The last mention of the Curtain is found in the _Middles.e.x County Records_ under the date February 21, 1627.[147] It is merely a pa.s.sing reference to "the common sh.o.a.re near the Curtain playhouse," yet it is significant as indicating that the building was then still standing.

What ultimately became of it we do not know. For a time, however, its memory survived in Curtain Court (see page 79), and to-day its fame is perpetuated in Curtain Road.

[Footnote 147: See Jeaffreson, _Middles.e.x County Records_, III, 164, from which the notice was quoted by Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, p. 106.]

CHAPTER V

THE FIRST BLACKFRIARS

The choir boys of the Chapel Royal, of Windsor, and of Paul's were all engaged in presenting dramatic entertainments before Queen Elizabeth.

Each organization expected to be called upon one or more times a year--at Christmas, New Year's, and other like occasions--to furnish recreation to Her Majesty; and in return for its efforts each received a liberal "reward" in money. Richard Farrant, Master of the Windsor Chapel, was especially active in devising plays for the Queen's entertainment. But having a large family, he was poor in spite of his regular salary and the occasional "rewards" he received for the performances of his Boys at Court; and doubtless he often cast about in his mind for some way in which to increase his meagre income.

In the spring of 1576 James Burbage, having conceived the idea of a building devoted solely to plays, had leased a plot of ground for the purpose, and had begun the erection of the Theatre. By the autumn, no doubt, the building was nearing completion, if, indeed, it was not actually open to the public; and the experiment, we may suppose, was exciting much interest in the dramatic circles of London. It seems to have set Farrant to thinking. The professional actors, he observed, had one important advantage over the child actors: not only could they present their plays before the Queen and receive the usual court reward, but in addition they could present their plays before the public and thus reap a second and richer harvest. Since the child actors had, as a rule, more excellent plays than the professional troupes, and were better equipped with properties and costumes, and since they expended just as much energy in devising plays and in memorizing and rehearsing their parts, Farrant saw no reason why they, too, should not be allowed to perform before the public. This, he thought, might be done under the guise of rehearsals for the Court.

Possibly the Queen might even wink at regular performances before the general public when she understood that this would train the Boys to be more skilful actors, would provide Her Majesty with more numerous and possibly more excellent plays, and would enable the Master and his a.s.sistants to live in greater comfort without affecting the royal purse.

[Ill.u.s.tration: BLACKFRIARS MONASTERY

A plan of the various buildings as they appeared before the dissolution, based on the Loseley Ma.n.u.scripts and other doc.u.ments, surveys, and maps. The b.u.t.tery became Farrant's, the Frater Burbage's playhouse. (Drawn by the author.)]

For Farrant to build a playhouse specifically for the use of the Children was out of the question. In the first place, it would be too conspicuously a capitalization of the royal choristers for private gain; and in the second place, it would be far too hazardous a business venture for so poor a man as he to undertake. The more sensible thing for him to do was to rent somewhere a large hall which could at small expense be converted into a place suitable for training the Children in their plays, and for the entertainment of select--possibly at first invited--audiences. The performances, of course, were not to be heralded by a trumpet-and-drum procession through the street, by the flying of a flag, and by such-like vulgar advertising as of a public show; instead, they were to be quiet, presumably "private," and were to attract only n.o.blemen and those citizens of the better cla.s.s who were interested in the drama.[148]

[Footnote 148: From this notion of privacy, I take it, arose the term "private" theatre as distinguished from "common" or "public" theatre.

The interpretation of the term suggested by Mr. W.J. Lawrence, and approved by Mr. William Archer, namely, that it was a legal device to escape the city ordinance of 1574, cannot be accepted. The city had no jurisdiction over the precinct of Blackfriars, nor did Farrant live in the building.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE SITES OF THE TWO BLACKFRIARS PLAYHOUSES

The smaller rectangle at the north represents the b.u.t.tery, later Farrant's playhouse, the larger rectangle represents the Frater, later Burbage's playhouse. (From Ogilby and Morgan's _Map of London_, 1677, the sites marked by the author.)]

