“A Poor Player That Struts and Frets His Hour Upon the Stage…”

Home , Augustine Phillips, Cockpit Theatre, Droll, Francis Kirkman, George Jolly, Independent Theatre

“A POOR PLAYER THAT STRUTS AND FRETS HIS HOUR UPON THE STAGE…”

THE ENGLISH THEATRE IN TRANSITION

A Thesis

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Christin N. Gambill

May, 2016 “A POOR PLAYER THAT STRUTS AND FRETS HIS HOUR UPON THE STAGE…”

THE ENGLISH THEATRE IN TRANSITION

Christin N. Gambill

Thesis

Approved: Accepted:

______Advisor Dean of the College Mr. James Slowiak Dr. John Green

______Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School Mr. Adel Migid Dr. Chand Midha

______Faculty Reader Date Dr. Hillary Nunn

______School Director Dr. J. Thomas Dukes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page CHAPTER

I. “THIS ROYAL THRONE THIS SCEPTERED ISLE…” THE THEATRE OF THE ENGLISH RENAISSANCE ...... 1

II. THE COMING STORM ...... 14

III. THE AXE FALLS ...... 29

IV. UNDER THEIR NOSES ...... 42

V. THE NEW ORDER ...... 53

VI. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 69

APPENDIX: “THE HUMOUR OF SIMPLE” ...... 76

iii

CHAPTER I

“THIS ROYAL THRONE THIS SCEPTERED ISLE…”

THE THEATRE OF THE ENGLISH RENAISSANCE

It is a significant irony of cultural history that the two great ages of theatre, the theatre of the Classical world (5th Century BCE - 5th Century), and the theatre of the

English Renaissance (1556 - 1625), were both abruptly terminated by socio/political upheavals completely outside of the realm of performing arts. Rather than building upon their pasts to lay foundations for their futures, both the Classical theatre and the theatre of the English Renaissance were brought to a close by official political decrees. While much is written about the end of the Classical theatre, comparatively little scholarship is devoted to the equally abrupt termination of the theatre of the English Renaissance.

Indeed, Oscar Brockett in The History of the Theatre (Brockett 202), devotes less than one page to the closing of the most vibrant professional theatre of the Renaissance.

After examining the rise of the theatre of the English Renaissance, this paper will explore the circumstances leading to the official end of that theatre. Additionally, attention will be paid to the impact that the banning of performing had on the theatre of the Interregnum (1649-1660) as well as the theatre of the Commonwealth (1653-1659).

The study will conclude with commentary on the impact that the emerging patent companies, had on the reestablishment of theatre during the Restoration. 1

It is difficult to assess the impact the closing of the English theatre had on the society at large. According to one historian, “…the closing of the theatres by Parliament is perhaps the best-known fact in the history of English drama” (Heinemann 5). While it is arguable whether or not the Parliamentary action of September 1642 deserves to be considered the “best known” fact in English theatre history, the significance of the closing of the theatres in the early days of the English Civil War provides a decisive and absolute date for the end of what is identified as “the great and popular entertainment of the age” (Baruch).

Like theatre of any age, the Elizabethan theatre did not exist in a vacuum. It both reflected and affected the society in which it existed. As a commercial enterprise, it was subject to the ebb and flow of public tastes and such tastes, throughout the early Tudor dynasty (1485-1547), were inexorably tied to a government struggling to balance myriad factions. A contemporary description of 16th century London is reflected in a pamphlet, entitled “The Seven Deadly Sins of London,” by Thomas Dekker:

Carts and coaches make such a thundering din as if the world ran on wheels; at every corner men, women, and children meet in such shoals that posts are set up to strengthen the houses lest with jostling with one another they should shoulder them down. Besides, hammers are beating in one place, tubs hooping in another [the noise made by coopers or barrel makers], pots clinking in a third, water- tankards running at tilt in a fourth. . . . Tradesmen, as if they were dancing galliards are lusty at legs and never stand still.

When reflecting upon British dynastic history, one might certainly be skeptical regarding the Tudor’s potential to rule. Beginning with Henry VIII’s ill-fated effort to find a suitable wife, through the short tragic reign of Edward VI, continuing through the brief controversial nine-day rule of Jane Grey, and culminating in the purges of Mary I,

by the time Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1558 the Tudors had not proven themselves to be among the more politically astute of ruling families. In the span of less than half-a- century England had gone through four rulers and two major changes of religion. Given the numerous political upheavals and the resulting chaos in the fundamental fabric of society, there was scant encouragement for anyone to pursue significant art. Whether actor or portrait painter it was uncertain if either the religion or the ruler that was in place when one went to bed would still be in place the next morning. When measured against the reigns of the earlier Tudors, from the outset Elizabeth I managed to bring a modicum of stability to a religiously and economically fragmented nation.

Freed from the excesses of her father and the religious zealotry of her sister,

Elizabeth managed to project at least the appearance of tolerance. Despite her position as

“Supreme Head of the Church,” Elizabeth did not set forth any specific dictates for the church that she nominally headed. Many of the clergy maintained altars and images and they refused to destroy the instruments needed for Mass. Many in the general population frequently referred to the “old religion” and senior church bishops of the reform church faced a very difficult task in stamping out support for Catholic practices (Trueman).

Despite her tolerance and lack of overt persecution, Elizabeth was excommunicated by Pope Pius V, who also encouraged all Catholic kings and subjects to work to assassinate the English queen and overthrow her regime (Larque). In addition, the on-going conflict with her brother-in-law, Phillip II of Spain, took on added significance when the attempted invasion of England by the Spanish Armada in 1588 was blessed by the Pope (Larque).

While she did not hesitate to make public examples of blatant actions that contradicted the government’s official Protestant views, Elizabeth chose not to interfere actively with personal religious practices. Despite the Reformation that had swept the country, it is significant that throughout Elizabeth’s reign, a considerable number of her subjects privately retained their Catholic allegiance, much as they had for nine centuries.

Gradually, however, by the time of Elizabeth’s death, the nation had become more overtly Protestant, and by 1616, when William Shakespeare died, the country was well on the way to becoming Puritan. By the first quarter of the 17th century the Protestant

Reformation had worked nearly its full course of revolution in ideas, habits, and beliefs and the authority once-claimed by the Roman Church had been replaced by that of the

Bible (Neilson 22). Despite the absence of purges that had characterized much of the early 16th century, Elizabeth I ruled a nation in a perpetual state of flux throughout her

45 year reign. From a population of 70,000 when Henry VII ascended the throne in 1485,

London’s population exploded to nearly 200,000 by 1600 (Ross).

With the expanding commerce of the Renaissance, London became recognized not only as a trading and industrial center, but it was at the heart of the new and highly profitable trade with the Indies. England’s traditional social and economic hierarchy had been rooted in inherited wealth and titles since the time of William the Conqueror. While family titles and estates remained important, many of the successful merchants were suddenly wealthier than the nobility. Throughout the first half of the 17th century, the merchant class was the engine that drove the English economy and, by lending money to

both the Crown and the nobility, the position of the middle-class increased in both power and prestige (Heinemann 4).

While the economy of London boomed, the resounding success of the merchant class was not without consequences. Smaller craftsmen became increasingly dependent on merchants for materials and were often forced into debt. Journeymen found it increasingly difficult to acquire necessary start-up funds forcing them to abandon their aspirations to become masters. The wealthy merchant, despite his material gains, often found himself confronted with hostility both from the financially-strapped gentry and the struggling artisans and craftsmen (Heinemann 4).

Despite a lessening of overt religious conflict, under Elizabeth’s rule, hostility between Catholics and Protestants and between Protestants and Puritans bubbled just beneath the surface. The landed gentry found not only their traditional positions threatened, but their wealth and privilege undermined by an expanding merchant class no longer willing to accept the restrictions imposed by the traditional class system. For the first time in English history, social mobility was possible without title or government influence. It was into this world of social, economic, and religious change that the professional theatre of the Elizabethan Renaissance was born.

While numerous modern critics and historians like John Adams and Harold

Bloom view the Elizabethan theatre primarily as a temple for great writers like

Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Jonson, the creation of a lasting theatrical art was not a primary concern at the outset. The theatre of the English Renaissance was opportunistic; it was, from its inception, a commercial venture. The theatre grew not so much from a

desire to create great art but rather from the opportunity it offered to those engaged in the writing and presentation of plays for a secure and comfortable means of making a living

(Oates, Baumol 7).

Although it thrived under her policies, professional theatre in England did not begin with the reign of Elizabeth Tudor. Throughout the early sixteenth century professional performances were given on a fairly regular basis in inn yards and in taverns without the knowledge or the interference of the Crown. Although records are scarce, the first documented public professional theatre performance within the city limits of London took place at the Boars Head Inn in Whitechapel in 1557, one year after Elizabeth ascended the throne (Jokinen). Elizabeth’s encouragement of economic expansion and her general policy of religious tolerance created the opportunity to turn a casual relatively unstructured pass-time into an extraordinary artistic accomplishment.

By the mid-16th century, for the first time in English history large segments of the population had the leisure time and the disposable income to seek-out activities completely unrelated to day-to-day survival. Theatre was immensely popular. Fifteen thousand people attended playhouses in England every week (Bellinger). In the inn-yards and taverns, as the actors struggled to compete with the drinkers and the diners, theatrical entrepreneurs recognized an immediate opportunity to provide additional outlets for the new-found audience. According to one Elizabethan chronicler “in order to pass over grief, the Italians sleep, the French sing, the Germans drink, the English go to plays”

(Fennimore).

Not surprisingly, the increased potential for theatre brought about additional scrutiny by officers of the Church. The random groups of strolling players that had represented theatrical activity in England for a hundred years suddenly found themselves forced to secure a patron willing to accept responsibility for their conduct. According to an edict issued in 1572, traveling players were required to "be the retainers of some baron of this realm, or other honorable personage of greater degree," or to "have license of two justices of the peace at the least" (Albright 7). This law was revived throughout the years and eventually, became the chief argument for opponents of drama.

Rather than restricting the actors’ ability to earn a living, the elimination of the wandering groups of players gave impetus to the rise of theatre as a recognized, if not always respected, profession. The first royal patent was granted to the Servants of the

Earl of Leicester in 1574. According to the license, the group was empowered to play

"comedies, tragedies, interludes, stage-plays and other such-like" in London and in all other towns and boroughs in the realm of England; except that no representation could be given during the time for Common Prayer, or during a time of "great and common Plague in our said city of London." During Elizabeth’s reign it was possible to see a play on any day of the week except during Lent or when the theatres were closed due to plague

(Brockett 129).

Not only did the requirement for patronage control the potential vagrancy of the wandering players, but, by licensing the acting companies, the government prevented the staging of any work that might create public discord. Given the growing diverse population of London, it became increasingly difficult to anticipate the spark that might

ignite a public riot. It has been estimated that in Shakespeare’s time one Londoner in eight went to the theatre each week (Gascoigne). With one and a half percent of the population potentially exposed to the same influence, it was to everyone’s benefit that the line between entertainment and propaganda be carefully monitored.

As theatrical performance developed a more defined structure, the obligation of overseeing productions fell to the office of the Master of the Revels. Initially, the charge of this office was simply to license the plays and companies. Later, the authority was expanded to control all aspects of public performances. First created in 1545 under the reign of Henry VIII, the Revels office was comprised of the master, a comptroller, and a yeoman. Throughout much of Elizabeth’s reign, the Master of the Revels was Edmund

Tilney. He took office in 1579 and held the position until his death in 1610 (Wickham 4).

After 1581, however, the Master’s duties encompassed considerably more than the occasional granting of a license. The office was specifically charged:

to warne comande and appointe…all and every plaier of plainers, with their playmakers…from tyme to tyme and at all tyes to appeare before him, with all such Plaines, Tragedies, Comedies or Showes as they shall have in readiness or meane to sett forth, and them to presente and recite before our saide Servant, or his sufficient Deputie, whom wee ordeyne, appointe, and authorize by these presents of all suche Showes, Plaies, Plaiers and Playmakers, together with their playing places, to order and reforem, auctorise and put downe, as shalbe thought meete or unmeete unto himself or his said Deputie in that behalf (Chambers 70).

It was through the office of Master of the Revels that the crown monitored theatrical undertakings, particularly works dealing with political and religious subjects.

This function was officially transferred to the Lord Chamberlain in 1624. However, it appears that the Master of the Revels, who normally reported to the Lord Chamberlain,

continued to perform the function on behalf of his superior until the Civil War closed the

London theatres in 1642. The Master's power ultimately extended beyond control of court entertainment to include censoring publicly performed plays, and issuing licenses to provincial acting troupes. These powers led to a gradual corruption of the office, and, by

1603, it was common for the Master of Revels to earn ten times his yearly salary from bribes (Mabillard).

Despite the eventual corruption of the Master’s office, several documented incidents illustrate the potential danger of unmonitored theatrical activity. One scandal involved Shakespeare’s Richard II. A group of followers of the Earl of Essex specifically commissioned a performance of the play. Unbeknownst to the Players, this group was planning to instigate a rebellion against Elizabeth the following day. They chose Richard

II because it showed the decline of a weak king closely connected to corrupt favorites, and overthrown by a rebellion led by the Earl of Bolingbroke. Augustine Phillips, one of the leading actors of Shakespeare’s Company, was called in and interrogated about the actors’ role in the affair. He maintained that they had known nothing about any seditious intent and that they had simply been encouraged to reprise an old play. In addition,

Phillips added that the play was so old that they didn’t expect much of an audience and they had been paid ten shillings over the ordinary fee to perform it (Larque). The authorities treated the actors leniently and no punishment seems to have been forthcoming. On the day before Essex was executed, Shakespeare’s Company was invited to perform before the Queen, perhaps as a sign of forgiveness.

