unlawfully. For the same reason, the author
was not encouraged to print his play; the company purchased the
copyright, and it was considered sharp practice for the author to
sell it also to a bookseller. Many plays crept into print in a
a
mangled form through some surreptitious sale by a member of
the company, or through stenographers, who attended the play-
house to take down what they could of a successful play.
The bulk of the profits on a play went, not to the author or
authors, but to the company. Finance was mainly conducted
on the share system. One share or more might be purchased,
or might be allotted instead of salary; and, in the second
half of the period, shares were clearly regarded as property
that could be sold or devised by will. The proceeds of each
performance, after certain deductions had been made, were divided
among the members of the company according to their holdings
of shares.
In the case of Henslowe's company, at the Hope, those
deductions, at one time, in 1614, included the money received for
admission to the galleries and through the tiringhouse, half of the
sum going to Henslowe and Meade as owners of the theatre, and
the other half to Henslowe on account of advances made by him
for the stock of costumes, which was also the company's property.
Henslowe has been generally accused of harshness and injustice in
his dealings with the companies under his control. Pawnbroker
and moneylender, he acted, doubtless, to some extent, on the
principle put into his mouth by his players in their Articles of
Grievance and Oppression of 1615: 'should these fellowes Come
out of my debt, I should have noe rule with them. ' Excessive
value placed upon clothes and other property which he pur-
chased for them, bonds for repayment and the not infrequent
'breaking,' or disbanding, of companies which protested, kept
his actors in a state of subjection. The case may have been
different with the Chamberlain's and King's company; but we
are ignorant of its internal arrangements during nearly the whole
period. The recent discovery of documents setting forth the
company's financial arrangements during the years 1598 to 1615
· Made by Wallace, C. W. , and communicated by him to The Times of 2 and 4 Octo.
ber 1909, p. 9. This discovery, with others recently made by the same investigator,
will be dealt with at length in Shakespeare, The Globe and the Blackfriars, a work now
being prepared by him for publication.
1842


## p. 276 (#294) ############################################

276
The Elizabethan Theatre
is entitled to rank among the most important contributions to what
is known in this field. In 1599, a lease of the site of the Globe
was granted for 31 years, one half of the interest in the property
to the brothers Burbage, who paid one half the whole annual rent
of £14. 108. Od. , the other half to Shakespeare, Heminge, Phillipps,
Pope and Kemp, who paid the other half of the rent in equal
shares, i. e. £l. 98. Od. each. In 1610, Shakespeare and the four
,
other holders of tenths admitted Condell to an interest, their
shares thus becoming twelfths; and, in 1612, these twelfths were
further divided into fourteenths by the admission of William
Osteler. This arrangement lasted till 1630, each share, it appears,
being assigned on the death of its owner to the Burbages or the
survivor of them, to be reassigned to some new actor. In the
Blackfriars, Richard Burbage held one seventh share, leaving one
seventh each to Shakespeare, Heminge, Cuthbert Burbage, Condell,
Slye and Thomas Evans, each of the seven paying an annual rental
of £5. 148. 4d. -a total of £40. 08. 4d. This arrangement also lasted
till 1630. In the documents in the suit brought by Thomasin
Osteler against her father Heminge, the purchase value of one
seventh of the Blackfriars is estimated at £300, and the pur-
chase value of one-fourteenth of the Globe at the same sum ; and
a year's profits on each are estimated-no doubt somewhat in
excess, for purposes of the suit-at £300. In return for this, each
—.
actor-sharer not only paid his share of the cost of building and
keeping up the playhouse and of the incidental expenses—ward-
robe, servants and so forth—but gave his services as actor; and
the later passing of the shares by sale or demise into the hands of
persons other than actors led to dispute and litigation. The almost
equally important discovery by Halliwell-Phillipps of papers con-
cerning a dispute of this nature among sharers in the Globe and
Blackfriars playhouses in 1635 bad thrown a light on the later
finances of those houses. The company was then divided into three
classes : housekeepers, sharers and hired men and boys. The
housekeepers' shares in the Globe were sixteen in number, and,
at the date of the dispute, they were held as follows: three
and a half by Cuthbert Burbage, son of James and brother of
Richard, three and a half by the widow of Richard Burbage, now
Mrs Robinson, two by the widow of Henry Condell, three by the
actor John Shankes and two each by the actors Taylor and Lowin.
There were thus, among the housekeepers, three actors holding
seven shares, all of which they had purchased, and the remaining
nine shares were owned by 'neither actors, nor his Majesties
servants,' but the heirs or legatees of actors. The Blackfriars was