Such was Farrant's scheme. In searching for a hall suitable for his purpose, his mind at once turned to the precinct of Blackfriars, where in former years the Office of the Revels had been kept, and where the Children had often rehea.r.s.ed their plays. The precinct had once, as the name indicates, been in the possession of the Dominican or "Black"

Friars. The Priory buildings had consisted chiefly of a great church two hundred and twenty feet long and sixty-six feet broad, with a cloister on the south side of the church forming a square of one hundred and ten feet, and a smaller cloister to the south of this. At the dissolution of the religious orders, the property had pa.s.sed into the possession of the Crown; hence, though within the city walls, it was not under the jurisdiction of the city authorities. Farrant probably did not antic.i.p.ate any interference on the part of the Common Council with the royal choristers "practicing" their plays in order "to yield Her Majesty recreation and delight," yet the absolute certainty of being free from the adverse legislation of the London authorities was not to be ignored. Moreover, the precinct was now the home of many n.o.blemen and wealthy gentlemen, and Farrant probably thought that, as one of the most fashionable residential districts in London, it was suitable for "private" performances to be given by members of Her Majesty's household.

In furthering his project he sought the counsel and aid of his "very friend" Sir Henry Neville, Lieutenant of Windsor, who, it is to be presumed, was interested in the Windsor Boys. It happened that Neville knew of exactly such rooms as were desired, rooms in the old monastery of Blackfriars which he himself had once leased as a residence, and which, he heard, were "to be let either presently, or very shortly."

These rooms were in the southwestern corner of the monastery, on the upper floor of two adjoining buildings formerly used by the monks as a b.u.t.tery and a frater. A history of the rooms up to the time of their use as a theatre may be briefly sketched.

In 1548 the b.u.t.tery and frater, with certain other buildings, were let by King Edward to Sir Thomas Cawarden, Master of the Revels; and in 1550 they were granted to him outright. In 1554 Cawarden sold the northern section of the b.u.t.tery, fifty-two feet in length, to Lord Cobham, whose mansion it adjoined. The rest of the b.u.t.tery, forty-six feet in length, and the frater, he converted into lodgings. Since the frater was of exceptional breadth--fifty-two feet on the outside, forty-six feet on the inside--he ran a part.i.tion through its length, dividing it into two parts. The section of the frater on the west of this part.i.tion he let to Sir Richard Frith; the section on the east, with the remainder of the b.u.t.tery not sold to Lord Cobham, he let to Sir John Cheeke. It is with the Cheeke Lodgings that we are especially concerned.

About September, 1554, Cheeke went to travel abroad, and surrendered his rooms in the Blackfriars. Sir Thomas Cawarden thereupon made use of them "for the Office of the Queen's Majesty's Revells"; thus for a time the Cheeke Lodgings were intimately connected with dramatic activities. But at the death of Cawarden, in 1559, the Queen transferred the Office of the Revels to St. John's, and the Blackfriars property belonging to Cawarden pa.s.sed into the possession of Sir William More.

[Ill.u.s.tration: A PLAN OF FARRANT'S PLAYHOUSE

Frith's Lodging and the four southern rooms of Farrant's Lodging were on the upper floor of the Frater; the two northern rooms of Farrant's Lodging were on the upper floor of the b.u.t.tery. The playhouse was erected in the two rooms last mentioned.]

In 1560 the new proprietor let the Cheeke Lodgings to Sir Henry Neville, with the addition of "a void piece of ground" eighteen feet wide extending west to Water Lane.[149] During his tenancy Neville erected certain part.i.tions, built a kitchen in the "void piece of ground," and a large stairway leading to the rooms overhead. In 1568 he surrendered his lease, and More let the rooms first to some "sylk dyers," and then in 1571 to Lord Cobham. In 1576 Cobham gave up the rooms, and More was seeking a tenant. It was at this auspicious moment that Farrant planned a private theatre, and enlisted the aid of Sir Henry Neville.

[Footnote 149: This was enclosed with brick walls, and the greater part used as a wood-yard. This yard was later purchased by James Burbage when he secured the frater for his playhouse. The kitchen, shed, and stairs, built on the eastern part, were sold to Cobham.]