More typical of the censorship of Elizabethan plays was the suppression of Sir

Thomas More, a play that was written and then amended by a large group of different playwrights, possibly including Shakespeare, who may have written scenes in his own handwriting in the manuscript. It was an odd choice of a subject for a play, since Thomas

More was a Catholic martyr who had been executed by Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, for opposing his divorce and the establishment of the Church of England. The Master of the Revels disliked many of the scenes within the play and sent it back repeatedly for alterations. Despite these alterations, the play was never considered acceptable and was never granted a license to be performed or published (Larque).

While the Master of the Revels’ principal duty involved the control of the content of plays, outside of the palace equal concern existed over the behavior of those attending the theatre. In December 1574 the Common Council of London issued a statement proclaiming:

great disorder rampant in the city by the inordinate haunting of great multitudes of people, especially youth, to plays, interludes, namely occasion of frays and quarrels, evil practices of incontinency in great inns having chambers and secret places adjoning to their open stages and galleries, inveigling and alluring of maids, especially of orphans and good citizens' children under age, to privy and unmeet contracts, the publishing of unchaste, uncomely, and unshamefast speeches and doings . . . uttering of popular, busy, and seditious matters, and many other corruptions of youth and other enormities ….

The City Council’s unhappiness culminated in the declaration that:

…from henceforth no play, comedy, tragedy, interlude, not public show shall be openly played or showed within the liberties of the City . . . and that no innkeeper, tavernkeeper, nor other person whatsoever within the liberties of this City shall

openly show or play . . . any interlude, comedy, tragedy, matter, or show which shall not be first perused and allowed... (Alchin).

Even though the initial ban specifically states that performances cannot be

“openly played…”within the City no mention is made of private presentations. The

Council’s attempt to control theatrical ventures continued through the next year. In 1575, the City authorities imposed a Code of Practice upon the Players that so displeased them that they collectively decided to withdraw completely outside the City boundaries to an area known as one of the Liberties. The Liberties "belonged" to the city yet fell outside the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor, the sheriffs of London, and the Common Council. The city had authority but, paradoxically, almost no control (Aznar, Jordan).

As a result of the Players’ decision to seek freedom from the restrictions imposed by the City, in 1576 James Burbage and his brother- in-law John Brayne undertook the construction of the first, successful, purpose-built, professional theatre, appropriately named “The Theatre.” This was not their first effort to build a dedicated playhouse. As early as 1567, the two entrepreneurs constructed a playhouse they called the Red Lion.

The effort does not seem to have been successful, however, since the only play known to have been presented there is The Story of Sampson, and no evidence exists that the theatre survived beyond the summer of 1567. Encouraged by the construction of The Theatre, another public playhouse, The Curtain, was built in the same area the next year. This was followed by The Rose (1587) The Swan (1595) The Globe (1599) The Fortune (1600) and The Red Bull (New World Encyclopedia).

In several respects, The Theatre epitomizes the changing position of the English public theatres throughout the 16th century. While Burbage and Brayne owned the

building, the land upon which The Theatre sat was leased for twenty-one years. The landlord, Giles Allen, disapproved of theatrical productions and, when all attempts at negotiations to renew the lease failed, he formulated a plan to pull down the building and make use of the building-materials. Learning of his intention, the acting troupe itself demolished The Theatre (tradition says in the middle of the night) and transported the timber to a new site on Bankside in Southwark where they used the timbers to construct a new playhouse, The Globe (Alchin).

The expansion of the public theatres and the increase in their audience numbers argue against the overall concern for the negative morality surrounding theatrical activity.

It seems to have been public knowledge that The Globe not only presented some of the most popular plays of the age but it was also “reputed to be a brothel and gambling house” (Alchin). From the outset, the Elizabethan theatre seems to have been rife with contradictions. One early 20th century critic notes:

This London of dirt and disease was also the arena for extravagant fashion and princely display. This populace that watched with joy the cruel torment of a bear or the execution of a Catholic also delighted in the romantic comedies of Shakespeare. This people, so appallingly credulous and ignorant, so brutal, childish, so mercurial compared with Englishmen of to-day, yet set the standard of national greatness. Read the lives of the poets—Surrey, Wyatt, Sidney, Spenser, Raleigh, Marlowe, Jonson—and of these, only Spenser and Jonson died in their beds, and Ben had killed his man in a duel. The student of Elizabethan history and biography will find stranger contrasts than in the lives of these poets, for crime, meanness, and sexual depravity often appear in the closest (Bellinger).

The range of perceptions of the theatrical activity can be further illustrated by the changing labels given to the actor’s craft: As early as 1574 the patent to Leicester’s Men refers to playing as an “arte and facultye.” In 1581 the Privy Council calls it a “trade”; in

1582 a “profession"; in 1593 a “quality.” The order of 1600 explicitly recognizes that it

“may with a good order and moderation be suffered in a well-governed state” (Chambers

12).

By the time of Elizabeth’s death in1603, England was a much more “well governed state,” than the one that she inherited. During her forty-five year reign she successfully reduced England's religious rivalry, secured the realm, and restored confidence in the government (Senn 12). Her reign also saw the establishment of a dedicated theatre “district,” the establishment of the duties of the Master of the Revels, and the expansion of the number of theatre companies. These accomplishments, however, were more a manifestation of prudent politics than a reflection of the monarch’s love of the performer’s art. As the Protestants, the Catholics, and the Puritans, jockeyed for political position, Elizabeth understood that the theatre needed to be monitored because of its popularity across social classes and its ability to influence public opinion. Ever vigilant, in many regards she was more reactive than proactive. Like their monarch,

Shakespeare, Burbage, and their contemporaries were equally products of their time.

They were not so much innovators in search of artistic immortality as they were opportunists who saw the potential that the theatre offered and set about to take advantage of it.

CHAPTER II

THE COMING STORM

At 2:30 in the morning on 23 March 1603, Elizabeth Tudor died. Under her forty- five year rule, England had emerged from the chaos of religious and dynastic turmoil to become not only the principal economic force in Europe, but also the seat of the most innovative and recognized theatre in the world. In keeping with the pre-determined plan of succession, on 24 March 1603, Elizabeth’s cousin, James Stuart, already James VI of

Scotland, assumed the English throne as James I.

For four hundred years historians have tried unsuccessfully to pigeonhole James I.

A man of some ambiguity, he was a Protestant with a Catholic wife; he displayed openly homosexual behaviors, yet he fathered seven children (Love). While James chose to continue many of Elizabeth’s policies, in the opinion of one modern critic, the Stuart king must be viewed as “one of the most complicated neurotics ever to come to the English throne” (Akrigg 6).

Almost immediately upon his ascension to the throne, the new King became the object of derision by those around him (without-feathers.com). James was criticized for being uncouth, ill-kempt, and more inclined to spend the people’s taxes on his own amusement than on the betterment of the realm. Because his personal style grated on court sensibilities, he was privately referred to as “schoolmaster of the realm” (Love). 14

Despite his somewhat unappealing qualities, from the outset of his English rule James was an enthusiastic supporter of the theatre. On 19 May 1603, shortly after his coronation, he extended to Shakespeare’s and Burbage’s company, the Lord

Chamberlain’s Men, the honor of becoming The King’s Men. This patent allowed them

…freely to use and exercise the arte and facultie of playing comedies, tragedies, histories, enterludes, moralls, pastoralles, stage-plaies, and such other like as they have already studied, or hereafter shall use or studie as well for the recreation of our loving subjectes as for our solace and pleasure, when we shall thinke good to see them during our pleasure (Internet Shakespeare Editions).

Although having the king as patron was the greatest complement that any theatre company could hope to achieve, the Crown’s “appropriation” of the Globe Company represented a significant departure from the racaous public theatre sanctioned by

Elizabeth. From the beginning of James’ reign, the court and its theatre began to lose touch with the “common” people. Playwrights soon realized that it was far more profitable to write for the court and its aristocratic circle than for the playhouses that catered to the masses.

In addition to the patronage of the Globe company, James’ long-held belief that he was a direct descendent of the Scottish nobleman, Banquo, created a personal bond between the King and the Globe’s principal playwright William Shakespeare. Tradition holds that James was so enamored of Shakespeare’s skill that he wrote the playwright a letter in his own hand requesting that he write a play on the subject of Macbeth

(Mabillard 20). Though lost to history, this correspondence, known as the “Amicable

Letter,” was presumably at one time in the possession of Sir William D’Avenant, and afterwards, in the possession of John Sheffield, First Duke of Buckingham (Sacklunch).

While James’ relationship with Shakespeare might be viewed as more tradition than fact, Shakespeare’s desire to comply with the king’s request is reflected in the overall roughness of “The Scottish Play” which has been accused of being hurriedly completed and lacking the polish of Shakespeare’s more carefully constructed works.

According to one critic:

Macbeth has the appearance of a bold, impromptu, hastily conceived sketch, emanating from the poet's brain in fiery flashes; the entire background and scenery is as lurid as the boldest sketches of Salvator Rosa, the figures are dashed in as bold as from the pencil of Rubens, and the ancient lieges of Scotia's land and the witches and ghosts pass before us like the titanic weird figures of Blake or Fuseli; and as the poet conceived it so he left it — a splendid sketch, but not a full and completely finished work (Brown 21).

Despite the general identification of Shakespeare as an Elizabethan dramatist, he wrote at least twelve plays under the patronage of James, including three out of the four great tragedies, Othello (1604) King Lear (1605) and Macbeth (1606).

The re-emergence of the plague in the autumn and winter of 1603 gave James additional opportunity to show favor for his company. Because of the forced closing of the theatres, the King’s Players undertook a prolonged tour of the provinces in order to keep working. The Court, in an effort to escape the sickness, was temporarily installed at

Wilton, the residence of William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke. Late in November of

1603 the Company was summoned there by the royal officers to perform in the royal presence. For this performance, they received the next day “upon the Councells warrant” the considerable sum of £30 “by way of his majesties reward” (projectgutenberg.com).

Many other marks of royal favor followed. On 15 March 1604, Shakespeare and eight other actors of the company walked from the Tower of London to Westminster in

the procession which accompanied the King on his formal entry into London. Each actor received four and a half yards of scarlet cloth to wear as a cloak on the occasion (Dekker

23). On 9 April 1604, the King gave further proof of his friendly interest in the fortunes of his actors by causing an official letter to be sent to the Lord Mayor of London and the

Justices of the Peace for Middlesex and Surrey, bidding them “permit and suffer” the

King’s players to “exercise their playes” at their “usual house,” the Globe (Mabillard).

Four months later, in August, every member of the Company was summoned by the

King’s order to attend at Somerset House during the visit of the Spanish ambassador,

Juan Fernandez de Velasco, who came to London to ratify the treaty of peace between

England and Spain. Between All Saints’ Day [November 1] and the ensuing Shrove

Tuesday, which fell early in February 1605, Shakespeare’s company gave no fewer than eleven performances at Whitehall in the royal presence (Wasson 17).

Records reveal that James was even a more ardent theatre-goer than his predecessor. It is estimated that Elizabeth saw five professional productions per year while James saw, an average of seventeen productions a year (Brockett 129).

Significantly, however, during Elizabeth’s reign no fewer than nine public theatres were constructed (Brocket 135) while only the Red Bull, the Hope, and the Cockpit, were built under James’ kingship. During Elizabeth’s reign much of the advancement of theatre had to do with the building of playhouses and the founding of companies. Following James’ ascension to the throne, most of the historical references are in regard to the growing relationship between the players and the court.

Royal patronage came not just from James, but also from his wife, Anne of

Denmark. Like her husband, Anne seems to have been the object of controversy early in her reign. Despite being brought up as a Lutheran, Anne became a Roman Catholic during the 1590s. When James succeeded to the English throne, the new royal couple was crowned at Windsor Castle. Anne, however, created a disruption in the ceremony and caused considerable embarrassment by refusing to take Anglican Communion (Jokinen).

The new Queen’s love of dancing and pageants, which was frowned upon in

Presbyterian Scotland, found a ready outlet in Jacobean London, where she created a

"rich and hospitable" cultural climate at the royal court (Barroll 100). Like her husband, the Queen became an enthusiastic play-goer and sponsored lavish masques with Ben

Jonson contributing more than 20 masques for the royal couple (Exploring London).

James and Anne’s sponsorship advanced public theatre and the court masques did much to elevate the cultural stature of the English court in the eyes of dignitaries throughout Europe. Lavish and extravagant, the masques became a popular reflection of the English crown's position in the European community. Zorzi Giustinian, the Venetian ambassador, wrote of the Christmas 1604 masque that "in everyone's opinion no other

Court could have displayed such pomp and riches" (Barroll 108).

Besides demonstrating the wealth and position of the Jacobean court, Anne's masques mark a significant step in the history of women on the stage. The Queen herself sometimes performed with her ladies in the masques, and, in the process, occasionally offended members of the audience. In The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses in 1604, for example, she played Pallas Athena, wearing a tunic that many observers criticized as

being too revealing. In The Masque of Blackness in 1605, Anne performed while six months pregnant, causing additional scandal by having her ladies’ skin painted as

"blackamores." One observer reported that when the Queen afterwards danced with the

Spanish ambassador, he kissed her hand "though there was danger it would have left a mark upon his lips" (McManus 13).

Even more than her uncensored performances, Anne’s Roman Catholic sympathies continued to be an increasing source of public controversy from which James could not escape. It is, perhaps, ironic that the Gunpowder Plot, probably the best-known political event of James’ reign, is directly tied to the King’s position as head of the

Church of England. In November 1605, Guy Fawkes and other Catholics planned to blow up, via gunpowder, the King and the entire British Parliament. According to King James in his treatise entitled, “A Catalogue of the Lyes of Tortvs, Together With A Briefe

Confutation of Them."

It was not any just occasion of despaire giuen [given] to the Powder- Traitours...but the instructions which they had from the Iesuits [Jesuits], that caused them to attempt this bloody designe (jesus-is-lord).