## p. 277 (#295) ############################################

Finance
277
a
divided into eight shares, three being in the hands of Cuthbert
Burbage and the widows of Richard Burbage and Condell, the
remaining five in the hands of Shankes, who held two, and Taylor,
Lowin and Underwood (another actor), who had one each. The
housekeepers had to pay the rent of the two houses (which they
put down at £100 yearly, while their opponents reckon it as £65,
less a sum of between £20 and £30 for a sub-let portion of the
premises), and to keep them in repair ; they received one half of
all the money taken except at the outer doors, that is to say, half
of all the fees for galleries, "rooms' and admission through the
tirehouse, for which a fee was charged, and for stools on the stage,
which had to be hired. The shareholders, i. e. actors who were not
housekeepers, bad, in earlier years, received money taken at the
outer doors only; by 1635, they divide exactly with the house-
keepers the fees for galleries, and so forth, and have to deduct out
of their earnings about £3 a day for wages to hired men and boys,
music, lights and the like, and also sums spent for costumes and
for purchase of plays. Considerable though their profits seem
to have been, certain shareholders felt that too much money went
into the hands of the housekeepers and that the existing dis-
tribution among the actor housekeepers was unfair, and their
petition to the lord chamberlain for a compulsory sale to them-
selves of certain shares was, apparently, granted.
The price of shares, doubtless, varied with the company, the
circumstances and the date. In 1593, Francis Henslowe appears
to have paid only £15 for a share in the Queen's company on the
eve of a provincial tour, and, two years later, the same actor paid
£9 for a half share in another company. The values of shares in
the Globe and the Blackfriars in 1615 have been mentioned above.
In 1633, Shankes paid £350 for one housekeepers’ share in the
Blackfriars for a term of five years, and two housekeepers’ shares
in the Globe for a term of one year. The pleadings in the dispute
referred to state that actors who were not housekeepers received
£180 each in the year 1634, while the housekeepers' shares
appear to have brought in something over £100 each share. A
writer in 1643 speaks of housekeepers sharing as much as 308.
a performance. The sums are not surprising when we remember
that, to the price of admission (which varied between one penny
at a public playhouse to six at a private) paid to the single
'gatherer' at the entrance door, were added the extra fees, amount-
ing sometimes to 28. 6d. , demanded by the extra 'gatherers' within,
for the use of the various parts of the galleries. Hired men
were engaged by contract either by the company or the manager,


## p. 278 (#296) ############################################

278
The Elizabethan Theatre
and received a weekly salary, varying from 58. to 88. Boys were
bought as apprentices by individual players, for sums varying
from £2 to something like £15, their masters, presumably, also
maintaining them; and, in some cases, boys appear to have been
bought and maintained by the company. Strict regulations were
made for the behaviour of all members of the company, share-
holders and hired men alike, and fines were exacted for lateness,
drunkenness, absence from rehearsal and other offences.
A man who was at once a sharing actor and a playwright, like
Shakespeare, clearly had it in his power to make fairly large sums
of money'; and Alleyn, who had other sources of income, was in
an even more fortunate position. No surprise need be felt at
Shakespeare's purchase of New Place, nor at Alleyn's heavy outlay
on property at Dulwich and his renowned benevolence. The
fortunate and respectable actor-even though he held no office
under the crown like Alleyn's—was received into good society
and was befriended and admired by the best intellects of his
time; he lived a comfortable and secure existence, and, per-
haps, indulged in the purchase of a coat of arms. Henry Condell
was a sidesman of the parish of St Mary's, Aldermanbury, in
1606: his respectability is unimpeachable. But the besetting sins
of the player-luxury, extravagance and intemperate living—for
which Hazlitt found generous excuses in later years, seem to
have existed then as ever. We read much of the player's love
of fine clothes and display. And there can be no doubt that the
frequent interruptions caused by the plague, the deterrent action
of such managers as Henslowe and the notorious uncertainty of
theatrical affairs, resulted in much poverty and distress among
lesser actors and lesser companies. Those on tour, especially,
suffered hardships, being forced to pawn their wardrobe, to 'pad
the hoof' instead of riding from town to town and to beg, instead
of play, for their keep. The extremes of the profession were as
far apart then as now; but the age of Elizabeth and James un-
doubtedly raised it as a whole into respect as well as popularity;
and the outspoken envy of those—by no means all of puritanical
bent—who railed at the pride and display of actors was the natural
result of the advance which the period witnessed. During the
reign of Charles, the greater prevalence of the plague, the shadow
of coming troubles and the deterioration of the drama itself caused
something of a decline, and the rebellion brought all to a close.
1 Wallace, u. s. , calculates Shakespeare's yearly profits from the Globe as never
exceeding £300, and a similar amount from the Blackfriars.
1
1


