CHAPTER XXI

MISCELLANEOUS

I

WOLF'S THEATRE IN NIGHTINGALE LANE, NEAR EAST SMITHFIELD

In Jeaffreson's _Middles.e.x County Records_ (I, 260), we find the following entry, dated April 1, 1600:

1 April, 42 Elizabeth.--Recognizance, taken before Sir John Peyton knt., Lieutenant of the Tower of London, and Thomas Fowler, Tobias Woode, Edward Vaghan and Henry Th.o.r.esby esqs., Justices of the Peace, of John Wolf, of Eastsmithfield, co. Midd., stationer, in the sum of forty pounds; The condition of the recognizance being "that, whereas the above-bounden John Wolf hath begun to erect and build a playhouse in Nightingale Lane near East Smithfield aforesaid, contrary to Her Majesty's proclamation and orders set down in Her Highness's Court of Starchamber. If therefore the said John Wolf do not proceed any further in building or erecting of the same playhouse, unless he shall procure sufficient warrant from the Rt. Honourable the Lords of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council for further ... then this recognizance to be void, or else to remain in full force."

The only stationer in London named John Wolf was the printer and publisher who at this time had his shop in Pope's Head Alley, Lombard Street. For several reasons he is well known to bibliographers; and his strong personality and tireless energy might easily have led him into the field of the theatre. For many years he was a member of the Fishmongers' Company, to which also, in all probability, his father had belonged. After a ten years' apprenticeship with the eminent printer, John Day, he spent several years abroad "gadding from country to country," but learning the printing trade from the best establishments on the Continent. His longest stay was in Italy, where he was connected with the printing-office of the Giunti, and also, it seems, of Gabriel Giolito. In 1576 he printed two _Rappresentazioni_, "ad instanzia di Giovanni Vuolfio, Inglese." About the year 1579 he established himself in London (where he was dubbed by his fellows "Machiavel"), and began an energetic warfare on the monopolies secured by certain favored printers. The fact that he was for a time "committed to the Clink" failed to deter him. We are told that he "affirmed openly in the Stationers' Hall that it was lawful for all men to print all lawful books, what commandment soever Her Majesty gave to the contrary." And being "admonished that he, being but one, so mean a man, should not presume to contrary Her Highness'

government: 'Tush,' said he, 'Luther was but one man, and reformed all the world for religion, and I am _that one man_ that must and will reform the government in this trade.'" The courage and energy here revealed characterized his entire life. In 1583 he was admitted a freeman of the Company of Stationers. In 1593 he was elected Printer to the City. In the spring of 1600 he was in serious difficulties with the authorities over the printing of John Hayward's _Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV_, and was forced to spend two weeks in jail. He died in 1601.[686]

[Footnote 686: For the life of John Wolf see the following: Edward Arber, _A Transcript of the Stationers' Registers_, especially II, 779-93; _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1598-1601_, pp. 405, 449, 450; A. Gerber, _All of the Five Fict.i.tious Italian Editions_, etc. (in _Modern Language Notes_, XXII (1907), 2, 129, 201); H.R.

Plomer, _An Examination of Some Existing Copies of Hayward's "Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV_" (in _The Library_, N.S., III (1902), 13); R.B. McKerrow, _A Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers ...

1557-1640_; S. Bongi, _Annali di Gabriel Giolito de' Ferrari_.]

If this "John Wolf, stationer," be the man who started to erect a playhouse in East Smithfield, it is to be regretted that we do not know more about the causes which led him into the undertaking.

II

THE PROJECTED "AMPHITHEATRE"

In 1620 John Cotton, John Williams, and Thomas Dixon[687] secured from King James a license to build an amphitheatre[688] "intended princ.i.p.ally for martiall exercises, and extraordinary shows and solemnities for amba.s.sadors, and persons of honor and quality," with the power granted to the owners to order "a cessation from other shows and sports, for one day in a month only, upon fourteen days' warning."

[Footnote 687: Of these men nothing is known; something, however, may be inferred from the following entries in Sir Henry Herbert's Office-Book: "On the 20th August, 1623, a license _gratis_, to John Williams and four others, to make _show_ of _an Elephant_, for a year; on the 5th of September to make show of a _live Beaver_; on the 9th of June, 1638, to make show of an outlandish creature, called a _Possum_." (George Chalmers, _Supplemental Apology_, p. 208.)]