In part, no doubt, because of his wife’s religion as well as the extravagant expenditures put forth on the masques, James never received the public adoration bestowed on his predecessor, Elizabeth I. Likewise, his enthusiastic viewing of plays along with his optimism over the quality of the dramas seems not to have been universally shared. On 31 December 1614, a courtier in a letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, complained:

We have Plays at Court every night, wherein they shew great patience, being for the most part such poor stuff that, instead of delight, they send the auditory away with discontent. Indeed our Poets' brains and inventions are grown very dry, insomuch that of five new Plays there is not one that pleases, and therefore they are driven to furbish over their old; which stand them in best stead and bring them most profit (Shakespeare-online).

Even though much of Shakespeare’s most recognized work was completed under

James, the reign of the Stuart king also marks the end of Shakespeare’s writing career. It is important to note that no dramatist of equal talent waited in the wings. Although the theatre, particularly in the form of the court masques, thrived under James and Anne, it lacked the public support and universal appeal associated with Elizabethan theatre. With the increased attention being paid to court productions and the lack of expansion of public playhouses, popular interest and overall support of the theatre declined under

James I. The economic boom that marked much of Elizabeth’s reign had cooled, and the ever-present controversy over religion became an increasingly public issue (Law 37). In

1608, public performances were permitted once more in both London and Westminster, but because the major theatres remained outside the city walls the renewed performances were comparatively small and the audiences relatively selective.

When comparing the Jacobean to the Elizabethan theatre, modern critics have not been particularly kind to the state of theatre under the Stuart king. According to one commentator “Sexuality was prevalent in Jacobean performances, along with a heightened sense of violence and general immoralities/perversities…” (Brown). Another commentator was even more critical in his observation that Jacobean theatre is “a dark and disturbing literary form, spiritually gloomy, grotesquely violent, and often shockingly obscene…” (Kamiya).

Unlike Elizabeth, who generally sought a consensus with Parliament, James I remained a devout advocate of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, the unwavering belief that the monarch’s every action was divinely sanctioned. According to James,

“Kings are justly called gods for they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth” (Pearcy, Dickson). James’ view of the king’s inherent elevated status added to the increasing distance between the crown and its subjects. By the time his son,

Charles, assumed the English throne as Charles I in 1626, an irreconcilable chasm had developed between the monarchy and the people it professed to represent.

From its outset, the reign of Charles I seems to have been doomed to failure. His twenty-four year rule was marked by an on-going series of conflicts with parliament, the

English people, and, on occasion, with his wife. Like his father, Charles ascended the throne with a Catholic wife while the country that they endeavored to rule continued to grow ever-more protestant. Not only was the Bourbon princess Henrietta Maria a Roman

Catholic, but her French ancestry was an on-going source of irritation to her English subjects. While the people’s lack of acceptance of their future queen was initially a matter of principle, their cultural animosity flamed when the Queen declined to join her husband in the crowning at Westminster Abbey on 2 February 1626. Despite her position as royal consort, soon-to-be Queen Henrietta refused to participate in a Protestant religious ceremony (Carlton 40).

Confronted with myriad rumblings at home and increasing problems abroad, the declining state of the English public theatre was not among Charles’ more pressing concerns. Without a Shakespeare to lead the way, several of the so-called decadent

playwrights of the Jacobean Drama continued to write into the new reign, notably John

Ford, who produced such bloody tragedies as ’Tis Pity She’s a Whore (1627) and James

Shirley who wrote both tragedies and comedies of manners. From the outset, however,

Caroline drama was far from the center of the increasingly conservative society in which it existed. As in the reign of James, much of the creative impetus, which under Elizabeth had been focused on the public theatres, remained centered on the elaborate court masques (Law 5). The less-than-vibrant theatre seems to have been of scant interest to the King. Charles seemed oblivious to the fact that in the quarter century since

Elizabeth’s death, the voices of the anti-theatre faction had joined those vocal critics of the Stuart monarchy and had become more adamant in their opposition and more demanding of significant reform.

The most pointed of the attacks during Charles’ reign was undertaken by pamphleteer William Prynne in his Histrio-mastix: The Players' Scourge (1633). In this thousand-page tirade, Prynne dismisses the possibility of theatrical reform and argues instead for the closure of the theatres. The attack in Histrio-mastix focuses almost exclusively on actresses, arguing that women actors on stage would lead both the performers and their audience to whoredom.

Considering the King’s lackadaisical attitude toward the theatre and his increasing number of foreign concerns, under normal circumstances it would seem unlikely that he would pay even passing attention to Prynne’s ramblings. The denunciation against women on stage, however, was whispered to be a direct criticism of Charles’ wife, Queen

Henrietta Maria, who was participating in a court masque at the time Prynne published

his work. Such overt and unveiled criticism was impossible to ignore. As a result of the publication of Histrio-mastix, Prynne was tried and found guilty of sedition. He was sentenced to have his ears cut off, to pay a fine £5000, and to be imprisoned for life

(Plant).

The rigors of imprisonment, however, seem not to have cooled Prynne’s passions nor stopped his pamphlets from being smuggled out of prison and reaching the streets. In

1637, he was tried on a second count of sedition and once again found guilty. Having avoided the punishment set-forth in the initial sentence (it seems his ears only received a trim the first time around), for the second offence he was sentenced to have his ears fully removed, his nose slit, and the initials S.L. [“Seditious Libeller”] burnt into his cheeks

(Plant).

It has been suggested that as a result of the vehemence of Prynne’s diatribe, the

Puritan’s tempered their orchestrated attack on the theatre. It might be equally argued, however, that rather than tempering their antagonisms, the more vocal critics of the

Crown were merely driven underground by a practical concern for life and limb following the punishment and disfigurement handed out to Prynne.

While Prynne’s thinly veiled attack on the Queen may have been the principal cause of his punishment, anti-theatre sentiments reflecting a range of general complaints were expressed regularly throughout the 16th and early 17th centuries. As early as 1579,

Stephen Gosson's The School of Abuse (1579) complained that:

The subject matter [of the theatre] was likely to incite irreligious sensual pleasure via spectacles of ‘wrath, cruelty, incest, injury [and] murder’ in the tragedies and

‘love, cozenage, flattery, bawdry [and] sly conveyance of whoredom’ in the comedies.

Despite a failure to offer specific examples, Gosson further objected that acting itself was suspect because:

…commoners feigned the actions of monarchs and men the actions of women, which might suggest that God-given social and sexual distinctions were matters merely of conduct rather than being.

One of Gosson’s most curious accusations was that theatre “effeminized” the mind.

Four years later, in 1583, Philip Stubbes, in his Anatomy of Abuses, renewed the attack on the players. Equally lacking in specific examples, Stubbes warned that male actors who wore women’s clothing could literally “adulterate” the male gender. He further suggested that “the running to Theaters and Curtains, daily and hourly, time and tide, to see plays and interludes was bound to insinuate foolery….”

Stubbes’ concern about male actors wearing women’s clothing was made irrelevant in 1629. In that year women actors made their first appearance on the English stage at the new theatre at Salisbury Court. While certainly a novelty, their presence seems not to have improved the public’s opinion of theatre since the women were hissed and “pippin-pelted” off the stage (Bellinger). A second attempt to incorporate women into the player’s art was made three weeks afterwards but again they were not well received. Despite the apparent lack of audience enthusiasm for women on the stage, their inclusion seems to have provided a specific target for the anti-theatre factions. It is worthy of note that while Gosson’s, Stubbes’ and Prynne’s indictments of the theatre reflected a growing anti-theatre sentiment, their attacks were personally instigated, and

while rife with moral indignation, the complaints did not claim to represent anything beyond their author’s passionately held beliefs.

While both Elizabeth and James embraced theatre above other art forms, Charles appears to have had more diverse artistic interests. He brought the Flemish painters Van

Dyck and Rubens to England to establish studios, and he spent lavishly on paintings by

Raphael and Titian. Charles also instituted the post of Master of the King's Music, in order to provide supervision of the King's large band of musicians (Marshall). In a time of growing crisis, the King’s seemingly frivolous expenditures on art did little to endear him to his subjects. However, it was not his aesthetic choices, but Charles’ on-going contempt for Parliament that most contributed to his downfall.

One of the long-recognized privileges of Parliament was the control of the royal purse strings. It was traditional for the monarch to seek parliamentary funding in order to wage war. Confronted with a series of wars against France and Spain, as well as rebellions in Scotland and Ireland, Charles resented having to sublimate his kingly prerogative by seeking the approval of Parliament. During the so-called “Eleven Years

Tyranny,” between 1629 and 1640, Charles demonstrated his contempt of the elected body by refusing to call a Parliament and chose instead to govern without their taxes or advice (Royal Household).

The Irish uprising of October 1641 created even more tension between the King and Parliament by adding an extra point of contention over the command of the Army.

Parliament issued a Remonstrance that repeated their earlier grievances. They also impeached 12 bishops, and attempted to impeach the Queen. Charles responded by

flaunting long-standing tradition and entering the Commons to arrest five Members of

Parliament. Parliament reacted to this affront by passing a Militia Bill allowing troops to be raised only under officers approved by Parliament (Royal Household).

The presence of women on the stage and the on-going whining of individual critics had scant impact on the overall fortunes of the English theatre during the reign of

Charles I. For the most part, energies that had been devoted to literature in the last half of the 16th century were now channeled into political and theological concerns. Not only was the impending Civil War both religious and political, but it was clear that its consequences would have both social and economic ramifications (Kreis).

Even though the theatre seemingly lacked influence in a society struggling to redefine itself, the proliferation of the court masques and their irrevocable association with the Stuart monarchy entangled the theatre directly in the expanding conflict. As

Puritan political and religious influence increased, the complaints against the theatre became less philosophical and more focused. As early as 26 February 1641, the London parish of Blackfriars, together with two other parishes, presented a petition for the suppression of the Blackfriars theatre, the chief venue of the King's company. The House of Commons Journal notes that despite the petition, no action was taken.

The Petition of the Inhabitants of the Black Friars, St. Martin's, Ludgate, and St. Bride's, London was read; and is ordered to be referred to the Committee for Secretary Windebank's Business (House of Commons Journal).

The following year, on 2 September 1642, the Puritan effort was more successful when playhouses throughout England were closed by order of Parliament through the issuance of the First Ordinance against Stage Plays Interludes:

Whereas the distressed Estate of Ireland, steeped in her own Blood, and the distracted Estate of England, threatned with a Cloud of Blood, by a Civill Warre, call for all possible meanes to appease and avert the Wrath of God appearing in these Judgements; amongst which, Fasting and Prayer having bin often tryed to be very effectuall, have bin lately, and are still enjoyned; and whereas publike Sports doe not well agree with publike Calamities, nor publike Stage-playes with the Seasons of Humiliation, this being an Exercise of sad and pious solemnity, and the other being Spectacles of pleasure, too commonly expressing laciuious [sic] Mirth and Levitie: It is therefore thought fit, and Ordeined by the Lords and Commons in this Parliament Assembled, that while these sad Causes and set times of Humiliation doe continue, publike Stage-playes shall cease, and bee forborne. Instead of which, are recommended to the people of this Land, the profitable and seasonable Considerations of Repentance, Reconciliation, and peace with God, which probably may produce outward peace and prosperity, and bring againe Times of Joy and Gladnesse to these Nations (Wiseman 86).

The First Ordinance as the proclamation came to be known, suggests that the

Puritan Parliament’s principal concern was not the impropriety of women on the stage or even the perceived immorality or frivolous entertainment of theatre but rather with the impending Civil War. In reflecting on Parliaments decree, David Scott Kastan, in his study Shakespeare After Theory observes that “parliament in its considerations was motivated by practical concerns for security more than by religious zeal” (Kastan 17).

These “practical concerns” remained in place for the next eighteen years bringing official closure to the most vibrant theatre the world had ever seen.

The outbreak of hostilities in October of 1642 initiated a seven year period of armed combat between the Royalist forces supporting the monarchy and the army of

Parliament. Failing several attempts at reconciling their differences, in 1647 Charles was tried and found guilty of the crime of high treason and on the 30 January 1649 Charles I,

King of England, was beheaded. He was buried on 9 February at Windsor, rather than

Westminster Abbey, to avoid public disorder. To prevent the automatic succession of the

King’s son, an Act was passed on 30 January forbidding the proclaiming of another monarch and a week later, on 7 February 1649, the office of king was formally abolished

(Royal Household).

CHAPTER III

THE AXE FALLS

The philosophical battle pitting the divine right of kings against the civil rights of the people came to blows on Sunday, 23 October 1642. Armed combat between the forces of Charles I and the Parliamentary army erupted in what has come to be known as the Battle of Edgehill. Despite a thousand combined casualties, the battle proved militarily inconsequential (The Battlefields Trust). As a result of Edgehill, however, the long-festering tension between the monarchy and the English people was finally brought into the open. For the next five years Royalist and Roundhead would battle over the absolute power of the monarch verses the innate rights of those that were governed.

Coming as it did immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the proclamation closing the theatres was not so much a reflection of the Puritans’ contempt for the player’s art, but rather a concerted effort to stifle one of the principal bastions of Royalist support. Traditionally, those with the means (and the inclination) to financially support the theatre were supporters of the monarchy. As a result of this long-held association, when the issue finally came to blows, many of the actors and other theatre workers lent their support to the Royalist cause. Davies' Miscellanies confirms that:

When the civil wars shut the doors of the theaters, many of the comedians, who had youth, spirit, and vigor of body, took up arms in defense of their royal master. 29

When they could no longer serve him by the profession of acting, they boldly vindicated his cause on the field. Those who were too far advanced in age to give martial proofs of their loyalty, were reduced to the alternative of starving, or engaging in some employment to support their wants (Davies 9).