## p. 279 (#297) ############################################

CHAPTER XI
THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL
AND THEIR MASTERS
THE Chapel Royal and its relations to the history of drama
in England form an extremely puzzling and interesting subject
of enquiry. The origin of the chapel is lost in unrecorded
antiquity, the date of its earliest histrionic efforts is uncertain
and the records of its later activity are woefully incomplete. But
it entered the histrionic field early; it was, if we may trust the
extant records, a pioneer in the production of some important
kinds of plays; some of its authors seem to have set fashions
in dramatic composition; and Shakespeare himself honoured its
rivalry with one of the few clear notices of things contemporary
that we have from his pen.
Of the membership and organisation of the chapel in the
earliest times, we have not any systematic account; but, under
Edward IV, according to Liber Niger Domus Regis, it consisted
of a dean, twenty-four chaplains, two yeomen, eight children,
a master of song and a master of the grammar school. Later,
a sub-dean was added, the number of boys was increased to
twelve, and there were various increases in the number of chaplains,
or gentlemen of the chapel, to say nothing of the long list of
probationers awaiting vacancies among the gentlemen; but these
changes affected the size and not the functions of the institution.
It has always been an organisation primarily for the celebration
of divine service in the royal household, and its functions in its
earliest years, as during the last three centuries, were, perhaps,
limited strictly to this primary purpose.
But under the Tudor sovereigns, if not earlier, notable unofficial
additions were made to its functions. Both the gentlemen and
the children took part, frequently if not regularly, in the pageants,
masques and plays produced at Christmas and on other festal


## p. 280 (#298) ############################################

280
The Chapel Royal
occasions. During the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII, the
gentlemen seem to have figured in pageants and plays nearly as
often as the children; but their histrionic career seems to have
ceased early, perhaps because even then such frivolous perform-
ances seemed inappropriate to gentlemen ‘endowed,' as Liber
Niger specifies, 'with virtues morolle and specikative, as of the
musicke, shewinge in descante, eloquent in readinge, suffytyente
in organes playinge. ' It is very probable, indeed, that the histrionic
activity of the gentlemen began with morality plays and pageants
presenting moral allegories, and ceased soon after the drama and
other amusements of the court took a more secular turn. The
histrionic career of the children-possibly because they were
children—continued longer. In 1569, to be sure, they were
attacked in a pamphlet entitled The Children of the Chapel Stript
and Whipt:
Even in her majesties chappel do these pretty upstart youthes profane the
Lordes Day by the lascivious writhing of their tender limbs, and gorgeous
decking of their apparell, in feigning bawdie fables gathered from the
idolatrous heathen poets;
but it was not until the following century that the children ceased
to act. It is with the children, therefore, rather than the gentlemen,
that we are here concerned.
The earliest record relating to the children and their master1
that has been found is the commission (12 July 1440)
to the king's clerk, Master John Croucher, dean of the Chapel within the
king's household, to take throughout England such and so many boys as he or
his deputies shall see to be fit and able to serve God and the King in the said
Royal Chapel
We have here no mention of anyone specially delegated for the
training and supervision of the boys, and it is possible, though
6
1 In his introduction to The Old Cheque Book of the Chapel Royal, Rimbault
says : The earliest facts on record relating to the “King's Chapel" are contained in
the Liber Niger Domus Regis, a man
:
anuscript of the time of Edward IV'; and this
statement has been taken by later writers to mean that we have no earlier notice of
the organisation. There exists, however, in the Patent Rolls, a long series of earlier
notices, beginning with the mention of "Thomas de Lynton, Dean of the Chapel of the
King's Household,' 20 August 1380. Among the most important of these are: the
notice of John Boor as dean in 1389; the acquittance (10 March 1403) “to Richard
Kyngeston, late dean of the King's Chapel within the household, who received divers
jewels, vestments, . . . , for the same from John Boor, late Dean of the Chapel of
Richard II by indenture, and has delivered them to Richard Prentys, now dean. . . ';
various licences to Prentys in 1406 and 1412; and the commission, 20 November
1433, to distribute among the clerks who had been in the chapel of Henry V the sum
of £200, bequeathed to them in his will.


