On June 23, 1592, because of a riot in Southwark, the Privy Council closed all the playhouses in and about London.[204] Shortly after this the Lord Strange's Men, who were then occupying the Rose, pet.i.tioned the Council to be allowed to resume acting in their playhouse. The Council granted them instead permission to act three times a week at Newington b.u.t.ts; but the players, not relishing this proposal, chose rather to travel in the provinces. Soon finding that they could not make their expenses in the country, they returned to London, and again appealed to the Privy Council to be allowed to perform at the Rose.[205] The warrant issued by the Council in reply to this second pet.i.tion tells us for the first time something definite about the Newington b.u.t.ts Theatre:

To the Justices, Bailiffs, Constables, and Others to Whom it Shall Appertain:

Whereas not long since, upon some considerations, we did restrain the Lord Strange his servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside, and enjoyned them to play three days [a week] at Newington b.u.t.ts; now forasmuch as we are satisfied that by reason of the tediousness of the way, and that of long time plays have not there been used on working days, and for that a number of poor watermen are thereby relieved, you shall permit and suffer them, or any other, there [at the Rose] to exercise themselves in such sort as they have done heretofore, and that the Rose may be at liberty without any restraint so long as it shall be free from infection, any commandment from us heretofore to the contrary notwithstanding.[206]

[Footnote 204: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, II, 50, 73.]

[Footnote 205: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 42.]

[Footnote 206: _Ibid._, pp. 43-44.]

From this warrant we learn that so early as 1592 the Newington house was almost deserted, and that "of long time" plays had been given there only occasionally.

Two years later, on June 3, 1594, Henslowe sent the Admiral's and the Chamberlain's Men to play temporarily at the half-deserted old playhouse, probably in order to give opportunity for needed repairs at the Rose.[207] The section of his _Diary_, under the heading, "In the name of G.o.d Amen begininge at newington my Lord Admeralle men & my Lord Chamberlen men As followethe 1594," const.i.tutes the fullest and clearest--and, one may add, the most ill.u.s.trious--chapter in the history of this obscure building; for although it extends over only ten days, it tells us that Edward Alleyn, Richard Burbage, and William Shakespeare then trod the Newington stage, and it records the performance there of such plays as _The Jew of Malta_, _Andronicus_, _The Taming of a Shrew_, and _Hamlet_.

[Footnote 207: There is no evidence that Henslowe owned the house at Newington; he might very well have rented it for this particular occasion.]

We next hear of the building near the end of the century: in 1599, says Mr. Wallace, it was "only a memory, as shown by a contemporary record to be published later."[208]

[Footnote 208: Wallace, _The First London Theatre_, p. 2.]

Two other references close the history. In _A Woman is a Weatherc.o.c.k_, III, iii, printed in 1612, but written earlier, one of the actors exclaims of an insufferable pun: "O Newington Conceit!" The fact that this sneer is the only reference to the Newington Playhouse found in contemporary literature is a commentary on the low esteem in which the building was held by the Elizabethans, and its relative unimportance for the history of the drama.

The last notice is in Howe's continuation of Stow's _Annals_ (1631).[209] After enumerating all the theatres built in London and the suburbs "within the s.p.a.ce of three-score years," he adds vaguely, "besides one in former time at Newington b.u.t.ts."

[Footnote 209: Page 1004.]

CHAPTER IX

THE ROSE

Doubtless one reason for the obscure role which the theatre at Newington played in the history of the drama was "the tediousness of the way" thither. The Rose, the second theatre to make its appearance in Surrey, was much more conveniently situated with respect to the city, for it was erected in the Liberty of the Clink and very near the river's edge. As a result, it quickly attained popularity with London playgoers, and before the end of the century had caused the centre of dramatic activity to be shifted from Finsbury Field to the Bank.

The builder of the Rose was one Philip Henslowe, then, so far as our evidence goes, unknown to the dramatic world, but destined soon to become the greatest theatrical proprietor and manager of the Tudor-Stuart age. We find him living on the Bankside and in the Liberty of the Clink at least as early as 1577. At first, so we are told, he was "but a poor man," described as "servant ... unto one Mr.