In the early days of the War, the players remained able to ply their trade in many of the market towns that remained loyal to the Crown. According to one commentator, the situation was markedly different in London “where bigotry and opposition to the

King were triumphant, they experienced nothing but persecution” (Baker 27). Despite the lack of political support given to the players, Historia Historonica confirms that:

…many London actors were quick to join the Royalist forces at the beginning of the civil wars after the theatres were shut down. Most of ‘em, except Lowin, Tayler and Pollard (who were superannuated) went into the King’s Army, and like good men and true, serv’d their old master, tho’ in a different, yet more honorable capacity…I have not heard of one of these players of any note that sided with the other party.

Given Charles’ tepid support of the public theatre, the players’ allegiance to the monarchy might be considered more a matter of historical tradition than of shared political philosophy. As far back as the reign of Elizabeth it was decreed that in order to be deemed legitimate, acting companies were required to have the support of a patron.

Clearly those with money, position, and a willingness to support the arts were usually supporters of the monarchy. Given the Puritan-dominated Parliament’s general contempt of theatre, even for those players without a strong political allegiance, the Royalist cause would seem to be the lesser of the evils. While the timing of the closing of the theatres was certainly a matter of political expediency, Leslie Hotson, in his monumental study

The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, ,cautions that “we are not to think of

Parliament’s first ordinance against stage plays in 1642, as a blight which suddenly struck

a flower in full bloom….” According to Hotson, the overall state of the theatre was in decline throughout the 1630s. The King's Men at the Blackfriars, however, were evidently anticipating a prosperous future when, on 24 July 1641, they made out a list of sixty plays in their repertory which they forbade the members of the Stationers' Company ever to print (Rollins 3).

If there was a decline in the overall state of the theatre, the reoccurrence of the plague in 1635, 1636, and 1637 which necessitated the closure of the theatres must be considered a significant contributor to the decline. Even when the threat of the pestilence had ended, however, “the actors showed characteristically poor judgment in offending the powers of the state” (Hotson 3). In May of 1639, for example, the Fortune Company outraged the bishops by acting a play in contempt of the ceremonies of the Church.

According to a contemporary Puritan chronicler:

…they having gotten a new old Play, called THE CARDINALLS CONSPIRACIE whom they brought upon the Stage in as great state as they could, with Altars, Images, Crosses, Crucifixes, and the like, to set forth his pomp and pride….And when they were questioned for it, in the high Commission Court they pleaded Ignorance, and they told the Archbishop that they tooke these examples of their Altars, Images, and the like, from Heathen Authors. This did somewhat asswage his anger…but yet they were fined for it, and after a little imprisonment got their liberty (British History Online).

A similar occurrence took place at the Red Bull on 29 September 1639 when a complaint was brought that players had acted:

…for many days, The Whore New Vamped, a scandalous and libelous play, in which they had audaciously reproached…and personated not only some…aldermen…but also scandalized… the whole profession of proctors

belonging to the Court of Probate, and reflected upon the present Government (Hotson 4).

Even though Charles I virtually ignored the public theatre, in the spring of 1640 the King’s wrath fell on the company headed by William Beeston at the Cockpit for acting an unauthorized play referring to the King’s journey to Scotland (Hotson 4). At the

King’s complaint Sir Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels, closed the theatre for several days. Beeston was not only imprisoned but also removed for a time from his position as governor of the company (Hotson 4).

While a number of circumstances attributed to the closing of the theatres, the players themselves bear some responsibility by their repeated refusal to adjust their performances to the changing social and political climate. The government’s closing of the playhouses was looked upon with hearty approval by those who agreed with John

Vicars, the author of God in the Mount. In praising the ordinance, this semi-official spokesman of Parliament condemns playhouses as “those most dirty and stinking sinks or lestalls of all kinds of abominations, those odious Hell-houses of the land” (Bawcutt).

A less bombastic view is expressed in A Discourse Between a Citizen and a

Country Gentleman published 12 October 1642:

COUNTRY. Why, I thought that playes & play-houses had beene put downe: CITIZEN. Yes so they were in the Suburbes, but they were set up in the City, and Guild-hall is made a Play-house. COUNTRY. But I pray, what Play was it that was Acted? CITIZEN. In troth, I cannot well tell, I saw it not I thank God; there were none but great ones there: the Marshall that kept the door would let no honest men come in.

Contemporary critic Martin Butler, however, dismisses the players’ responsibility, concluding that the closing of the theatres was entirely “an act of public safety....”

According to Butler, The Civil War was a period of major national crisis, and

Parliament's attempts to suppress drama was a “typically precautionary measure such as had often been taken before at times of crisis or instability…” (Butler 12).

Indeed, the Parliamentary order to cease “public sports” and “stage plays…while these sad causes and set-times of humiliation do continue,” suggests a temporary and specific reaction to the immediate political crisis rather than a permanent solution to an on-going philosophical disagreement. Further proof of the temporary intent of the edict is revealed in the fact that nowhere in the First Ordinance is there any suggested threat or proposed punishment against the players, their playhouses, or those attending the performances. At the time of the issuance of the First Ordinance in September of 1642, there were six public playhouses operating in London: Salisbury Court, The Blackfriars, the Globe, the Fortune, the Red Bull, and the Cockpit. In response to the government declaration of 2 September, all immediately closed. Of these performance spaces, the

Fortune, and the Red Bull were open-air theatres and the Cockpit and Salisbury Court were smaller indoor theatres lit by candlelight. By 1649 three of the spaces were gutted leaving only the Red Bull intact (Rollins 21).

Faced with the loss of their profession, four months later in January of 1643, a group of anonymous actors responded directly to Parliament’s declaration through the issuance of The Actors Remonstrance. The front-piece of the pamphlet is significant in setting-forth the heart of the performers’ grievance:

T H E

A C T O R S

REMONSTRANCE,

O R

COMPLAINT:

F O R

The silencing of their profession, and banish- ment from their severall Play-houses. In which is fully set downe their grievances, for their restraint; especially since Stage- playes, only of all publike recreations are prohibited; the exercise at the Beares Colledge, and the motions of Pup- pets being still in force and vigour. As it was presented in the names and behalfes of all our London Comedians to the great God PHoeBUS- APOLLO, and the nine Heliconian Sisters, on the top of PERNASSUS, by one of the Masters of Re- quests to the MUSES, for this present month. And published by their command in print by the Typograph Royall of Castalian Province. 1643. L O N D O N, Printed for EDW. N I C K S O N. Ianuar. 24. 1643. (Bear)

Rather than appealing their case directly and in a straightforward manner to the

Parliament, the actors direct their grievances to Apollo and the Muses. The Civil War is

not mentioned nor is there any direct reference to the Puritan objections to the theatre in general. At the heart of the actor’s argument is the complaint that the closing of the playhouses was responsible for the “silencing” of the actor’s profession. As a result, an economic hardship was created on a number of the parliamentarian’s innocent constituents. Through this lyrical political appeal, the pamphleteers sought to avoid the wrath and to circumvent the emotional railings of those still spiritually connected to

Gosson, Stubbes, and Prynne.

In making their argument, the actors present Apollo and the Muses with a series of justifications for the return of their profession:

wee have purged our Stages from all obscene and scurrilous jests; such as might either be guilty of corrupting the manners, or defaming the persons of any men of note in the City or Kingdome; that wee have endevoured, as much as in us lies, to instruct one another in the true and genuine Art of acting, to represse bawling and railing, formerly in great request, and for to suite our language and action to the more gentile and naturall garbe of the times… (Butler 12).

Despite the actors’ efforts to avoid confrontation and their attempt to present rational and well thought-out arguments, their appeal seems not to have moved

Parliament to reconsider the closing of the playhouses. Indeed, there is no evidence that the actors’ petition was given any serious consideration whatsoever. While the issuance of the Actor’s Remonstrance indicates that there was a willingness by at least some of the players to abide by the parliamentary proclamation, it seems clear that compliance on the part of the actors was selective at best. The Weekly Account of October 1643 noted:

The Players at the Fortune in Golding Lane, who have oftentimes been complained of, and prohibited the acting of wanton and licentious playes, yet perserviring in their forbidden art, this day there was set a strong guard of Pikes

and muskets on both gates of the Play house and in the middle of their play they unexpectedly did presse into the stage upon them, who (amazed at these new Actors) it turned their Comedy into a Tragedy, and being plundered of all the richest of their clothes, they left them nothing but their necessities now to act and to learn a better life (Rollins 277).

The coming of the Civil Wars, and the temporary breakdown of official censorship, led to an outpouring of pamphlets, books, and newspapers that fanned the flames of discontent on both sides. It has been estimated that there were approximately twenty-two thousand printed items published between 1640 and 1661 (Bawcutt 23).

These publications contain a large number of allusions to plays and dramatists and, in particular, to attempts to circumvent the ban on performing. While the players at the

Fortune suffered only the loss of their best costumes, one such attempt to avoid the ban seems to have angered Parliament sufficiently to inspire the issuance of an Ordinance by the House of Lords in October of 1643. This proclamation gave the sheriffs and justices of Westminster, London, Surrey and Middlesex jurisdiction to arrest anyone proved to:

have acted or played in such Playhouse … and all person and persons so offending to commit to any common goal or prison, there to remain until the next general sessions of the peace… there to be punished as Rogues according to law (Firth).

The expansion of the penalties set-forth in the original Ordinance confirms that the Ordinance of 1642 was not completely successful in stopping the actors from plying their trade. By adding a clause threatening punishments for “anyone proved to have acted or played…” the expanded Ordinance of 1643 not only adds to the scope of the original ban but confirms a complete lack of concern for the hardships professed by the actors.

As the Civil War progressed and the Puritan dominated government consolidated its political power, any suggestion of reconciling with the actors or lifting the ban on the playhouses vanished. Late in 1646 Thomas May, a former playwright turned

Parliamentary historian joyfully proclaimed that the London playhouses have been “fitly silence’d by the Lawes…” (Hotson 24). May’s jubilation, however, might be somewhat premature since according to one chronicler, the actors renewed their trade at the

Salisbury Court, the Cockpit and the Fortune “in quite an open and public manner treating the Ordinance of 1642 as a thorough dead letter” (Hotson 24).

There is no definitive record regarding how many clandestine performances were done over the course of the Interregnum. Not all productions, it seems, were the product of improvised companies coming together for a single effort. James Wright in his

Historia Histrionica notes that in 1647, a group of actors gathered together and formed a company out of the remains of the King’s Men. This new group began performing in and around London and enjoyed a certain amount of freedom before Parliament renewed its enforcement. According to Wright:

When the wars were over and the royalists totally subdued, most of em who were left alive gathered to London and for a subsistence endeavored to revive their old trade, privately. They made up one company out of the scattered members of several and in the winter before the king’s murder, 1648, they ventured to act some plays with as much caution and privacy as could be at the Cockpit (Wright 8).

Ironically, it was Parliament’s failure to monitor the expiration of the 1642 edict that provided a short respite of the ban on acting. Given the range of responsibilities that confronted the Puritan Parliament, it is perhaps not surprising that as the time for the

expiration of the initial Ordinance approached no measures were undertaken to renew it.

When the Ordinance expired in January of 1648 some theatres immediately re-opened for business. It was reckoned that no less than 120 coaches set down spectators at one theatre alone, the Fortune (Hotson 308). Commenting on the instant popularity of the revived theatre, critic Hyder Rollins noted that “The chance of flogging and imprisonment taken by actors and of fines by the audience added a bit of spice that appealed to everybody”

(Rollins 300).

Outraged by what they identified as the players’ flagrant violation of the intent of the law, on 11 February1648 Parliament issued An Ordinance for the Utter Suppression and Abolishing of All Stage Plays and Interludes. Rather than reiterating the explanation that the closing of the theatres was merely a reflection of the troubled political times, in the new edict Parliament charged the theatre with inciting divine displeasure, and correlated this displeasure with the political woes of England:

Whereas the Acts of Stage-Playes, Interludes, and common Playes, condemned by ancient Heathens, and much less to be tolerated amongst Professors of the Christian Religion is the occasion of many and sundry great vices and disorders, tending to the high provocation of Gods wrath and displeasure, which lies heavy upon this Kingdom, and to the disturbance of the peace thereof…(Firth).

Not surprisingly, God’s displeasure warranted considerably more punishment than did the mere violation of Man’s laws. To eliminate further attempts at circumventing the proclamation it was decreed that the interiors of theaters were to be demolished and made unusable. By declaring the players to be rogues likewise brought about severe penalties. The punishment for a rogue included being taken to a public square and to “be

stripped from the middle upwards and shall be openly whipped until his or her body be bloody” (Raithby504).

In addition to punishing the players and destroying their playhouses the revived edict sought to punish members of the audience each of whom were to be fined five shillings for attending a play (Firth). To assure that its will was enforced, Parliament assigned a Provost Marshall, together with a deputy and twenty men, whose combined wages came to over thirteen pounds a week for the sole purpose of policing the provisions of the Ordinance (Firth).

Confronted with the destruction of their playhouses and what was perceived as the enforceable threat of physical punishment, the players as a group were generally less inclined to directly defy the ban on theatre. Despite the new harshness of the law, however, some players continued to practice their art despite the threat. On 20 December,

1649 soldiers descended on actors at the Red Bull. They were arrested and their swords and costumes were confiscated, according to a Royalist pamphlet The Man in the Moon, in January of 1650, soldiers:

seized on the poor players, uncased them of their clothes, disarmed the Lords and Gentlemen of their swords and cloaks, but finding him not to be there, they hung the poor players clothes upon their pikes and very manfully marched away with them as trophies of so wonderful a victory: there was taken at this fight about seven or eight of the chief actors, some wounded, and all their clothes and properties (Wickham 3).

