At the blackfryers the 23 of Aprill for the queene the vnfortunate lou[ers]

At the Cocpit the 29th of may the princes berthnight ould Castel

At the Cocpit the last of may agayne the vnfortunate louers

At Sumerset-house the 10th of July & our day

-- lost at our house mr Carlels play the first part of the pasionate louers

-- At Hamton Court the 30th of September The vnfortunate louer[s]

-- At Richmount the 6th of november for the ladie } The mery divell maries berthnight & the day lost at our house } of Edmonto[n]

At the Cocpit the 8th of november The fox

At the Cocpit the 13th of november Ceaser

At the Cocpit the 15th of november The mery wifes of winser

At the Cocpit the 20th of november The fayre favorett

At the Cocpit the 22th of november Chances

At the Cocpit the 27th of november The Costome of the C[ountry]

At the Cocpit the 29th of november The northen las

At the Cocpit the 6th of desember The spanish Curatt

At the Cocpit the 11th of desember agayne The fayre favorett

At the Cocpit the 18th of desember m Carlels play agayne the first part of The pasionate louers

At the Cocpit the 20th of desember the 2d part of The pasionate louers

At the Cocpit the 27 of desember the 2d part agayne of the pasionate louers

-- At Richmount the 28 of desember the ladie } Elsabeths berthnight & our day lost at our house } The northen las

-- At Richmount on newyeares day } and our day lost at our house } beggers bush

-- At Richmount the 7th of Janeuarye } and our day lost at our house } The spanish Cura[tt]]

The check-marks at the left were probably made by the clerk in the Chamberlain's office to ascertain how many times the players "lost their day" at their house, and hence were ent.i.tled to 20 in payment.

For the play given "at the blackfriars the 23 of Aprill for the queene" (presumably the general public was excluded) only the usual 10 was allowed.

With the approach of the civil war, the c.o.c.kpit, like the public theatres, suffered an eclipse. Sir Henry Herbert writes: "On Twelfth Night, 1642, the Prince had a play called _The Scornful Lady_ at the c.o.c.kpit; but the King and Queen were not there, and it was the only play acted at court in the whole Christmas."[677] During the dark days that followed we hear nothing of plays in the c.o.c.kpit. Later Cromwell himself occupied this section of the palace, and naturally saw to it that no dramatic exhibitions were held there. But at the Restoration "the Prince," now become the King, could have his plays again; and he did not wait long. On November 20, 1660, Edward Gower wrote to Sir Richard Leveson: "Yesternight the King, Queen, Princess, etc., supped at the Duke d'Albemarle's, where they had _The Silent Woman_ acted in the c.o.c.kpit."[678] From this time on the theatre royal was in constant use for the entertainment of the Court.

[Footnote 677: Herbert MS., Malone, _Variorum_, III, 241.]

[Footnote 678: Historical Ma.n.u.scripts Commission, Fifth Report, p.

200. Pepys, under the date November 20, 1660, gives an anecdote about the King's behavior on this occasion.]

Samuel Pepys, as he rose in the world, became a frequent visitor there.[679] In the absence of other descriptions of the building, I subjoin a few of the entries from his _Diary_. Under the date of October 2, 1662, he writes:

At night by coach towards Whitehall, took up Mr. Moore and set him at my Lord's, and myself, hearing that there was a play at the c.o.c.kpit (and my Lord Sandwich, who came to town last night, at it), I do go thither, and by very great fortune did follow four or five gentlemen who were carried to a little private door in a wall, and so crept through a narrow place and come into one of the boxes next the King's, but so as I could not see the King or Queen, but many of the fine ladies, who yet are really not so handsome generally as I used to take them to be, but that they are finely dressed. Here we saw _The Cardinal_,[680] a tragedy I had never seen before, nor is there any great matter in it. The company that came in with me into the box were all Frenchmen that could speak no English, but Lord! what sport they made to ask a pretty lady that they got among them that understood both French and English to make her tell them what the actors said.

[Footnote 679: He first "got in" on April 20, 1661, "by the favour of one Mr. Bowman." John Evelyn also visited the c.o.c.kpit; see his _Diary_, January 16 and February 11, 1662.]

[Footnote 680: By James Shirley, licensed 1641.]