Woodward." Upon the death of his employer, Woodward, he married the widow, Agnes Woodward, and thus came into the possession of considerable property. "All his wealth came by her," swore the charwoman Joan Horton. This, however, simply means that Henslowe obtained his original capital by his marriage; for, although very illiterate, he was shrewd in handling money, and he quickly ama.s.sed "his wealth" through innumerable business ventures.

As one of these ventures, no doubt, he leased from the Parish of St.

Mildred, on March 24, 1585, a small piece of property on the Bankside known as "The Little Rose." "Among the early surveys, 1 Edward VI,"

says Rendle, "we see that this was not merely a name--the place was a veritable Rose Garden."[210] At the time of the lease the property is described as consisting of a dwelling-house called "The Rose," "two gardens adjoining the same" consisting of "void ground," and at least one other small building. The dwelling-house Henslowe probably leased as a brothel--for this was the district of the stews; and the small building mentioned above, situated at the south end of one of the gardens, he let to a London grocer named John Cholmley, who used it "to keep victualing in."[211]

[Footnote 210: W. Rendle, in _The Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer_, VIII, 60.]

[Footnote 211: For the earlier history of the Rose estate see Rendle, _The Bankside_, p. xv, and Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, II, 43. "The plan of the Rose estate in the vestry of St. Mildred's Church in London marks the estate exactly, but not the precise site of the Rose Playhouse. The estate consisted of three rods, and was east of Rose Alley." (Rendle, _The Bankside_, p. x.x.x.)]

Not satisfied, however, with the income from these two buildings, Henslowe a year and a half later was planning to utilize a part of the "void ground" for the erection of a theatre. What interested him in the drama we do not know, but we may suppose that the same reason which led Burbage, Brayne, Lanman, and others to build playhouses influenced him, namely, the prospect of "great gains to ensue therefrom."[212]

[Footnote 212: Possibly the fact that Burbage had just secured control of the Curtain, and hence had a monopoly of playhouses, was one of the reasons for a new playhouse.]

For the site of his proposed playhouse he allotted a small parcel of ground ninety-four feet square and lying in the corner formed by Rose Alley and Maiden Lane (see page 245). Then he interested in the enterprise his tenant Cholmley, for, it seems, he did not wish to undertake so expensive and precarious a venture without sharing the risk with another. On January 10, 1587, he and Cholmley signed a formal deed of partnership, according to which the playhouse was to be erected at once and at the sole cost of Henslowe; Cholmley, however, was to have from the beginning a half-interest in the building, paying for his share by installments of 25 10_s._ a quarter for a period of eight years and three months.[213] The total sum to be paid by Cholmley, 816, possibly represents the estimated cost of the building and its full equipment, plus rental on the land.

[Footnote 213: The deed of partnership is preserved among the Henslowe papers at Dulwich College. For an abstract of the deed see Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 2. Henslowe seems to have driven a good bargain with Cholmley.]

The building is referred to in the deed of January 10 as "a playhouse now in framing and shortly to be erected and set up." Doubtless it was ready for occupancy early in the summer. That performances were given there before the close of the year is at least indicated by an order of the Privy Council dated October 29, 1587:

A letter to the Justices of Surrey, that whereas the inhabitants of Southwark had complained unto their Lordships declaring that the order by their Lordships set down for the restraining of plays and interludes within that county on the Sabbath Days is not observed, and especially within the Liberty of the Clink, and in the Parish of St.

Saviours....[214]

[Footnote 214: Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, XV, 271.]

The Rose was in "the Liberty of the Clink and in the Parish of St.

Saviours," and so far as we have any evidence it was the only place there devoted to plays. Moreover, a distinct reference to it by name appears in the Sewer Records in April, 1588, at which date the building is described as "new."[215]

[Footnote 215: Discovered by Mr. Wallace and printed in the London _Times_, April 30, 1914.]