There seems to have been a particularly aggressive crackdown in 1649 which prompted a significant downward turn in the frequency of performances. On 1 January

1649, for example, there were three separate performances taking place in London, two

of which were broken-up by the soldiers. When the soldiers broke through the door of the third theatre, however, all they found was an empty stage since the performers had received warning of the raid. The players that were caught were imprisoned, but seem not to have suffered any significant physical punishment. According to a contemporary account:

The Soldiers this day surprised the Players in Salisbury Court and Drury lane, and brought them prisoners to Whitehall, in their attire, Fools in theirs, and the King in theirs, but tooke the Crown off his head; yet sometimes put it on againe. The Ladies were in a great fear, but had no hurt: Some of the exempted Members of Parliament were there (Rollins 295).

Yet another contemporary account provides more specific information identifying both the play being performed and the players involved:

They continued undisturbed for three or four days but at last as they were presenting the Tragedy of the Bloody Brother (or Rollo – Duke of Normandy) by Fletcher, in which Lowin acted Aubrey, Taylor Rollo, Pollard the cook, Burt Latorch, and I think Hart Otto, a party of foot soldiers beset the house, surprised em about the middle of the play and carried em away in their habits, not admitting them to shift, to Hatton-house a then prison, where having etained them sometime they plundered them of their clothes and let em loose again (Wright 8).

Here too there is no report of the soldiers physically punishing the actors or taking any kind of retribution against the audience. They confiscated their costumes (and presumably their swords) and after a brief imprisonment sent them on their way.

It seems clear that during the seven years between the closing of the theatres in

September of 1642 until the execution of Charles I in January of 1649, plays continued to be staged throughout London. From the issuance of the initial ban in 1642, players and audiences alike chose to ignore the parliamentary edict and continue to participate in the

staging of live theatre. In an effort to curtail the illegal performances Parliament increased the consequences of breaking the law. Players were subject to public floggings, the playhouses were earmarked for destruction, and the audience members were subject to a fine. With the beheading of the King, however, it became clear to both the parliamentarians and the players that the theatre of the past could never again return. Any attempt of returning the theatre to its Elizabethan heights was gone and a new theatre must be embraced until such time as the monarchy could be restored.

CHAPTER IV

UNDER THEIR NOSES

The eleven years between the execution of King Charles I in January 1649 and the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 is a strange and confusing time for theatre scholars.

Collectively labeled “The Commonwealth,” the years from 1653 until 1659 are often referred to as the “Protectorate,” identifying the period of almost dictatorial rule by

Puritan General Oliver Cromwell. Although the theatre had been officially banned since

September of 1642, until the execution of the Charles I, enforcement of the ban was random and relatively haphazard allowing a number of actors to pursue their profession with little fear of retribution. Despite the curtailment of regular performances there remained a marked interest in theatre. A 17th century bookseller, George Thomason collected over twenty-two thousand items published between 1640 and 1661, which not only contain numerous allusions to plays and dramatists but also identified myriad attempts (many of them unsuccessful) to revive the drama by means of surreptitious performances (Bawcutt 47).

Thomason’s collection was no doubt aided by the breakdown of official censorship, which led to an outpouring of pamphlets, books, and newspapers discussing not only theatre but exploring many of the issues of the day (Bawcutt 78). Following the execution of Charles I, the Puritan-controlled government became much less tolerant of 42

dissension. Increasingly fewer players were inclined to risk the physical punishment decreed by law to practice their trade. It was one thing to thumb one’s nose at a seldom- enforced law, but it was quite something else to risk being publically stripped and whipped.

While the names of numerous plays are identified as having been presented during the years of the Civil War, the staging of new works was drastically curtailed during the years of the Commonwealth. Along with the ever-present specter of government interference, the scarcity of new productions can be attributed to the fact that most of the theatres that existed prior to 1642 had their interiors ransacked and destroyed in response to the parliamentary edict of 1648 (Alchin).

Finally, despite the surreptitious performances by randomly formed companies, most of the legitimate companies had been forced to disband since they were unable to earn a living through the irregular practice of their art. Oscar Brockett notes that occasional performances continued using The Red Bull, which had escaped demolition.

When The Red Bull was unavailable, performances were given at private houses, tennis courts, or inns (Brockett 202). According to Brockett, most of the actors believed that the theatre would again be legalized, and the on-going struggle to continue playing would ultimately be justified (Brockett 202).

Brockett acknowledges “in these years, the usual form of entertainment seems to have been the “droll,” a short play condensed from a longer work.” While the evolution of the droll as a dramatic form is unclear, five drolls were published by the bookseller

Edward Archer under the title, Acteon and Diana, in 1656. Archer attributed all of the

pieces to actor Robert Cox. Despite the credit Archer gives to Cox, Robert Cox remains relatively unknown to theatre historians today. This oversight is particularly significant when, according to one 20th century commentator, Cox deserves to be considered a major figure in seventeenth century drama since he was “the man who may have kept the

English drama alive during thirteen years of its period of proscription.” Cox did so “with such secrecy that scarcely a trace of his service was impressed upon the life of the time,” and the commentator concludes that “… the task of his present biographer is exasperating in its necessary brevity” (Elson 12).

In 1691, Gerald Langbaine briefly mentions Robert Cox in Account of the English

Dramatick Poets. Langbaine describes Cox as:

an Excellent Comedian that liv'd in the Reign of King Charles the First, one, who when the Ring-leaders of the Rebellion, and Reformers of the Nation supprest the Stage, betook himself to making Drolls or Farces . . . which under the Colour of Rope-dancing, were allow'd to be acted at the Red Bull Play-house by stealth, and the connivance of those straight lac'd Governors (Elson 89).

In the Introduction to his 1932 edition of The Wits, or, Sport Upon Sport, John

James Elson notes that:

The paucity of allusions to the performance of drolls during the Commonwealth period need not surprise us when we consider that they were not only unlawful, but also humble in origin and inferior in literary quality, and were perhaps acted by no other troupe save Cox’s (Elson 22).

Elson concludes that the term “droll” is somewhat inclusive and “we cannot recognize the droll as a single dramatic type” (Elson 18). Citing the entry in The New English

Dictionary, Elson defines a droll as “A comic or farcical composition or representation; a farce; an enacted piece of buffoonery; a puppet-show.” He states that “The name is thus

impartially applied to short farces performed by human actors and to puppet-plays.”

Along with the small collection of five drolls published in 1656, Henry Marsh published an additional collection in 1661. Francis Kirkman published an edition in 1671 along with two additional editions in 1673. It is the initial Kirkman edition that is published and reinterpreted by Elson in 1932. Elson observes that the title page of the Marsh edition as well as the Kirkman editions are virtually the same.

According to Kirkman, “The pieces were acted by him [Cox] during the period of the Commonwealth, when the publique Theatres were shut up.” “The comedian,” according to Kirkman, performed, “under pretence of Rope-dancing, or the like, in the city and country and at the universities.” Kirkman claims that the pieces in the book have been sundry times:

Acted in Publique, and Private, In London at Bartholomew, In the Countrey at other Faires, In Halls and Taverns. On several Mountebancks Stages, At Charing Cross, Lincolns-Inn-Fields, and other places. By Several Stroleing Players, Fools, and Fidlers, And the Mountebancks Zanies . . . Written I know not when, by several Persons, I know not who, But now newly Collected by your Old Friend to please you, Francis Kirkman (dictionary.sensagent).

In an effort to categorize the collection of drolls represented in his 1932 edition of

The Wits or Sport Upon Sport, Elson assigns the pieces to groups:

1. Abridgments, consisting almost entirely of comic scenes, from known five-act pre-Commonwealth plays (24 drolls). 2. Non-comic playlets in verse, on pastoral, mythological or Biblical themes (5). 3. Masque-like "pastorals" in verse and prose (1). 4. Abridgments from (the above) masque-like pastorals (1). 5. Abridgment from a known Court masque (1). 6. Jigs—farcical playlets almost wholly in verse, intended to be sung (1). 7. Prose farces, possibly abridged from lost plays (1).

In considering the origins of the diverse collection, Elson concludes:

The most plausible supposition, pending further research into these numerous branches of our minor drama, is that the Commonwealth drolls had their immediate evolution from the jigs of the Elizabethan theatre, with some influence from the earlier moralities, interludes, and folk-pastorals, as well as from the contemporary puppet-plays (Elson 21).

By acknowledging that the drolls constitute “minor drama,” and by attributing some of their origins to non-literary forms like Elizabethan jigs and puppet plays, Elson confirms that the drolls developed to replace the mainstream theatre which had either been driven underground or eliminated.

Not surprisingly, the three most familiar drolls are all associated with

Shakespeare: “Bottom the Weaver” from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the gravedigger’s scene from Hamlet, and several pieces involving Falstaff under the title

The Bouncing Knight. There is virtually no mention of Simpleton the Smith (See

Appendix), generally considered the most famous of the drolls in Cox’s acting repertoire.

Rather than follow the usual pattern of presenting an argument as the basis of the droll’s plot, the published version of Simpleton the Smith indicates that the presentation of the argument is “needless…It being a Thorow Farce, and very well known.” Following the rationale for the elimination of the argument, the character’s names are identified:

Simpleton the Old, Simpleton the Young, Doll a Wench, two Gentlemen, Braves, Rivals in her Affection. This droll offers no indication of setting, suggesting that it could be played in almost any open space with an absolute minimum of stage properties. Likewise, there is no suggestion of the characters’ personality or physical appearance, leaving such specifics entirely in the hands of the company. The plot of Simpleton the Smith is uncomplicated and straight forward: Old Simpleton, a blacksmith, wishes his son, Young

Simpleton, a somewhat lazy and uninspired youth, to marry a local girl named Dorothy.

Young Simpleton’s pursuit of Dorothy is made more difficult by the interference of two young gentlemen who also seek the maiden’s hand. The general nature of the plot is further illustrated by the fact that the “two young gentlemen,” are solely identified by their age and gender. They are not even given names.

At a time when the theatre remained technically illegal, it is clear that the creator of Simpleton the Smith had no interest in achieving dramatic immortality or even of contributing to the forward movement of the dramatic form by resurrecting quality long- lasting drama. The author’s clear concern is to provide light entertainment to an uncritical and obviously unsophisticated audience. Simpleton the Smith is an obvious regression from the complex multi-leveled plots of Shakespeare. In its lack of complexity,

“Simpleton” resembles a modern television situation comedy more than a multi-layered intricately developed piece of theatre. The unsophisticated plot, not to mention the inclusion of a song, serves primarily as a showcase for the comic characters. With a projected playing time of less than half-an-hour, Simpleton the Smith seems never to have been intended as a stand-alone drama. It could have been presented as an incidental

entertainment at a fair or a pub, or as part of a larger bill combining several pieces of escapist entertainment into one program.

While drolls like Simpleton offered brief respites from the complex political and religious issues dominating the Commonwealth, they did little to expand the boundaries of English drama. Having succeeded in destroying the pre-war playhouses and eliminating the clandestine performances of full-length plays, the Puritan government set about addressing what it considered to be more inclusive moral transgressions. In June

1647, Parliament passed legislation abolishing Christmas and other holidays:

Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding (Neal 458).

Despite the loss of long-practiced holidays, those who found their creative endeavors increasingly stifled under the thumb of Puritan rule began to seriously consider the possibility that a monarchial government could be reestablished. This notion was supported by the considerable number of nobles who, having fled England when the

Royalists were defeated, began to slowly return after 1647. These nobles, lacking a Stuart court to occupy and divert them with plays and masques, sought-out surreptitious performances given by the former regular actors at private residences. The taste of the nobility, however, had been altered and "refined" by the court masques, with their music, dancing, and sumptuous scenery. There was a growing dislike for the rough, out of-doors

Red Bull, with its “low” audience, and a new desire for a small select theatre with all possible refinements (Hotson 133).

This “new desire,” attracted the attention of probably the most important theatre figure of the Commonwealth, William Davenant. Born in February 1606, Davenant was closely associated with Shakespeare whom it was alleged was his godfather. It was even rumored that he was the Bard's biological son (Hugo 27). According to a story allegedly told by Davenant:

Mr. William Shakespeare was wont to go into Warwickshire once a year, and did commonly in his journey lie at this house [the Crown] in Oxon, where he was exceedingly respected... Now Sir William [Davenant] would sometimes, when he was pleasant over a glass of wine with his most intimate friends—e.g. Sam Butler, author of Hudibras, etc., say, that it seemed to him that he writ with the very spirit that did Shakespeare, and seemed contented enough to be thought his Son. He would tell them the story as above, in which way his mother had a very light report, whereby she was called a Whore (Schoenbaum 63).

As the Civil War approached, Davenant, a staunch supporter of the Royalist cause, was elevated to the position of Poet Laureate in 1638 following the death of Ben

Jonson. Like all other distinguished literary awards bestowed by the monarchy, the title was more symbolic than practical. Despite his newly acquired position, in 1641, before the war began, Davenant was declared guilty of high treason by Parliament after he participated in a Royalist plan to use the army to occupy London. After a brief self-exile in France, he returned to England to join the King's army at the start of the war. Davenant was knighted two years later by King Charles. In 1645, after the decisive Royalist defeat at the Battle of Naseby, Davenant retired to Paris where he became a Roman Catholic and worked to complete his epic poem, Gondibert. That same year he was appointed

Emissary to France and, in 1649, was given the symbolic post of treasurer of the colony of Virginia by the exiled Charles II. He spent all of 1651 in the Tower of London, where he continued writing Gondibert (Palmer 61).

In addition to being a perpetual thorn in the side of the Commonwealth, Davenant began to carefully lay the groundwork for the anticipated reestablishment of theatre throughout the 1650s. His earliest venture was entitled The First Day’s Entertainment at

Rutland House, by Declamation and Music, After the Manner of the Ancients. It was staged in May 1656 and printed in 1657. While the combining of music and dialogue is clearly intended to circumvent the Puritan censors, in the prologue, Davenant refers to the piece as an “opera.” The label has remained, and today the work is generally recognized as the first English opera (Ward).

