[Footnote 173: Cunningham, _Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels_, p. x.x.xVIII.]

Among the playwrights engaged by Pierce to write for Paul's were Marston, Middleton, Chapman, Dekker, Webster, and Beaumont; and, as a result, some of the most interesting dramas of the period were first acted on the small stage of the singing-school. Details in the history of the Children, however, are few. We find an occasional notice of their appearance at Court, but our record of them is mainly secured from the t.i.tle-pages of their plays.

The last notice of a performance by them is as follows: "On the 30th of July, 1606, the youths of Paul's, commonly called the Children of Paul's, played before the two Kings [of England and of Denmark] a play called _Abuses_, containing both a comedy and a tragedy, at which the Kings seemed to take great delight and be much pleased."[174]

[Footnote 174: Nichols, _The Progresses of James_, IV, 1073.]

The reason why the Children ceased to act is made clear in the lawsuit of Keysar _v._ Burbage _et al._, recently discovered and printed by Mr. Wallace.[175] From this we learn that when Rosseter became manager of the Children of the Queen's Revels at the private playhouse of Whitefriars in 1609, he undertook to increase his profits by securing a monopoly both of child-acting and of private theatres. Blackfriars had been deserted, and the only other private theatre then in existence was Paul's. So Rosseter agreed to pay Pierce a dead rent of 20 a year to keep the Paul's playhouse closed:

One Mr. Rosseter, a partner of the said complainant, dealt for and compounded with the said Mr. Pierce to the only benefit of him, the said Mr. Rosseter, the now complainant, the rest of their partners and Company [at the Whitefriars]

... that thereby they might ... advance their gains and profit to be had and made in their said house in the Whitefriars, that there might be a cessation of playing and plays to be acted in the said house near St. Paul's Church aforesaid, for which the said Rosseter compounded with the said Pierce to give him the said Pierce twenty pounds per annum.[176]

[Footnote 175: _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p. 80.]

[Footnote 176: _Ibid._, p. 95.]

In this attempt to secure a monopoly in private playhouses Rosseter was foiled by the coming of Shakespeare's troupe to the Blackfriars; but the King's Men readily agreed to join in the payment of the dead rent to Pierce, for it was to their advantage also to eliminate compet.i.tion.

The agreement which Rosseter secured from Pierce was binding "for one whole year"; whether it was renewed we do not know, but the Children never again acted in "their house near St. Paul's Church."

CHAPTER VII

THE BANKSIDE AND THE BEAR GARDEN

From time out of mind the suburb of London known as "the Bankside"--the term was loosely applied to all the region south of the river and west of the bridge--had been identified with sports and pastimes. On Sundays, holidays, and other festive occasions, the citizens, their wives, and their apprentices were accustomed to seek outdoor entertainment across the river, going thither in boats (of which there was an incredible number, converting "the silver sliding Thames" almost into a Venetian Grand Ca.n.a.l), or strolling on foot over old London Bridge. On the Bankside the visitors could find maypoles for dancing, b.u.t.ts for the practice of archery, and broad fields for athletic games; or, if so disposed, they could visit bull-baitings, bear-baitings, fairs, stage-plays, shows, motions, and other amus.e.m.e.nts of a similar sort.

Not all the attractions of the Bankside, however, were so innocent.

For here, in a long row bordering the river's edge, were situated the famous stews of the city, licensed by authority of the Bishop of Winchester; and along with the stews, of course, such places as thrive in a district devoted to vice--houses for gambling, for coney-catching, and for evil practices of various sorts. The less said of this feature of the Bankside the better.

More needs to be said of the bull- and bear-baiting, which probably const.i.tuted the chief amus.e.m.e.nt of the crowds from the city, and which was later closely a.s.sociated with the drama and with playhouses. This sport, now surviving in the bull-fights of Spain and of certain Spanish-American countries, was in former times one of the most popular species of entertainment cultivated by the English. Even so early as 1174, William Fitz-Stephen, in his _Descriptio n.o.bilissimae Ciuitatis Londoniae_, under the heading _De Ludis_, records that the London citizens diverted themselves on holiday occasions with the baiting of beasts, when "strong horn-goring bulls, or immense bears, contend fiercely with dogs that are pitted against them."[177] In some towns the law required that bulls intended for the butcher-shop should first be baited for the amus.e.m.e.nt of the public before being led to the slaughter-house. Erasmus speaks of the "many herds of bears" which he saw in England "maintained for the purpose of baiting." The baiting was accomplished by tying the bulls or bears to stakes, or when possible releasing them in an amphitheatre, and pitting against them bull-dogs, bred through centuries for strength and ferocity.