In Norden's _Map of London_ (1593), the Rose and the adjacent Bear Garden are correctly placed with respect to each other, but are crudely drawn (see page 147). The representation of both as circular--the Bear Garden, we know, was polygonal--was due merely to this crudeness; yet the Rose seems to have been indeed circular in shape, "the Bankside's round-house" referred to in _Tom Tell Troth's Message_. The building is so pictured in the Hondius map of 1610 (see page 149), and in the inset maps on 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 apparently go back to an early map of London now lost. The building is again pictured as circular, with the Bear Garden at the left and the Globe at the right, in the Delaram portrait of King James (opposite page 246).[216]

[Footnote 216: The circular building pictured in these maps has been widely heralded as the First Globe, but without reason; all the evidence shows that it was the Rose. For further discussion see the chapters dealing with the Bear Garden, the Globe, and the Hope. In the Merian _View_, issued in Frankfort in 1638, the Bear Garden and the Globe, each named, are shown conspicuously in the foreground; in the background is vaguely represented an unnamed playhouse polygonal in shape. This could not possibly be the Rose. Merian's _View_ was a compilation from Visscher's _View_ of 1616 and some other view of London not yet identified; it has no independent authority, and no value whatever so far as the Rose is concerned.]

From Henslowe's _Diary_ we learn that the playhouse was of timber, the exterior of lath and plaster, the roof of thatch; and that it had a yard, galleries, a stage, a tiring-house, heavens, and a flagpole.

Thus it differed in no essential way from the playhouses already erected in Sh.o.r.editch or subsequently erected on the Bank.[217]

[Footnote 217: If we may believe Johannes de Witt, the Rose was "more magnificent" than the theatres in Sh.o.r.editch. See page 167.]

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

The upper view, from Norden's _Map of London_, 1593, shows the relative position of the Bear Garden and Rose. The lower view, an inset from the t.i.tle-page of Baker's _Chronicle_, 1643, also shows the relative position, and gives a more detailed picture of the two structures. The Bear Garden is represented as polygonal, the Rose as circular.]

What troupes of actors used the Rose during the first five years of its existence we do not know; indeed, until 1592 we hear nothing further of the playhouse. As a result, some scholars have wrongly inferred that the building was not erected until the spring of 1592.[218] It seems likely, as Mr. Greg suggests, that Henslowe and Cholmley let the house to some company of players at a stipulated annual rent, and so had nothing to do with the management of its finances. This would explain the complete absence of references to the playhouse in Henslowe's accounts.

[Footnote 218: Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, p. 155; Mantzius, _A History of Theatrical Art_, p. 58. Mr. Wallace's discovery of a reference to the Rose in the Sewer Records for April, 1588, quite overthrows this hypothesis.]

During this obscure period of five years Cholmley disappears from the history of the Rose. It may be that he withdrew from the undertaking at the outset;[219] it may be that he failed to meet his payments, and so forfeited his moiety; or it may be that, becoming dissatisfied with his bargain, he sold out to Henslowe. Whatever the cause, his interest in the playhouse pa.s.sed over to Henslowe, who appears henceforth as the sole proprietor.

[Footnote 219: This seems unlikely. At the beginning of Henslowe's _Diary_ we find the scrawl "Chomley when" (Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_ I, 217); this was written not earlier than 1592, and it shows that Cholmley was at that time in Henslowe's mind.]

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

A small inset view of London, from the map ent.i.tled "The Kingdome of Great Britaine and Ireland," printed in Speed's _Atlas_ (1611). The map is dated 1610, but the inset view of London was copied, like the inset views to Baker's _Chronicle_ (1643) and to Holland's _Her[Greek: o]ologia_ (1620), from a lost map of London drawn about 1589-1599.]

In the spring of 1592 the building was in need of repairs, and Henslowe spent a large sum of money in thoroughly overhauling it.[220]

The lathing and plastering of the exterior were done over, the roof was re-thatched, new rafters were put in, and much heavy timber was used, indicating important structural alterations. In addition, the stage was painted, the lord's room and the tiring-house were provided with ceilings, a new flagpole was erected, and other improvements were introduced. Clearly an attempt was made to render the building not only stronger, but also more attractive in appearance and more modern in equipment.

[Footnote 220: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 7.]

The immediate occasion for these extensive alterations and repairs was the engagement of Lord Strange's Men to occupy the playhouse under Henslowe's management. This excellent troupe, with Edward Alleyn at its head, was perhaps the best company of actors then in London. It later became the Lord Chamberlain's Company, with which Shakespeare was identified; even at this early date, although doc.u.mentary proof is lacking, he may have been numbered among its obscure members. The troupe opened the Rose on February 19, 1592, with a performance of Robert Greene's _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, and followed this with many famous plays, such as _The Spanish Tragedy_, _The Jew of Malta_, _Orlando Furioso_, and _Henry VI_.[221]