The First Day’s Entertainment is really made up of two pairs of speeches: the first by Diogenes and Aristophanes successively “against and for, public entertainment, by moral presentation;” the second, between a Parisian and a Londoner on the respective merits of the two cities. Music was interspersed throughout the piece. For the premiere

Davenant made provision for an audience of four hundred but only a hundred and fifty appeared (Ward).

Having nominally succeeded with his first effort, Davenant’s next undertaking was The Siege of Rhode; a Representation by the Art of Prospective in Scenes and the

Story Sung in Recitative Music, presented in August 1656. In an address “To the Reader,” which appears in the first edition, but was not afterwards reprinted, Davenant points out that the story as represented “… is heroical, and notwithstanding the continual hurry and

busy agitations of a hot siege, is (I hope) intelligibly conveyed to advance the characters of virtue in the shapes of valour and conjugal love.”

The Siege of Rhode is often described as the first English play to employ moveable scenery and the first in which an actress appeared on the English stage.

However, neither of these statements is correct. Changes of scenery and even

“perspective in scene” appeared long before 1656. As for women on the stage, Mrs.

Coleman, who “played the part of Ianthe in The Siege of Rhodes had sung in The First

Day’s Entertainment and was chosen in both instances for her voice rather than for her acting” (Bartleby).

Given the government’s lack of interference in the production of The Siege of

Rhodes, two years later, in 1658, Davenant opened the Cockpit Theatre in Drury lane, producing there two similar operas, The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru and The History of Sir Francis Drake. While their historical subject matter and scenic novelty may have generally quelled Puritan suspicion, Richard Cromwell is said to have ordered an enquiry into the performance at the Cockpit. There is, however, no record of any action being taken (Bartleby).

Despite the emergence and ultimate success of William Davenant, the decade following the execution of Charles I was a confusing and uncertain time for England.

Most of the population could not conceive of a government more inept and less effective than that of Charles I. They were mistaken. For the first time in its long history, England was without an ordained monarch. While the theocratic Puritan government of The

Commonwealth may have been sincere in its hope for reform, it too lost the support of

the population. Nowhere was this more evident than when, following the death of Oliver

Cromwell in 1658, Puritan dissidents exhumed his body, hung it in chains, and beheaded him (Castelow).

CHAPTER V

THE NEW ORDER

The death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658 heralded the end of the Commonwealth. At the passing of his father, Cromwell’s son, Richard, briefly assumed the title of Lord

Protector, but quickly found himself at odds with both Parliament and the general population. Richard was forced to abdicate in 1659 and the Protectorate was abolished.

On 25 April 1660, news of the Declaration of Breda, reached England. In the declaration, the soon-to-be Charles II agreed to pardon many of his father's enemies

(Seaward). Relieved by the young Stuart’s apparent willingness to compromise, the

English Parliament resolved to proclaim Charles king and invite him to return. On 8 May

1660, Parliament declared that the late King’s son had been the lawful monarch of

England since the execution of his father in January of 1649. On 29 May 1660 (Charles’

30th birthday), Charles triumphantly returned to England as King Charles II. After 1660, all legal documents were dated as if he had succeeded his father as king in 1649

(Encyclopedia Britannica 142).

Considering the myriad political uncertainties that followed the death of the Lord

Protector, the state of the theatre was not a principal concern. Given this lack of scrutiny, however, it is not surprising that the players wasted no time in setting about to reestablish their profession. According to Leslie Hotson: “When the Restoration was in sight, the 53

players fell into their old dangerous habit of acting too openly” (Hotson 197). It is important to recognize that from the death of Cromwell in 1658 until the return of the

Stuart King in 1660, the government was essentially “on hold.” The restrictions that were in place may not have been as diligently prosecuted, but they still remained the law of the land.

In regard to the theatre, the situation was complicated even more following the reassertion of responsibility by Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels. Having no opportunity to license productions during the Commonwealth, when the monarchy was re-established, Herbert set about to reconstitute his authority. He claimed responsibility for “the allowance of plays, the ordering of players, and the permitting of playhouses," powers which had belonged to the office, as he said, “time out of mind” (Adams 81).

Herbert demonstrated his newly reclaimed authority by his order to “Continue and

Constitute the said . . . Play house in Salisbury Court . . . Provided that no persons be admitted to act in the said Play house but such as shall be allowed by the Master of his

Majesties Office of the Revells” (Adams 122).

This world of shifting priorities and uncertain futures provided a fertile opportunity to the two men generally considered to be the architects of what would eventually come to be known as Restoration theatre, Sir William Davenant and Thomas

Killegrew. Davenant’s successful staging of his four original “operas” during the waning years of the Commonwealth provided him a firm foundation from which to lead a resurrected professional theatre. While perhaps not as confrontational as Davenant,

Thomas Killigrew shared Davenant’s contempt for the Puritan government. Before the

Civil War, Killigrew was primarily a writer, contributing several tragi-comedies like

Claracilla and The Prisoners, as well as his most popular play, The Parson's Wedding

(1637). A Roman Catholic, Killigrew established his allegiance early-on by following

Prince Charles (the future Charles II) into exile in 1647. At the time of the Restoration,

Killigrew literally returned on the ship with Charles to England and was rewarded for his loyalty by being made Groom of the Bedchamber. Samuel Pepys, in his famous diary, notes that Killigrew had the office of the King's fool and jester with the power to mock and revile even the most prominent without penalty (Pepys 34).

Although nominally rivals, both Davenant and Killigrew anticipated the potential financial gain to be had by being at the forefront of the soon-to-be restored theatre.

Consequently, both set about trying to obtain a monopoly to control the revived art.

Shortly after Davenant's return to England (no doubt also in the train of Charles II), there were at least three independent companies acting in London: Rhodes had a young company at the Cockpit; the old actors, of which Major Michael Mohun was leader, were at the Red Bull; and another band occupied Beeston's Salisbury Court (Hotson 198). The players had apparently managed to come to a working arrangement with the Master of the

Revels. According to Sir Henry Herbert, Beeston agreed to pay him 4 pounds a week when the company acted and Rhodes promised a like sum. Although less specific, The

Mohun Company at The Red Bull also made an agreement with Herbert (Herbert 101).

While the newly constituted companies vied for position, Davenant already had in his possession an old patent that he had never used, by which Charles I, in 1639, granted him permission to erect a company and a theatre (Thomas). When learning of this, on 9

July 1660, Killigrew promptly obtained an order for a royal warrant which provided that his company and Davenant's should be the only ones allowed to play in London

(Britannica ). It also gave him authority to raise a company and a theatre. Davenant was not content with his 1639 patent and, ten days after Killigrew had secured his warrant, Sir

William drafted a further order for the King’s signature which incorporated the previous two orders, granting Killigrew and himself a joint monopoly:

Our will and pleasure is that you prepare a Bill for our signature to passe our Great Seale of England, containing a Grant unto our trusty and well beloved Thomas Killegrew Esquire, one of the Groomes of our Bed chamber and Sir William Davenant Knight, to give them full power and authoritie to erect Two Companys of Players consisting respectively of such persons as they shall chuse and apoint, and to purchase or build and erect at their charge as they shall thinke fitt Two Houses or Theaters with all convenient Roomes and other necessaries therto appertaining for the representations of Tragedys, Comedys, Playes, Operas, and all other entertainments of that nature in such convenient places as shall be thought fit by the Surveyor of our Workes; se to setle and establish such payments to be payed by those that shall resort to see the sayed Repre- sentations performed as either have bin accustomarily given and taken in the like kinde or as shall now be thought reasonable by them in regard of the great expences of scenes, musick and new decorations as have not bin formerly used, With further power to make such allowances out of that which they shall so receive to the Actors and other persons imployed in the sayed Representations in both Houses respectively as they shall thinke fit. The sayd Companys to be under the jurisdiction, government and authoritie of them the sayed Thomas Killegrew and Sir William D'avenant. And in regard of lisence that hath bin lately used in things of this Nature our pleasure is that there shall be no more places of Representations or Companys of Actors or Representers of sceanes in the Cittys of London or Westminster or in the liberties of them then the Two to be now erected is authoritie, but that all others shall be absolutely suppressed. And our further pleasure is that for the better inabling of the sayed Thomas Killegrew and Sir William D'avenant to performe what Wee intend hereby that you add to the sayed Grant such other and further benffPrin" [sic] Clauses and Grants [sic] as you shall thinke fitt. (Fisk).

Ten days after this letter, on 21 August, the warrant for which Davenant had prepared the order, passed the privy signet. In addition to establishing a monopoly on

productions this grant also encompassed some of the powers of the Master of the Revels.

Censorship had been one of the Revels’ chief sources of revenue but a clause in the warrant authorizes and commands “Thomas Killigrew and Sir William Dauenant to peruse all playes that haue been formerly written, and to expunge all prophanenesse and scurrility from the same, before they be represented or acted” (British History Online).

Davenant, in his efforts to kill competition, submitted his plan for suppressing the other players before his own monopoly had been passed. While the grant was pending, on

4 August Henry Herbert entered a strong protest against the proposed monopoly calling it a “vniust surprize, and distructiue to the powers graunted” to the Office of the Revels

(Herbert 85). An order, ostensibly from the King, dated 20 August (the day before the passing of the Killigrew’s and Davenant’s combined grant), containing instructions to city officials to suppress the actors at the Red Bull, Cockpit, Salisbury Court, and The

Duke's Company. Instead of originating with the King, this order is written in Davenant’s hand.

With the competition stifled, the two patent holders came to an amicable agreement on the division of the available actors. Davenant chose the younger actors primarily made-up of Rhodes's former Cockpit Company. Killigrew took the older and more experienced actors to the Red Bull. Davenant, after directing his company briefly at

Salisbury Court, moved to Lisle's Tennis Court in Lincoln's Inn Fields. The theater there, which became known as the Duke's Playhouse, opened in late June 1661. Davenant’s company became known by a patent of 1663 as the Duke of York's Players. Killigrew's company assumed the name of His Majesty's Players.

Older plays formed the basis of Davenant’s repertoire. He had exclusive rights to his own work and nine older plays from the King's Company, seven of Shakespeare's,

Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi, and Sir John Denham's The Sophy. Davenant also wrote or altered plays for his theatre. The first, The Law Against Lovers (produced in 1662), was an altered version of Measure for Measure. It was Davenant's handling of

Shakespeare's plays that gained him the most recognition (Poem Hunter).

To encourage the audience to share his passion for the Bard, he reinterpreted

Shakespeare's plays in the style of his own times. Hamlet, cut and with its diction significantly altered, was the first Shakespearean play to be performed on Davenant's new stage. No succeeding tragedy, it was said, got more reputation and money for the company, partly because Betterton “did the Prince's part beyond imagination” according to Pepys, who had declared that “the old plays begin to disgust this refined age, since his

Majesty's being so long abroad” (Evelyn 380.) Davenant’s version of Macbeth, first acted in 1663, was elaborately staged, omitting the apparitions in the last scene with the witches, but enlarging the part of Lady Macduff and suppressing the porter, whose speech seemed too indecorous for such a “refined age.” Before the “restored” Macbeth was produced in 1774, Londoners saw more than two hundred performances of

Davenant's version (Poem Hunter).

While the two patent holders joined together to control the London stage, each also worked independently if the opportunity arose to better his own position. Since the granting of the patents, Sir Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels, had proven to be a problem for both managers by issuing a plethora of lawsuits. In the summer of 1662,

Killigrew came to terms with the cantankerous Sir Henry by agreeing to pay Herbert a licensing fee in arrears going back to August 1660. He further agreed to assume financial responsibility for Herbert’s lawsuits and, in addition, he promised to pay a gratification fee of 50 pounds. Finally, Killigrew agreed to help reestablish the ancient powers of the

Office of the Revels even to the extent of opposing Davenant and the Duke’s Company

(Adams 113).

Along with competing for actors and repertoire, the patent holders each sought to develop a physical theatre in keeping with the new tastes of the Court. Initially, as they solidified their respective positions, both companies were forced to make use of performance spaces that had survived the Civil War, such as the Cockpit and Salisbury

Court. Since neither space proved satisfactory, both Davenant and Killigrew sought to construct new playhouses. Killigrew’s King’s Company was forced, with some reluctance, to commission the technically advanced and expensive Theatre Royal playhouse. Killigrew’s investment in the new playhouse put the two companies on a level as far as technical resources were concerned, but the offerings at the Theatre Royal continued to be dominated by actor-driven “talk” drama, contrasting with William

Davenant’s baroque spectacles and operas at Lincoln’s Inn Fields (Milhous 18).

As Davenant and Killigrew jockeyed for position, the first play given at court after the Restoration was Ben Jonson’s The Silent Woman. While Killigrew’s company was elected to act the play, Davenant, wrote the prologue to the King and did not hesitate to self-aggrandize:

Greatest of Monarchs welcome to this place Which Majesty so was oft to grace Before our Exile, to divert the Court, And balance weighty Cares with harmless sport This truth we can to our advantage say They that would have no KING would have no PLAY: (Hotson 208)

Despite their patents and their rivalry, in the early days of the Restoration

Davenant and Killigrew spent considerable time eliminating the several groups of players that had sprouted up when the return of the Stuart king appeared to be inevitable. Of these upstarts, probably the greatest threat to the monopoly was that presented by George

Jolly (Hotson 204).