Occasionally other animals, as ponies and apes, were brought into the fight, and the sport was varied in miscellaneous ways. Some of the animals, by unusual courage or success, endeared themselves to the heart of the sporting public. Harry Hunks, George Stone, and Sacarson were famous bears in Shakespeare's time; and the names of many of the "game bulls" and "mastiff dogs" became household words throughout London.

[Footnote 177: "Pingues tauri cornupetae, seu vrsi immanes, c.u.m obiectis depugnant canibus."]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE BANKSIDE

Showing the Bear- and Bull-baiting Rings. (From the _Map of London_ by Braun and Hogenbergius, representing the city in 1554-1558.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE BANKSIDE

This was the second district of London used for public playhouses.

Notice the amphitheatres for animal-baiting. (From William Smith's MS.

of the Description of England, _c._ 1580.)]

The home of this popular sport was the Bankside. The earliest extant map of Southwark,[178] drawn about 1542, shows in the very centre of High Street, just opposite London Bridge, a circular amphitheatre marked "The Bull Ring"; and doubtless there were other places along the river devoted to the same purpose. The baiting of bears was more closely identified with the Manor of Paris Garden,[179] that section of the Bank lying to the west of the Clink, over towards the marshes of Lambeth. The a.s.sociation of bear-baiting with this particular section was probably due to the fact that in early days the butchers of London used a part of the Manor of Paris Garden for the disposal of their offal,[180] and the entrails and other refuse from the slaughtered beasts furnished cheap and abundant food for the bears and dogs. The Earl of Manchester wrote to the Lord Mayor and the Common Council, in 1664, that he had been informed by the master of His Majesty's Game of Bears and Bulls, and others, that "the Butcher's Company had formerly caused all their offal in Eastcheap and Newgate Market to be conveyed by the beadle of the Company unto two barrow houses, conveniently placed on the river side, for the provision and feeding of the King's Game of Bears."

[Footnote 178: The map is reproduced in facsimile by Rendle as a frontispiece to _Old Southwark and its People_.]

[Footnote 179: Or Parish Garden, possibly the more correct form. For the early history of the Manor see William Bray, _The History and Antiquities of the County of Surrey_, III, 530; Wallace, in _Englische Studien_ (1911), XLIII, 341, note 3; Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, p. 125.]

[Footnote 180: Blount, in his _Glossographia_ (1681), p. 473, says of Paris Garden: "So called from Robert de Paris, who had a house and garden there in Richard II.'s time; who by proclamation, ordained that the butchers of London should buy that garden for receipt of their garbage and entrails of beasts, to the end the city might not be annoyed thereby."]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE BEAR- AND BULL-BAITING RINGS

These "rings" later gave place to the Bear Garden. (From Agas's _Map of London_, representing the city as it was about 1560.)]

At first, apparently, the baiting of bears was held in open places,[181] with the bear tied to a stake and the spectators crowding around, or at best standing on temporary scaffolds. But later, permanent amphitheatres were provided. In Braun and Hogenberg's _Map of London_, drawn between 1554 and 1558, and printed in 1572, we find two well-appointed amphitheatres, with stables and kennels attached, labeled respectively "The Bear Baiting" and "The Bull Baiting." When these amphitheatres were erected we do not know, but probably they do not antedate by much the middle of the century.[182]

[Footnote 181: See Gilpin's _Life of Cranmer_ for a description of a bear-baiting before the King held on or near the river's edge. See also the proclamation of Henry VIII in 1546 against the stews, which implies the non-existence of regular amphitheatres.]

[Footnote 182: Sir Sidney Lee (_Shakespeare's England_, II, 428) says that one of the amphitheatres was erected in 1526. I do not know his authority; he was apparently misled by one of Rendle's statements.

Neither of the amphitheatres is shown in Wyngaerde's careful _Map of London_ made about 1530-1540; possibly they are referred to in the _Diary_ of Henry Machyn under the date of May 26, 1554. The old "Bull Ring" in High Street had then disappeared, and the baiting of bulls was henceforth more or less closely a.s.sociated, as was natural, with the baiting of bears.]