[Footnote 688: The place is not indicated, but it was probably outside the city.]

But for some reason the King suddenly changed his mind, and on September 29, 1620, he addressed a letter to the Privy Council directing them to cancel the license:[689]

Right trusty and right well-beloved Cousins and Councellors, and right trusty and well-beloved Councellors, we greet you well. Whereas at the humble suit of our servants John Cotton, John Williams, and Thomas Dixon, and in recompence of their services, we have been pleased to license them to build an Amphitheatre, which hath pa.s.sed our Signet and is stayed at our Privy Seal; and finding therein contained some such words and clauses, as may, in some constructions, seem to give them greater liberty both in point of building and using of exercises than is any way to be permitted, or was ever by us intended, we have thought fit to command and give authority unto you, or any four of you, to cause that already pa.s.sed to be cancelled, and to give order unto our Solicitor General for the drawing up of a new warrant for our signature to the same parties, according to such directions and reservations as herewith we send you. Wherein we are more particular, both in the affirmative and the negative, to the end that, as on one side we would have nothing pa.s.s us to remain upon record which either for the form might not become us or for the substance might cross our many proclamations (pursued with good success) for buildings, or, on the other side, might give them cause to importune us after they had been at charges; to which end we wish that you call them before you and let them know our pleasure and resolution therein.

[Footnote 689: See _State Papers, Domestic, 1619-1623_, p. 181. I have quoted the letter from Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), I, 408.]

Accordingly the license was canceled, and no new license was issued.

In 1626, however, John Williams and Thomas Dixon (what had become of John Cotton we do not know) made an attempt to secure a license from King Charles, then newly come to the throne, to erect an amphitheatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields. Apparently they so worded the proposed grant as to authorize them to present in their amphitheatre not only spectacles, but dramatic performances and animal-baitings as well, with the power to restrain all other places of amus.e.m.e.nt for one day in each week, on giving two days' warning.

A "bill" to this effect was drawn up and submitted to Thomas Coventry, the Lord Keeper, who examined it hastily, and dispatched it to Lord Conway with the following letter:[690]

_My very good Lord_,--I have perused this Bill, and do call to mind that about three or four years past when I was Attorney General, a patent for an Amphitheatre was in hand to have pa.s.sed; but upon this sudden, without search of my papers, I cannot give your lordship any account of the true cause wherefore it did not pa.s.s, nor whether that and this do vary in substance: neither am I apt upon a sudden to take impertinent exceptions to anything that is to pa.s.s, much less to a thing that is recommended by so good a friend. But if upon perusal of my papers which I had while I was Attorney, or upon more serious thoughts, I shall observe anything worthy to be represented to His Majesty, or to the Council, I shall then acquaint your lordship; and in the meantime I would be loath to be the author of a motion to His Majesty to stay it: but if you find His Majesty at fitting leisure, to move him that he will give leave to think of it in this sort as I have written, it may do well; and I a.s.sure your lordship, unless I find matter of more consequence than I observe on this sudden, it is not like to be stayed. And so I rest your lordship's very a.s.sured to do you service,

THO. COVENTRYE, CH.

CANBURY, 12 _August_, 1626.

[Footnote 690: Collier, _op. cit._, I, 443.]

Apparently some very influential person was urging the pa.s.sage of the bill. But the scheme soon evoked the bitter opposition of the various troupes of players, and of the owners of the various theatres and other places of amus.e.m.e.nt. An echo of the quarrel is found in Marmion's _Holland's Leaguer_, II, iii:

Twill dead all my device in making matches, My plots of architecture, and erecting New amphitheatres to draw custom From playhouses once a week, and so pull A curse upon my head from the poor scoundrels.[691]

[Footnote 691: _The Dramatic Works of Shackerley Marmion_, in _Dramatists of the Restoration_, p. 37. Fleay (_A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama_, II, 66) suggests that the impostors Agurtes and Autolichus are meant to satirize Williams and Dixon respectively.]