On August 27 Farrant and Neville separately wrote letters to Sir William More about the matter. Farrant respectfully solicited the lease, and made the significant request that he might "pull down one part.i.tion, and so make two rooms--one." Neville, in a friendly letter beginning with "hearty commendations unto you and to Mrs. More," and ending with light gossip, urged Sir William to let the rooms to Farrant, and recommended Farrant as a desirable tenant ("I dare answer for him"). Neither letter mentioned the purpose for which the rooms, especially the large room referred to by Farrant, were to be used; but More doubtless understood that the Windsor Children were to practice their plays there, with occasional private rehearsals. Largely as a result of Neville's recommendation, More decided to let the rooms to Farrant. The progress of the negotiations is marked by a letter from Farrant to More, dated September 17, 1576, requesting that there be granted him also a certain "little dark room," which he found would be useful.

The lease as finally signed describes the property thus:

Sir William More hath demised, granted, and to ferm letten, and by these presents doth demise, grant, and to ferm let unto the said Richard Farrant all those his six upper chambers, lofts, lodgings, or rooms, lying together within the precinct of the late dissolved house or priory of the Blackfriars, otherwise called the friars preachers, in London; which said six upper chambers, lofts, lodgings, or rooms, were lately, amongst others, in the tenure and occupation of the right honourable Sir William Brooke, Knight, Lord Cobham; and do contain in length from the north end thereof to the south end of the same one hundred fifty and six foot and a half of a.s.size; whereof two of the said six upper chambers, lofts, lodgings, or rooms in the north end of the premises, together with the breadth of the little room under granted, do contain in length forty[150] and six foot and a half, and from the east to the west part thereof in breadth twenty and five foot of a.s.size;[151] and the four other chambers, or rooms, residue of the said six upper chambers, do contain in length one hundred and ten foot, and in breadth from the east to the west part thereof twenty-two foot of a.s.size.... And also ... the great stairs lately erected and made by the said Sir Henry Neville upon part of the said void ground and way.

[Footnote 150: By an error in the ma.n.u.script this reads "fifty"; but the rooms are often described and always as "forty-six" feet in length; moreover, the error is made obvious by the rest of the lease.]

[Footnote 151: The breadth is elsewhere given as twenty-six, and twenty-seven feet.]

It was agreed that the lease should run for twenty-one years, and that the rental should be 14 per annum. But Sir William More, being a most careful and exacting landlord, with the interest of his adjacent lodgings to care for, inserted in the lease the following important proviso, which was destined to make trouble, and ultimately to wreck the theatre:

Provided also that the said Richard Farrant, his executors or a.s.signs, or any of them, shall not in any wise demise, let, grant, a.s.sign, set over, or by any ways or means put away his or their interest or term of years, or any part of the same years, of or in the said premises before letten, or any part, parcel, or member thereof to any person, or persons, at any time hereafter during this present lease and term of twenty-one years, without the special license, consent, and agreement of the said Sir William More, his heirs and a.s.signs, first had, and obtained in writing under his and their hands and seals.

The penalty affixed to a violation of this provision was the immediate forfeiture of the lease.

Apparently Farrant entered into possession of the rooms on September 29[152] (although the formal lease was not signed until December 20), and we may suppose that he at once set about converting the two upper rooms at the north end of the lodgings into a suitable theatre.[153]

Naturally he took for his model the halls at Court in which the Children had been accustomed to act. First, we are told, he "pulled down part.i.tions to make that place apt for that purpose"; next, he "spoiled" the windows--by which is meant, no doubt, that he stopped up the windows, for the performances were to be by candle-light. At one end of the hall he erected a platform to serve as a stage, and in the auditorium he placed benches or chairs. There was, presumably, no room for a gallery; if such had been erected, the indignant More would certainly have mentioned it in his bill of complaints.[154]

Chandeliers over the stage, and, possibly, footlights, completed the necessary arrangements. For these alterations Farrant, we are told, became "greatly indebted," and he died three or four years later with the debt still unpaid. More complained that the alterations had put the rooms into a state of "great ruin," which meant, of course, from the point of view of a landlord desiring to let them again for residential purposes. Just how costly or how extensive the alterations were we cannot now determine; but we may reasonably conclude that Farrant made the hall not only "commodious for his purpose," but also attractive to the aristocratic audiences he intended to gather there to see his plays.