## p. 281 (#299) ############################################

Series of Masters
281
unlikely, that there was no such officer, and that there had been
no children in the chapel choir before this time, or, at least, no
special official recognition of them. These suppositions, however,
may be thought to derive a certain support from the next two
entries : 4 November 1444, a
grant to John Plummer, one of the clerks of the King's Chapel, for the
exhibition of eight boys of the Chapel and for his reward, of 40 marks yearly,
from Michaelmas last, so long as he have the keeping of the said boys or
others in their place, from the ulnage of woollen cloth for sale and from a
moiety of the forfeiture thereof in the town and suburbs of Bristol;
24 February 1445, a
grant, during good behaviour, to the king's serjeant John Plummer, one of
the clerks of the Chapel, for his daily labours in the teaching and rule of the
king's boys of the Chapel, of the said teaching, rule and governance.
This grant was surrendered 30 May 1446 for another of the same
tenor. In any event, the first master of the children was not,
as is commonly supposed, Henry Abyndon, for he was certainly
preceded by John Plummer.
From 1465, the series of masters can be made out with tolerable
completeness and certainty. On 2 July 1465, there was a
grant to the king's servitor Henry Abyndon of 40 marks yearly from Michael-
mas last from the issues of the county of Wilts for the provision of clothing
and other necessary apparel of the boys of the Chapel of the king's household
and for their instruction and governance, so long as he shall have the said
provision, instruction and governance;
and this grant was renewed 14 February 1471. It is not yet
ascertained when Henry Abyndon (or Abingdon) ceased to be
master; but, on 6 February 1479, a
grant was made to Gilbert Banaster of 40 marks yearly from the petty custom
in the port of London and ports and places adjacent for the maintenance,
instruction and governance of the boys of the Chapel of the household from
Michaelmas last, on which day he undertook these, so long as he shall have
the same.
When Banaster's successor was appointed does not appear; but
this successor was almost certainly not William Cornish, as is
commonly supposed. Cornish, as we shall see, was the successor
of William Newark! Newark was granted a corrody from the
priory of St Mary, Thetford, at some date prior to 23 November
* It is, of course, very unlikely that Cornish preceded Newark, was replaced by
him and then succeeded him. That Cornish was master in 1493 seems to be one of
Collier's unjustified inferences.


## p. 282 (#300) ############################################

282
The Chapel Royal
>
1480; nevertheless, in the document of this date he is not called
master of the children but one of the gentlemen of the King's
Chapel,' and in the grant (6 April 1485) of a yearly rent of £20 from
the king's manor of Bletchingley, county Surrey, he is spoken of
only as 'the King's servant. ' It is, however, clear that he was the
predecessor of Cornish as master of the children. On 23 May 1509,
he was appointed 'gentleman of the Chapel in the royal household
and master of the boys of the Chapel, during pleasure. ' As this
was scarcely more than a month after the king's accession, and as
he was already a gentleman of the chapel in 1480, the appoint-
ment, doubtless, was only a renewal of one made in the pre-
ceding reign. On 12 November 1509, he is mentioned as lately
deceased; but the appointment of his successor seems, for some
reason, to have been delayed for several years, for among the ‘Fees
and Annuities Paid by the King in 1516' occurs a record of
£26. 138. 4d. to 'W. Cornyshe, Master of the Children of the
Chapel, Vice W. Newark, during pleasure,' and it seems improbable
that Newark would have been mentioned if any master had come
between him and Cornish, or if Cornish had held the appointment
since Newark's death? Cornish is mentioned as late deceased on
? .
7 November 1524, and he seems to have been succeeded, though
not immediately, by William Crane, who had long been one of the
gentlemen of the chapel. Crane's appointment as master of the
children is dated 12 May 1526. His immediate successor was
Richard Bower. The official appointment was made 31 October
1545, but it was to date from 30 June 1545, since which time he
has by the king's command exercised the office. ' Whether Crane
was then dead or not, is not certain. In the 'Augmentations,'
a William Crane, apparently the person here in question, is
recorded as receiving his annuity on 8 May and 16 October 1545,
and there is a later record of payment of an annuity out of St Ed-
mondesburye to a William Crane in 1546. It seems, however, prob-
a
able that there were two William Cranes, whose names appear in the
records of these years, as there seems also to have been a Richard
Bowyer (alias Styrley, or Strylly, or Strelley) who has sometimes
been confused with Richard Bower, gentleman of the chapel and
master of the children. According to the entry in The Old Cheque
Book of the Chapel Royal, Bower died 26 July 1563; but Stow
a
1 Of Clement Adams, who is said (Babees Boke, p. lxxvi) to have been master of
the children in 1516, no such record can be found. John Melyonek and Philip Van
Wilder are also sometimes given as masters, in 1484 and 1550 respectively; but they
were merely commissioned to take up singers for the chapel.