While there are scant references to Jolly prior to the Restoration, it seems clear that he chose to escape the unappealing world of the Commonwealth and earn his living as a travelling player in Germany under the name Joris Jollifus. While in Germany, by a fortunate quirk of fate, the future Charles II saw a performance by Jolly’s company at the

Frankfort Fair in 1655 (Londré 10). Apparently impressed by the performance containing music, actresses, and scenery “in the Italian manner,” upon his return to

England, Jolly sought a favor from the new King and a grant was issued on 24 December

1660:

Whereas we have thought fitt to allow . . . publique Presentations of Tragedies and Comedies . . , and being well informed of the art and skill of George Jolly Gentleman for the purpose aforesaid, doe hereby grant . . . unto the said George Jolly full power and authority to erect one company . . . and to purchase, build or hire . . . One House or Theatre with all convenient Roomes . . . and in regard of the extraordinary Licentiousness that has bin lately used in things of this nature, Our pleasure is that you doe not at any time hereafter cause to be acted or represented any Play, Enterlude or Opera containing any matter of pro-fanation, scurrility or obscenity, and this our Grant and Authority made to the said George Jolly shall be effectual notwithstanding any former grant made by us to our trusty

and well beloved Servant Thomas Killegrew Esq and Sir William Davenant K. or any other person or persons whatsoever to the contrary. Given under our Signet at the Court at Whitehall the 24th day of December 1660 in the 12th yeare of our Reigne (Hotson 432).

While the license to Jolly clearly confirms that the King had not forgotten his earlier grants to Davenant and Killigrew, it is also apparent that Charles did not feel that the previously issued patents constituted a complete monopoly. Jolly seems to have performed in whatever space was available (Pepys 433). Performing first at the Cockpit,

Jolly moved to Salisbury Court after Davenant left. Salisbury Court, however, did not meet Jolly’s needs and he soon moved back to the Cockpit.

The lack of a permanent home notwithstanding, Jolly managed to maintain a toehold in London for two years, despite Davenant’s and Killigrew’s perpetual plotting to unseat him. In January 1663, Jolly was granted new licenses from Master of the Revels

Sir Henry Herbert and from the King respectively to play in any city in England except for London and Westminster. Norwich became a de facto base of operations for Jolly's company, where they played at the King's Arms Inn (Rosenfeld 129).

Jolly’s plan to tour the provinces provided just the opening that Davenant and

Killigrew needed. Late in December 1662, an agreement was signed between the original patent holders and George Jolly, wherein Davenant and Killigrew agreed to rent Jolly’s original patent in exchange for four pounds a week to be paid to Jolly during the remainder of his life. Davenant and Killigrew obtained possession of Jolly’s grant, on 23

July 1663, but rather than using it as they had promised Jolly, they informed the King that they had purchased the warrant outright. By the purchase of Jolly’s grant, Davenant and

Killigrew petitioned the King to allow them a patent in their own names, granting them a

complete monopoly of theatre in London and, in addition, permission to construct a third theatre to act as a nursery for the training of actors for the original two patent companies.

Having no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the managers’ claim, the King ordered the issuance of the third patent and Jolly’s license was revoked (Hotson 434).

There is no specific record as to how long Jolly’s company continued to tour after he left London in 1663. It is assumed that Davenant and Killigrew lived up to their bargain and paid Jolly until they were granted the third patent in March of 1664. Initially unaware of Davenant’s and Killigrew’s manipulation of the patents, when Jolly returned to London he proceeded, under his assumed license, to raise a company of actors to perform at the Cockpit. Despite the flagrant protests of the original patent holders, Jolly’s company seems to have remained playing at the Cockpit until the spring of 1665 when the plague again closed all of the playhouses.

Wishing to prevent Jolly from going to the king with the account of their deviousness, Davenant and Killigrew came to an arrangement with him wherein Jolly was to assume the role of deputy to Davenant and Killigrew. Under the agreement Jolly was to raise a nursery company to train young actors, provide for them a theatre, and control their performances for the rest of his life. In return he and his young actors were to receive two thirds of the income of the house. Should he be replaced by another manager, Jolly was to receive payment for each day his company played, amounting to two pounds a week. Under the arrangement Davenant and Killigrew were able to retain the King’s favor, and maintain their monopoly while Jolly retained a modicum of theatrical identity (Pepys 433).

It seems obvious, that the theatre monopoly represented by the patent companies stifled the development of a robust and independent theatre culture like the kind that existed during the time of Elizabeth. The Civil War not only changed the theatre but changed the society which had supported the most vibrant public theatre of the

Renaissance. Having spent nine years on the Continent, where theatrical performances were more visually engaging than the stark minimalism of Shakespeare and the vacant decoration of the Stuart Masques, the theatrical tastes of the newly restored King differed from those of his predecessors. Under the patent companies, however, a new drama was eventually born. After the deaths of Davenant and Killigrew, the two companies merged in 1682 to form the United Company. No longer able to maintain a complete monopoly, the royal patents survived, in one form or another, until they were ultimately revoked by the Theatre Act of 1843.

CHAPTER VI

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

In an age of internet searches and near-instantaneous research results one might assume that every aspect of 17th century English theatre had already been explored.

Such, however, is not the case. Many scholars, particularly those dedicated to the compilation of introductory theatre texts, are inclined to either ignore the most of the century following Shakespeare’s death or simply to dismiss it as a somewhat confusing time between the Bard and the rise of the Comedy of Manners. Rather than producing great writers or creating significant theatrical productions, what makes this period worthy of study is that in the midst of the religious and social chaos, professional theatre managed to survive.

This research project began with a question: How was it possible for the

Elizabethan theatre, the most creative and vibrant theatre the world has ever seen, to vanish in less than a hundred years? While there is a significant amount of academic study dedicated to the religion and the politics of this tumultuous time, little research is focused specifically on the theatre. There are, however, noteworthy exceptions. This writer found that the most useful source for 17th century theatre scholarship was

Professor Leslie Hotson’s monumental study The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, first published in 1927. Meticulously documented and filled with a plethora of primary 64

sources, Hotson is what one would identify as a traditional scholar. His work reflects countless hours thumbing the dusty volumes at the British Library. While it is understandable that a volume of this scope would inevitably, on occasion, get bogged down in minutia, the work harkens back to a time when tenure was not the principal goal of theatre research, and scholars took themselves and their subjects seriously.

In an effort to place the 17th century theatre in context, it was a principal goal of the present study to explore the relationship between the vibrant popular theatre of the

Elizabethan Renaissance and the much more limited and less universally appealing establishment of the Stuart Court Masques. Besides a major change in theatrical style, this transition represents an important change in the audience-appeal of English theatre in general. The public theatres of the Elizabethans welcomed all classes of people to experience the drama in the wooden “O”. With the rise of the Masques, however, the target-audience became intentionally more limited, appealing exclusively to the upper classes and forcing the former groundlings to spend their pennies on other forms of entertainment. This division of entertainment by class continues today and offers an excellent opportunity for additional research.

The Elizabethan play, Sir Thomas More, offers the contemporary researcher a rare opportunity. While the play was presumably never performed nor published, tradition holds that in its various incarnations some of Sir Thomas More was actually written by

Shakespeare. While it is perhaps doubtful that one could actually solve this four-hundred year old mystery, the circumstances surrounding the creation and reaction to the work presents an interesting research project.

Along with long-forgotten plays, the present study also revealed the importance of several often overlooked 17th century theatre figures who made significant impacts on the theatre during the uncertain years of Puritan rule. Although rarely mentioned, Robert

Cox emerges as one of the most significant figures of the Interregnum. Rather than following the usual practice of reproducing scenes from pre–Civil War dramas, Cox authored a number of short original scripts. These scripts seem specifically intended not as stand-alone events, but to be combined in a larger popular context like a fair or festival. While the short comic pieces do not deserve to be compared to master-works like those produced by Shakespeare and Jonson, or even Beaumont and Fletcher, Cox deserves to be included with the small circle of writers who deliberately worked to keep theatre alive during this chaotic time. As a subject for more scholarly attention, Jonathan

Cox would be a worthwhile option.

While Cox’s works appear in the later part of the century, a name that runs- through much of the 17th century is that of Sir Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels.

Like Cox, he appears principally as a footnote. Only one scholarly study written in 1917 concentrates on Herbert’s life and work. Self-serving, creative, and sly, Sir Henry more than held his own when confronted by the manipulative and often underhanded practices of Davenant and Killigrew. Henry Herbert managed to insert himself in the professional theatre for half a century, from 1623 until 1673, and would provide an excellent subject for additional study.

Yet another fascinating character to emerge from the period is George Jolly. In an age dominated by flamboyant personalities, Jolly appears to be one of those historical

figures who manages to survive no matter what the circumstances. Despite the intrigues of Davenant and Killigrew, Jolly not only continued to perform, but ultimately managed to insert himself into the theatre establishment. While he has earned mention of several chroniclers, Jolly’s place in Restoration theatre would seem to warrant a more thorough and detailed academic study.

Finally, I would certainly recommend additional research be devoted to the so- called “Amicable Letter,” supposedly written by James I to Shakespeare. While this is identified in various sources, ironically, even given its importance at the time, no one bothered to make a copy. Did it ever exist, and if so, what ultimately became of it? There is no definitive proof and it remains a fascinating mystery.

Far from being a theatrical wasteland, the period between the rule of Elizabeth I and the reign of Charles II reveals a complex and interesting relationship between those who wished to rule, and the subjects they tried to control. Many of the problems of the

Stuart monarchs seem to be rooted in the fact that they were isolated from the daily concerns of the population over which they ruled. In their court masques they learned nothing of human nature; they merely encountered romanticized versions of themselves and their surroundings.

Early-on, this study posed the oft’ asked question whether the theatre is more of a reflector or an affecter of the society in which it exists. The ultimate conclusion is that theatre, in one form or another, will both shape and mirror the society as long as people struggle to make sense of themselves and the world around them. The post-Elizabethan theatre adjusts with the changing needs and tastes of society; from the bloody intrigues of

Beaumont and Fletcher to the silly cartoon-like Simpleton the Smith it is a theatre that defies categorization. The theatre of the 17th century confirms that in order to survive, art to some degree must have the ability to transcend its historical time and geographic boundaries.

68 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, John Quincy. The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert: Master of the Revels, 1623-1673. Yale: UP. 1917. Print.

Akrigg, GPV. Jacobean pageant; or, The court of King James I. New York, Atheneum, 1967. Print.

Albright, Evelyn M. Dramatic Publication in England, 1580-1640. New York: D.C. Health. 1971. Print

Alchin, Linda. “Globe Theatre London.” Globe Theatre. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Aznar, Anna. Jordan, Jordi. “Elizabethan Theatre.” Elizabethan Theatre. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Baker, Henry Barton. English Actors: From Shakespeare to Macready. Henry Holt Co. 1879. Print.

Barroll, J. Leeds. Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 1928. Print.

Battlefields Trust. Battle of Edgehill. UK Battlefields Resource Centre. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Baurch. “Renaissance Literature: Renaissance Drama.” Baruch.cuny. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

Bawcutt, N. W. “Puritans and the Closing of the Theatres in 1642”: Medieval Renaissance Drama in England. Rosemont Publishing and Printing Co. 2009. Print.

Bear, Risa S. “The Actors Remonstrance.” Renascence Edition. 2003.Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

Bellinger, Martha Fletcher. A Short History of the Theatre. NY Henry Holt & Co. 1927. Print.

69 Bellinger, Martha Fletcher. “Elizabethan Playhouses, Actors, and Audiences.” A Short History of the Theatre. New York: Henry Holt, 1927. n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.

Brockett, Oscar. History of the Theatre. Pearson Education Inc. 2008. Print.

Brown, Henry. Shakespeare’s Patrons and Other Essays. London: J. M. Dent and Sons LTD. 1912. Print.

Butler, Martin. Theatre and Crisis 1632-1642. Cambridge University Press. 1987. Print.

Carlton, Charles. “Charles I, The Personal Monarch” Routledge. London. 1995. Print.

Castelow, Ellen. “The Life of Oliver Cromwell.” Historic UK, 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

Chambers, E. K. Notes on the History of the Revels Office Under the Tudors. A.H. Bullen. 1906. Print.

‘Charles I - volume 435: December 1-16, 1639.’ Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1639-40. Ed. Wiliam Douglas Hamilton. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1877. 140-166. British History Online. Web. 6 November 2015.

Cook, Ann Jennalie. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare’s London, 1576-1642. Princeton University Press. 1981. Print.

Daniell, F. H. Blackburne. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, March 1, 1675, to February 29, 1676. London. 1907. Print.

Davies, Thomas. Dramatic Micellanies. London. 1783. Print.

“Definition: Francis Kirkman.” dictionary.sensagent. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.

Dekker, Thomas. “The Magnificent Entertainment.” Nabu Press. 2010. Print.

Edmond, M. “Yeomen, Citizens, Gentlemen, and Players: The Burbages and Their Connections.” R. B. Parker (ed.), Elizabethan Theater: Essays in Honor of S. Schoenbaum. University of Delaware Press, Newark, DE: 1996. Print.

Elson, John James, and Robert Cox. The Wits, Or, Sport Upon Sport. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell UP. 1932. Print.

“The 1647 English Parliament on Christmas.” Reformed Books Online. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Ed. Vol. XV Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1910. Print. 70

“English Renaissance Theatre.” New World Encyclopedia. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.

Evelyn, John. The Diary of John Evelyn. Boydell & Brewer, Limited. 2004. Print.

Fennimore, J. “The History of England.” The History of England RSS. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

‘February 1648: An Ordinance for the utter suppression and abolishing of all Stage-Plays and Interludes, within the Penalties to be inflicted on the Actors and Spectators therein expressed.’ “Crime and Punishment: Vagabonds.” The National Archives | Education | Crime and Punishment. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

Firth, C. H., and R. S. Rait (eds). Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum 1642-1660. London, 1911. Web.

Fisk, Deborah Payne. “The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre.” Cambridge Companions Online. 2006. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Gascoigne, Bamber. “History of Theatre.” History World. 2001. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Gosson, Stephen. The School of Abuse. London. 1841. Print.

Hazlitt, William. The English Drama and Stage Under the Tudor and Stuart Princes. Willingham and Walkins, 1869. Print.

Heinemann, Margret. Puritanism & Theatre. Cambridge University Press, 1980. Print.

Hotson, Leslie. The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 1928. Print.