The next time he went to the c.o.c.kpit, on November 17, 1662, he did not have to creep in by stealth. He writes:

At Whitehall by appointment, Mr. Crew carried my wife and I to the c.o.c.kpit, and we had excellent places, and saw the King, Queen, Duke of Monmouth, his son, and my Lady Castlemaine, and all the fine ladies; and _The Scornful Lady_, well performed. They had done by eleven o'clock.

The fine ladies, as usual, made a deep impression on him, as did the "greatness and gallantry" of the audience. On December 1, 1662, he writes:

This done we broke up, and I to the c.o.c.kpit, with much crowding and waiting, where I saw _The Valiant Cid_[681]

acted, a play I have read with great delight, but is a most dull thing acted, which I never understood before, there being no pleasure in it, though done by Betterton and by Ianthe,[682] and another fine wench that is come in the room of Roxalana; nor did the King or Queen once smile all the whole play, nor any of the company seem to take any pleasure but what was in the greatness and gallantry of the company.

Thence ... home, and got thither by 12 o'clock, knocked up my boy, and put myself to bed.

[Footnote 681: By Corneille.]

[Footnote 682: Mrs. Betterton.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE c.o.c.kPIT-IN-COURT

From an engraving by Mazell in Pennant's _London_. Mr. W.L. Spiers, who reproduces this engraving in the _London Topographical Record_ (1903), says that it is "undated, but probably copied from a contemporary drawing of the seventeenth century."]

Two entries, from an entirely different source, must suffice for this history of the c.o.c.kpit. In the Paper-Office Chalmers discovered a record of the following payments, made in 1667:

To the Keeper of the theatre at Whitehall, 30. To the same for Keeping clean that place, _p. ann._ 6.[683]

[Footnote 683: Chalmers, _Apology_, p. 530. Cunningham says, in his _Handbook of London_: "I find in the records of the Audit Office a payment of 30 per annum 'to the Keeper of our Playhouse called the c.o.c.kpit in St. James Park'"; but he does not state the year in which the payment was made.]

And in the Lord Chamberlain's Accounts is preserved the following warrant:

1674, March 27. Warrant to deliver to Monsieur Grabu, or to such as he shall appoint, such of the scenes remaining in the theatre at Whitehall as shall be useful for the French Opera at the theatre in Bridges Street, and the said Monsieur to return them again safely after 14 days' time to the theatre at Whitehall.[684]

[Footnote 684: I quote from W.J. Lawrence, _The Elizabethan Playhouse_ (First Series), p. 144.]

What became of the theatre at Whitehall I have not been able to ascertain.[685] Presumably, after the fire of January, 1698, which destroyed the greater part of the palace and drove the royal family to seek quarters elsewhere, the building along with the rest of the c.o.c.kpit section was made over into the Privy Council offices.

[Footnote 685: The reasons why the c.o.c.kpit at Whitehall has remained so long in obscurity (its history is here attempted for the first time) are obvious. Some scholars have confused it with the public playhouse of the same name, a confusion which persons in the days of Charles avoided by invariably saying "The c.o.c.kpit in Drury Lane."

Other scholars have confused it with the residential section of Whitehall which bore the same name. During the reign of James several large buildings which had been erected either on the site of the old c.o.c.kpit of Henry VIII, or around it, were converted into lodgings for members of the royal family or favorites of the King, and were commonly referred to as "the c.o.c.kpit." Other scholars have a.s.sumed that all plays during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles were given either in the Banqueting House or in the Great Hall. Finally, still other scholars (e.g., Sir Sidney Lee, in _Shakespeare's England_, 1916) have confused the c.o.c.kpit at Whitehall with the Royal c.o.c.kpit in St. James's Park. Exactly when the latter was built I have not been able to discover, but it was probably erected near the close of the seventeenth century. It stood at the end of Dartmouth Street, adjacent to Birdcage Walk, but not in the Park itself. John Strype, in his edition of Stow's _Survey_ (1720), bk. VI, p. 64, says of Dartmouth Street: "And here is a very fine c.o.c.kpit, called the King's c.o.c.kpit, well resorted unto." A picture of the building is given by Strype on page 62, and a still better picture may be found in J.T.

Smith's _The Antiquities of Westminster_. The Royal c.o.c.kpit in Dartmouth Street survived until 1816, when it was torn down. Hogarth, in his famous representation of a c.o.c.k-fight, shows its interior as circular, and as embellished with the royal coat of arms. Another interesting picture of the interior will be found in Ackermann's _The Microcosm of London_ (1808). It is needless to add that this building had nothing whatever to do with the theatre royal of the days of King Charles.]