## p. 283 (#301) ############################################

Dramatic Work of the Earlier Masters 283
gives 1561 as the year, and this seems supported by the fact that,
on 4 December 1561, a commission to take up children for the
chapel was issued to Richard Edwards, who is expressly called
master of the children. Edwards, perhaps the most famous of the
masters, did not long enjoy his office, as he died 31 October 1566.
He was succeeded by William Hunnis (erroneously called Thomas
and John in contemporary documents), who served until his death,
6 June 1597. With Nathaniel Giles, who was appointed master
three days later, our interest in the masters of the children ceases,
for he was the last under whom the boys were permitted to act.
Not only did the boys who acted cease, at the accession of James,
to be called children of the chapel and become children of the
queen's revels; but, when in 1626, Giles was commissioned to take
up boys for the king's chapel, it was expressly provided
that none of the said Choristers or Children of the Chappell, soe to be taken
by force of this commission, shal be used or imployed as Comedians, or Stage
Players, . . . for that it is not fitt or desent that such as should sing the praises
of God Almighty should be trained or imployed in such lascivious and
prophane exercises.
The importance of the children of the chapel in dramatic
history is due, in part, to their histrionic success and, in part, to the
success of some of their masters, and other authors who wrote for
them, in dramatic composition. Of the work of the earlier masters,
we, of course, know very little. Gilbert Banaster is commonly
credited with dramatic composition on the basis of Warton's
remark that he wrote in English verse the Miracle of saint
Thomas, in the year 1467’; but a miracle is not necessarily a
miracle-play. William Cornish seems, however, from the entries
in the 'Household Book of Henry VIII,' to have composed some
of the plays produced by the boys under his direction. If the
story of Troylous and Pandor,' performed by him and the children
before the king at Eltham, Christmas 1515, was written by him, he
may be regarded as the earliest known dramatiser of romantic
fiction. Ward suggests that this may have been merely a pageant;
but there is no evidence that it was customary to use similar
stories as the subjects of pageants, though, undoubtedly, as the
list of costumes and the number of actors—fifteen-indicate, this
play was highly spectacular. But pageants usually bore such
titles as 'the Golldyn Arber in the Arche yerd of Plesyer'
(13 February 1511), ‘Dangerus Fortrees' (9 March 1511), or the
Pavyllyon un [on] the Plas Parlos' (6 January 1515), and the
'accounts' usually contain elaborate descriptions of the pageant
6
6