It is to be noted that at this time neither "The Bull Baiting" nor "The Bear Baiting" is in the Manor of Paris Garden, but close by in the Liberty of the Clink. Yet the name "Paris Garden" continued to be used of the animal-baiting place for a century and more. Possibly the identification of bear-baiting with Paris Garden was of such long standing that Londoners could not readily adjust themselves to the change; they at first confused the terms "Bear Garden" and "Paris Garden," and later extended the term "Paris Garden" to include that section of the Clink devoted to the baiting of animals.

The two amphitheatres, it seems, were used until 1583, when a serious catastrophe put an end to one if not both of them. Stow, in his _Annals_, gives the following account of the accident:

The same thirteenth day of January, being Sunday, about four of the clock in the afternoon, the old and underpropped scaffolds round about the Bear Garden, commonly called Paris Garden, on the south side of the river of Thamis over against the city of London, overcharged with people, fell suddenly down, whereby to the number of eight persons, men and women, were slain, and many others sore hurt and bruised to the shortening of their lives.[183]

[Footnote 183: Stow, _Annals_ (ed. 1631), p. 696.]

Stubbes, the Puritan, writes in his more heightened style:

Upon the 13 day of January last, being the Saboth day, _Anno_ 1583, the people, men, women, and children, both young and old, an infinite number, flocking to those infamous places where these wicked exercises are usually practised (for they have their courts, gardens, and yards for the same purpose), when they were all come together and mounted aloft upon their scaffolds and galleries, and in the midst of all their jolity and pastime, all the whole building (not one stick standing) fell down with a most wonderful and fearful confusion. So that either two or three hundred men, women, and children (by estimation), whereof seven were killed dead, some were wounded, some lamed, and otherwise bruised and crushed almost to death. Some had their brains dashed out, some their heads all to-squashed, some their legs broken, some their arms, some their backs, some their shoulders, some one hurt, some another.[184]

[Footnote 184: Philip Stubbes, _The Anatomie of Abuses_ (ed.

Furnivall), p. 179.]

The building, which the Reverend John Field described as "old and rotten,"[185] was a complete ruin; "not a stick was left so high as the bear was fastened to." The Puritan preachers loudly denounced the unholy spectacles, pointing to the catastrophe as a clear warning from the Almighty; and the city authorities earnestly besought the Privy Council to put an end to such performances. Yet the owners of the building set to work at once, and soon had erected a new house, stronger and larger and more pretentious than before. The Lord Mayor, in some indignation, wrote to the Privy Council on July 3, 1583, that "the scaffolds are new builded, and the mult.i.tudes on the Saboth day called together in most excessive number."[186]

[Footnote 185: _A G.o.dly Exhortation by Occasion of the Late Judgement of G.o.d, Shewed at Paris-Garden_ (London, 1583). Another account of the disaster may be found in Vaughan's _Golden Grove_ (1600).]

[Footnote 186: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 65.]

The New Bear Garden, octagonal in form, was probably modeled after the playhouses in Sh.o.r.editch, and made in all respects superior to the old amphitheatre which it supplanted.[187] We find that it was reckoned among the sights of the city, and was exhibited to distinguished foreign visitors. For example, when Sir Walter Raleigh undertook to entertain the French Amba.s.sador, he carried him to view the monuments in Westminster Abbey and to see the new Bear Garden.

[Footnote 187: What became of the other amphitheatre labeled "The Bull Baiting" I do not know. Stow, in his _Survey_, 1598, says: "Now to return to the west bank, there be two bear gardens, the old and new places, wherein be kept bears, bulls, and other beasts to be baited."]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE BEAR GARDEN

From Visscher's _Map of London_, published in 1616, but representing the city as it was several years earlier.]

A picture of the building is to be seen in the Hondius _View of London_, 1610 (see page 149), and in the small inset views from the t.i.tle-pages of Holland's _Her[Greek: o]ologia_, 1620, and Baker's _Chronicle_, 1643 (see page 147), all three of which probably go back to a view of London made between 1587 and 1597, and now lost. Another representation of the structure is to be seen in the Delaram portrait of King James, along with the Rose and the Globe (see opposite page 246). The best representation of the building, however, is in Visscher's _View of London_ (see page 127), printed in 1616, but drawn several years earlier.[188]

[Footnote 188: For a fuller discussion of these various maps and views see pages 146, 248, and 328. Norden's map of 1594 (see page 147) merely indicates the site of the building.]