[Footnote 152: The date from which the lease was made to run.]

[Footnote 153: It is usually said that he converted the entire seven rooms into his theatre, but that seems highly unlikely. The northern section was 46 x 26 feet, the southern section 110 x 22--absurd dimensions for an auditorium. Moreover, that Farrant originally planned to use only the northern section is indicated by his request to be allowed to "pull down one part.i.tion and so make two rooms--one."

The portion not used for the playhouse he rented; in 1580, we are told, he let "two parcels thereof to two several persons."]

[Footnote 154: M. Feuillerat, I think, is wrong in supposing that there was a gallery. He deduces no proof for his contention, and the evidence is against him.]

To reach the hall, playgoers had to come first into Water Lane, thence through "a way leading from the said way called Water Lane" to "a certain void ground" before the building. Here "upon part of the said void ground" they found a "great stairs, which said great stairs do serve and lead into" the upper rooms--or, as we may now say, Blackfriars Playhouse.[155]

[Footnote 155: There must have been two stairways leading to the upper rooms; I have a.s.sumed that playgoers used Neville's stairs to reach the theatre.]

Having thus provided a playhouse, Farrant next provided an adequate company of boy actors. To do this, he combined the Children of Windsor with the Children of the Chapel Royal, of which William Hunnis was master. What arrangement he made with Hunnis we do not know, but the Court records show that Farrant was regarded as the manager of the new organization; he is actually referred to in the payments as "Master of the Children of Her Majesty's Chapel," and Hunnis's official connection with the Children is ignored.

Farrant may have been able to open his playhouse before the close of the year; or he may have first begun performances there in the early months of 1577. He would certainly be anxious to make use of the new play he was preparing for presentation at Court on Twelfth Day, January 6, 1577.

For four years, 1576-1580, the playhouse was operated without trouble.

Sir William More, however, was not pleased at the success with which the actors were meeting. He a.s.serted that when he made the lease he was given to understand that the building was to be used "only for the teaching of the Children of the Chapel"--with, no doubt, a few rehearsals to which certain persons would be _privately_ invited. But, now, to his grief, he discovered that Farrant had "made it a continual house for plays." He a.s.serted that the playhouse had become offensive to the precinct; and doubtless some complaints had been made to him, as landlord, by the more aristocratic inhabitants.[156] At any rate, he became anxious to regain possession of the building.

[Footnote 156: I suspect that the theatre gave greater offense to More himself than it did to any one else, for it adjoined his home, and the audience made use of the private pa.s.sage which led from Water Lane to his mansion. Unquestionably he suffered worse than any one else both from the noise and the crowds.]

In the autumn of 1580 he saw an opportunity to break the lease and close the playhouse. Farrant made the mistake of letting "two parcels thereof to two severall persons" without first gaining the written consent of More, and at once More "charged him with forfeiture of his lease." But before More could "take remedy against him" Farrant died, November 30, 1580. More, however, "entered upon the house, and refused to receive any rent but conditionally."

By his will, proved March 1, 1581, Farrant left the lease of the Blackfriars to his widow, Anne Farrant. But she had no authority over the royal choristers, nor was she qualified to manage a company of actors, even if she had had the time to do so after caring for her "ten little ones." What use, if any, was made of the playhouse during the succeeding winter we do not know. The widow writes that she, "being a sole woman, unable of herself to use the said rooms to such purpose as her said husband late used them, nor having any need or occasion to occupy them to such commodity as would discharge the rents due for the said rooms in the bill alledged, nor being able to sustain, repair, and amend the said rooms," etc.;[157] the natural inference from which is that for a time the playhouse stood unused.

The widow, of course, was anxious to sublet the building to some one who could make use of it as a playhouse; and on December 25, 1580, she addressed a letter to Sir William More asking his written permission to make such a disposal of the lease. The letter has a pathetic interest that justifies its insertion here:

_To the right worshipful Sir William More, Knight, at his house near Guilford, give these with speed._

_Right worshipful Sir:_