## p. 284 (#302) ############################################

284
The Chapel Royal
features. Moreover, it should be remembered that, not long after
this, plays on similar subjects were not uncommon, though, unfor-
tunately, only one of them has been preserved to us. It seems,
therefore, only fair to ascribe more importance to this record than
has usually been done, and to regard Cornish as a pioneer in the
production, if not in the composition, of romantic drama. The
interlude called 'the triumpe of Love and Bewte,' 'wryten and
presentyd by Mayster Cornyshe and oothers of the Chappell . . .
and the chyldern of the sayd Chapell, Christmas 1514, was of a
more conventional character, and can hardly have been more than
an allegorical pageant, with words and music. It should, perhaps,
be mentioned that Cornish had the devising of the pageants on
Sunday night at the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
Whether William Crane was an author is unknown. He was
certainly a man of much business; in 1523, letters of protection
were granted him as gentleman of the king's household, alias
gentleman of the chapel, alias comptroller of the petty custom of
the port of London, alias, of London, draper; and, at various times,
he was granted permission to import woad and wine and to export
double beer, and he was appointed to furnish five of the king's
ships. He seems to have been a favourite of the king, and received
many grants in addition to his salary and allowances.
Richard Bower's claim to rank as a dramatic author depends,
so far as we know, upon his identification with the ‘R. B. ' who
wrote Apius and Virginia'. This, though by no means certain,
seems highly probable. We have no earlier copy of the play than
that printed in 1575; but it was entered in the Stationers' register
in 1567/8, and seems, from the allusion to the sweating sickness,
to have been written not later than 1551, the last year, according to
Creighton, of the occurrence of this epidemic in England. Whether
written by Bower or not, the play obviously belongs to a group of
plays which show certain similarities in motives and technique.
The group includes, besides this play, Edwards’s Damon and
Pithias (and, probably, also his lost Palamon and Arcyte), Ful-
well's Like wil to like, Pikeryng's Horestes, Wapull's The Tyde
taryeth no Man, Preston's Cambises, the anonymous Common
Conditions, and Syr Clyomon and Syr Clamydes and, perhaps,
some others. One has only to read these plays in succession to be
struck with their mutual resemblances. Most notable, perhaps, are
the large amount of attention given in them to “stage business'and
the provision of action; the use, in several of them, of unrelated
1 As to this play, cf. ante, vol. V, chap. IV, pp. 63-65.


## p. 285 (#303) ############################################

Preston's Cambises
285
comic scenes for the same purpose; the similarity of the rustic
characters which appear in most of them; the use, in most of
them, of a Vice who plays with both hands,' inciting to evil or
folly and then aiding in its punishment; the curious warnings to
the audience to beware of 'Cosin Cutpurse'; and the no less
curious allusions to the 'trump of fame. These characteristics
are less marked in the work of Edwards than in the other plays;
but this may be due to his greater independence and originality.
The group would seem to have originated with Apius and Virginia.
If this be the case, we may attribute the existence of the group
to the prestige of the children of the chapel and their masters.
In regard to one of these plays, a word may be permitted,
although it does not strictly belong to this chapter. We
know from the title-page of Cambises, that it was written by
Thomas Preston, and it is universally assumed that this was the
Thomas Preston who gained the favour of Elizabeth on her visit
to Cambridge in 1564. Commentators on A Midsummer Night's
Dream have not only recognised that Shakespeare ridiculed this
play, but have also seen in the lamentations of Flute over Bottom's
loss of sixpence a day for life an allusion to the pension given by
the queen to Preston on her memorable visit. The fact need not
be insisted upon that sixpence a day is a different thing from the
£20 a year granted to Preston ? , but it seems not amiss to point
out that Preston's two Latin orations were the prime basis of the
queen's pension and choice of him as her scholar. Nor does it
seem very probable that the distinguished scholar, who was fellow
of King's college in 1556, B. A. in 1557, M. A. in 1561 (and incor-
porated M. A. at Oxford in 1566) and proctor of his college in 1565,
who was directed by the authorities in 1572 to study civil law and,
four years later, to proceed to the degree of LL. D. and who
became master of Trinity hall in 1584, should have published, in
1569 and 1570, Cambises and the two ballads entitled :
A geleflower gentle or swete mary golde
Where in the frutes of terannye you may beholde
and
A Lamentation from Rome how the Pope doth bewayle
The Rebelles in England cannot prevayle.
Surely the Preston of Cambridge would not have published these
things; or, if he had, neither he nor his publishers would have
failed to print his academic titles.
As to Cambises, see ante, vol. v, chap. iv, pp. 63–65.
? It is, perhaps, more to the point to observe that 6d. a day was exactly the wages of
the yeoman of the queen’s revels, while the master received only £10 a year.


## p. 286 (#304) ############################################

286
The Chapel Royal
So much is known of Richard Edwards and William Hunnis
that only the briefest notice of them can be given in the space
available here?