The "poor scoundrels"--i.e., the players--seem to have caused the authorities to examine the bill more closely; and on September 28, 1626, the Lord Keeper sent to Lord Conway a second letter in which he condemned the measure in strong terms:[692]

_My Lord_,--According to His Majesty's good pleasure, which I received from your lordship, I have considered of the grant desired by John Williams and Thomas Dixon for building an Amphitheatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields; and comparing it with that which was propounded in King James his time, do find much difference between them: for that former was intended princ.i.p.ally for martiall exercises, and extraordinary shows, and solemnities for amba.s.sadors and persons of honor and quality, with a cessation from other shows and sports for one day in a month only, upon 14 days'

warning: whereas by this new grant I see little probability of anything to be used but common plays, or ordinary sports now used or showed at the Bear Garden or the common playhouses about London, for all sorts of beholders, with a restraint to all other plays and shows for one day in the week upon two days' warning: with liberty to erect their buildings in Lincoln's Inn Fields, where there are too many buildings already; and which place in the late King's time upon a pet.i.tion exhibited by the Prince's comedians for setting up a playhouse there, was certified by eleven Justices of Peace under their hands to be very inconvenient.

And therefore, not holding this new grant fit to pa.s.s, as being no other in effect but to translate the playhouses and Bear Garden from the Bankside to a place much more unfit, I thought fit to give your lordship these reasons for it; wherewithal you may please to acquaint His Majesty, if there shall be cause. And so remain your lordship's very a.s.sured friend to do you service,

THO. COVENTRYE.

CANBURY, 28 _Sept._, 1626.

LO. CONWAY.

[Footnote 692: I quote the letter from Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), I, 444.]

On the letter Lord Conway has written the indors.e.m.e.nt: "That it is unfit the grant for the Amphitheatre should pa.s.se." And such, no doubt, was the ultimate decision of the Privy Council, for we hear nothing more of the project.

III

OGILBY'S DUBLIN THEATRE

In 1635 a playhouse was opened in Dublin by John Ogilby,--dancing-master, theatrical manager, playwright, scholar, translator, poet,--now best known, perhaps, for the ridicule he inspired in Dryden's _MacFlecknoe_ and Pope's _Dunciad_. At the beginning of his versatile career he was a successful London dancing-master, popular with "the n.o.bility and gentry." When Thomas Earl of Strafford was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he took Ogilby with him to Dublin, to teach his wife and children the art of dancing, and also to help with the secretarial duties. Under Strafford's patronage, Ogilby was appointed to the post of Master of the Revels for Ireland; and in this capacity he built a small playhouse in Dublin and began to cultivate dramatic representations after the manner of London. Anthony a Wood in _Athenae Oxonienses_, says:

He built a little theatre to act plays in, in St. Warburg's street in Dublin, and was then and there valued by all ingenious men for his great industry in promoting morality and ingenuity.[693]

[Footnote 693: Bliss's edition, III, 741.]

Aubrey writes:

He had a warrant from the Lord Lieutenant to be Master of the Ceremonies for that kingdom; and built a pretty[694]

little theatre in St. Warburgh Street in Dublin.

[Footnote 694: "Pretty little theatre" is the reading of _MS. Aubr.

7_, folio 20; _MS. Aubr. 8_ omits the adjective "pretty." For Aubrey's full account of Ogilby see Andrew Clark's _Brief Lives_ (1898), 2 vols.]

The history of this "little theatre" is not known in detail. For its actors Ogilby himself wrote at least one play, ent.i.tled _The Merchant of Dublin_,[695] and Henry Burnell a tragi-comedy ent.i.tled _Landgartha_, printed in 1641 "as it was presented in the new theatre in Dublin with good applause." But its chief playwright was James Shirley, who came to Dublin in 1636 under the patronage of the Earl of Kildare. For the Irish stage he wrote _The Royal Master_, published in 1638 as "acted in the new theatre in Dublin"; _Rosania, or Love's Victory_, now known as _The Doubtful Heir_, under which t.i.tle it was later printed; _St. Patrick for Ireland_;[696] and in all probability _The Constant Maid_.[697] The actors, however, had little need to buy original plays, for they were free, no doubt, to take any of the numerous London successes. From Shirley's _Poems_ we learn that they were presenting Jonson's _Alchemist_, Middleton's _No Wit_, two of Fletcher's plays, unnamed, and two anonymous plays ent.i.tled _The Toy_ and _The General_; and we may fairly a.s.sume that they honored several of Shirley's early plays in the same way.

[Footnote 695: Aubrey mentions this as having been "written in Dublin, and never printed."]

[Footnote 696: Published in 1640 as "the first part," and both the Prologue and the Epilogue speak of a second part; but no second part was printed, and in all probability it never was written.]