House of Commons Journal, Vol. 2. University of London and History of Parliament Trust. 2013. Web.

Hugo, Victor. “William Shakespeare.” Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co., 1886. Print.

“Internet Shakespeare Editions.” The Lord Chamberlain's Men. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Jokinen, Anniina. “Renaissance English Drama: Timeline of Playhouses and Acting Companies.” Renaissance English Drama: Timeline of Playhouses and Acting Companies. 2006. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Kamiya, Gary. “Theater of Blood.” Saloncom RSS. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.

Kastan, David Scott. Shakespeare After Theory. Routledge NY, 1999. Print. 71

“King James I: Biography of King James I” Jesus-is-Lord. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Kreis, Steven. Lecture 7: The English Civil War. The History Guide. 2002. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

‘The Killigrew and Davenant Patents.’ Survey of London: Volume 35, the theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. Ed. F. H. W. Sheppard. London: London County Council, 1970. 1-8. British History Online. Web. 2 November 2015..

Larque, Thomas. “Elizabethan Theatre.” Shakespearean. 2001. Web. 19 Oct.2015.

Law, Jonathan. The Methuen Drama Dictionary of the Theatre. London: Market House Books. 2011. Print.

Lister, Thomas Henry (1838). Life and administration of Edward, first Earl of Clarendon: with original correspondence, and authentic papers never before published. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans. Nabu Press. 2012. Print.

Londre, Felicia Hardison. The History of World Theatre: From the English Restoration to the Present. Continuum Intl Pub Group. 1991. Print.

“The Lord Chamberlain's Men.” Internet Shakespeare Editions. University of Victoria, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013

Love, Mark. “The Players.” PBS. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Mabillard, Amanda. Shakespeare's Boss: The Master of Revels. Shakespeare Online. 2000. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Mabillard, Amanda. “Shakespeare's Patron - James I.” Shakespeare Online. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

McManus, Clare. Women on the Renaissance Stage: Anna of Denmark and Female Masquing in the Stuart Court 1590-1619. New York: Manchester UP. 2002. Print.

Morris, Sylvia. “Sir William Davenant and Adapting Shakespeare, Restoration-style.” The Shakespeare Blog. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Milhous, Judith. Thomas Betterton and the Management of Lincoln's Inn Fields, 1605- 1708. Southern Illinois UP. 1979. Print.

“Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England.” Colgate University. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015. 72

Neal, Daniel. “The History of the Puritans.” Nabu Press. 2012. Print.

Nielson, William Allan. The Facts about Shakespeare. BiblioLife. 2008. Print.

Oates, Mary I., and William J. Baumol. “On the Economics of the Theater in Renaissance London”. The Swedish Journal of Economics 74.1 (1972): 136–160. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Palmer, Alan and Veronica. Who’s Who in Shakespeare’s England. New York. 1999. Print.

“Patent Theatre | English Theatre.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. 2015. Web. 25 Jun. 2015.

Pearcy, Thomas, and Dickson, Mary. “King James I, On Divine Right of Kings.” W.W.Norton. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

Pepys, Samuel. “Thursday 13 February 1667/68.” The Diary of Samuel Pepys. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Plant, David. Biography of William Prynne. British Civil Wars and Commonwealth Website. 2008. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Price, Lindsay. “Issue 72 Elizabethan Theatre: Part One.” Elizabethan Theatre: Part One: Spotlight: E-News from Theatrefolk. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

“Project Gutenberg.” Project Gutenberg. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

“Puritanism and the closing of the theaters in 1642...” The Free Library. 2009 Associated University Presses 30 May. 2015

“Queen Anne of Denmark.” Exploring London. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

Raithby, John. The Statutes at Large, of England and of Great Britain: From Magna Carta to the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. IV. London. N.d. Print.

Relaxation of the Laws against Dramatic Entertainments towards the Close of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate; Sir William D. V. The Restoration Drama. Vol. 8. The Age of Dryden. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia. I. Bartleby. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

“Renaissance Literature: Renaissance Drama.” Baruch College - The City University of New York (CUNY). N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Rollins, Edward Hyder. A Contribution to the History of the English Commonwealth Drama. Chapel Hill, N.C. UP. 1921. Print.

Romy. “The Royal Play: James I and Macbeth.” Without Feathers. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Ross, David. “History of London -Tudor London.” Britain Express. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct.2015.

Rosenfeld, Sybil. The Review of English Studies, Vol. 12. No. 46. Oxford UP. 1936. Print.

Royal Household. “Charles I (r.1625-1649)” The British Monarchy. Web. 5 June. 2014.

“The Royal Play: James I and Macbeth.” Without Feathers. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

Schoenbaum, S. “Shakespeare's Lives.” Oxford UP. 1991. Print.

Senn, Mark A. Shakespeare, the Land Law, and the Individual: Their Emergence in Elizabethan England. University of Colorado. 2012. Print.

“Shakespeare's Patron - James I.” Shakespeare-online. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

“Sir William Davenant - Sir William Davenant Biography - Poem Hunter.” Poemhunter.com. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Stubbes, Philip. The Anatomie of Abuses. Roxburghe, 1869. Print.

‘The Theatre Royal: Site.’ Survey of London: Volume 35, the theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. Ed. F H W Sheppard. London: London County Council, 1970. 30-39. British History Online. Web. 24 June 2015.

Thomas, Chad. “Negotiating the Interregnum: The Political Works of Davenant and Tatham.” ACADEMIA. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Trueman, Chris. “Elizabeth I and the Catholic Church.” The History Learning Site. 2000. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Ward & Trent, et al. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. New York: Bartleby.com. 2000. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

Wasson, John. “Measure for Measure: A Text for Court Performance?” George Washington University. 1970. Print.

Wickham, Glynne. Berry, Herbert. Ingram, William. English Professional Theatre 1530- 1660. Cambridge University Press. 2000. Print.

“William Davenant.” MedLibrary.org. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

“William Shakespeare: Biography of William Shakespeare.” Sacklunch. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Wiseman, Susan. Drama and Politics in the English Civil War. Cambridge UP. 1998. Print.

Wright, James. Historia Histrionica. London. 1699. Print.

APPENDIX

“THE HUMOUR OF SIMPLE”

Argument needless, being a Thorow Farce, and very well known.

Actors Names. Simpleton the Old, Simpleton the Young, Doll a Wench, two Gentle-men-

Braves, Rivals in her Affection.2

Enter Old Simpleton.

OLD SIMPLETON. Sirrah Simpleton, where are you?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. within. Here, here, Father.

OLD SIMPLETON. Where, where, Sirrah?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. At the Cupboard, Father; at the Cupboard.

OLD SIMPLETON. I thought as much: but come you hither, Sirrah, or I shall make your

Ears sing Prick-song for you.

Enter Young Simpleton with a great piece of Bread and Butter.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. 'Tis a miserable condition that a man cannot eat a little bit for his

After-noons Lunchin, but he must be disturbe in the best of his Stomach.

OLD SIMPLETON. A bit! dost thou call it? O' my Conscience this de-vouring Rascal, old as I am, would eat me if he found me in the Cupboard.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. I do not think there is such a genteel Smith in the Town, that hath such an old niggardly Coxcomb to his Father as I: he knows I have no better a stomach then a young Green-sickness Girl, and yet he grutches me every bit I eat.

OLD SIMPLETON. Leave off your muttering, and lend me an Ear a while.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Truly I cannot spare one, Father: yet now I think on't, you have great occasion for one ever since the last Pillory-day; but since you are my Father, I will vouchsafe to listen a while.

OLD SIMPLETON. You know that I am old.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. The more's the pity that you were not hang'd while you were young.

OLD SIMPLETON. Thou hast drunk most of my Means away.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. I'll eat out the rest.

OLD SIMPLETON. Leave your ill breeding, and give me sensibly a Reason why you will not work.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Because I am lazie, Father.

OLD SIMPLETON. Nay, that's true.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. True? why, do you think I would be so unmannerly to tell you a

Lye, Father?

OLD SIMPLETON. How I shall maintain that coming stomach of yours, unless your self endeavour for it, I know not: but if thou wilt be ruled, I'll make thee a Man.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. A Man! why what am I now, a Mouse? what would you make of me?

OLD SIMPLETON. An Asse, an Asse, a gross Asse.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. You may well make me a gross Asse, you have so good a pattern.

OLD SIMPLETON. Listen to me: you know the Widows Daughter at the Corner, sweet

Mistriss Dorothy, she's both young and hand-some, and has money too. Go and woo her, and I dare lay my Life thou car- nest her.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. I carry her, Father? Alas! I have but a weak back, and besides I am somewhat lazily given, as you say: it were a great deal better that she would carry me.

OLD SIMPLETON. Thou hast no more wit then my Hammers head has, and no more brains then an Anvil, which every one may strike on, but never move it: Go, take your

Fiddle, at that they say you are excellent; and when she thanks thee from her Chamber- window, say thou art my son, and that I sent thee about the thing she wots of.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. O must I bumfiddle her under her Chamber-window? Well, I will go wash my hands, and starch my face, because I may be sure to go cleanly about my business.

Enter Young Simpleton with a Viol.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Now must I go play an Alampadoe under Mistriss Dorothy's

Chamber-window, and all that time perhaps she is a snorting: for to say the truth, my

Musick will hardly have the vertue to waken her; and if she should wake, I could not tell what to say to her, unless it were to desire her to go to bed again. And because I will be sure to be acceptable to her, I will joyn my Nightinale-Voyce thereunto.

Enter the first Gentleman.

GENTLEMAN 1. What Slave is this presumes to court my Mistriss? Could I but see him,

I would satisfie my anger with the mine of his limbs; but he is gone, and I loose time in seeking.

Exit.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. That was a roaring Rogue, he has made my Heart jump upright into my Mouth; and if I had not held it fast with my Teeth, without doubt it had forsaken my Body; but he is gone, and now I will venture forward.

Enter the second Gentleman.

GENTLEMAN 2. I heard some Musick at my Sweet-hearts window: could I but finde him, I would cut him, and slash him till his whole body were anatomized: but he is gone, and it was his wisest course.

Exit.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. That roaring Rogue was far worse then the t' other; he has almost frighted my Song out of my head. Oh! we true and faithful Lovers, what perils and dangers must we undergo, to gain the wills and affections of our dearest Dears? But now to my Musick; and because she shall take a great pleasure to think on it, I will sing a song of a young Wench that had a great minde to be married before her time. (Sings.)

Ob! Mother let me have a Husband kinde, with toitre, loytre, loitre.'

That day and night I may comfort finde of a toitre, &c.

care not whether honest Man or Knave,

so that he keep me fine and brave,

And that none else but I may have his toitre, &c.

Oh Daughter you are not old enough for a toitre, &c.

And Husbands often do prove rough with a toitre, &c.

Your tender heart no grief can carry, as they must do sometimes that marry:

You yet may well a twelve-moneth tarry for a toitre, &c.

Oh! Mother I am in my teens, for a toitre, &c.

And younger Wives are often seen with a toitre, &c.

I pray let me not so idle stand, for I can do as well as any can,

I have had a proof with John our Man

of his toitre, &c.

Well, if she does not run mad for me now, it is pity she should have Musick under her

Window as long as she lives.

DOLL. Oh is it you? I thought none but a Puppy like yourself, would have disturbed the

Neighbours with your Gridiron-musick: a Saw were far more pleasing.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Simpl. Forsooth I am very sorry that you have no better skill in

Musick; in my Opinion I sung most melodiously: but if you will be pleased to look with

Eyes of judgement upon me, you will express your love in a better manner to me.

DOLL. I shall express my love, if you continue here, in a far worser manner then you think for. Do you see this Chamber-pot? It longs to be acquainted with that brainless head yours: therefore be gone, and save yourself a washing.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. If you should wash me, I think it would be but labour in vain: yet if you please to distil any of your sweet water upon me, I shall desire to be smelt out by you.

DOLL. You Asse, you Puppy; must you needs force a drowning?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Is this the beginning of love? It is almost as bad as the Proverb to me: stay, it may be it is Rose-water. Voh, it is as rank Urine as ever any Doctor cast.

I'll call this same Old Simpleton my Father that set me about this business. Oh, Father

Simpleton, where are you?

OLD SIMPLETON. Oh my Son, how hast thou sped, Boy?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. O! I have sped most abominably, Father: I got a great deal more then I expected.

OLD SIMPLETON. Oh my own natural Boy!

YOUNG SIMPLETON. I, natural, to be sure, I had ne'er come here else.

OLD SIMPLETON. But how did she relish thee?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Why she relish'd me with a whole Chamber-pot full of water.

OLD SIMPLETON. Why thou Asse, thou Puppy, thou Fool, thou Coxcomb.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Why? how can I help it? why did you get me so like a Fool?

OLD SIMPLETON. Come, shew me to her, and you shall see how I will handle her.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Nay, Father, I should be loath to marry her, after you have had the handling of her.

OLD SIMPLETON. This is her Chamber, is it not?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Yes: I know it by a good token; for here she opened the Sluce, and let the Flood-gates out upon me.

OLD SIMPLETON. Mistriss Dorothy, Mistriss Dorothy, pray come to the window.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Pray to the window, Mistriss Dorothy.

OLD SIMPLETON. Sirrah, hold your tongue.

DOLL. What again? sure this whole morning is nothing but my trouble: what Wise-aker is that now?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. She calls you Wise-aker speak now.

OLD SIMPLETON. I am your Neighbour, Old Simpleton the Smith.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. And I Young Simpleton the Smith.

DOLL. Oh Neighbour, is it you? Here was your Son but now, he kept a worse noise then a Bear-baiting: but you are civil, I will come down to you.

OLD SIMPLETON. Look you there, Sirrah; she will come down to me, she says.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. I, by that time I have been a Courtier as long as you have been, one woman or other may come down to me.

Enter Doll.

DOLL. Good morrow, Neighbour: what is your business, pray?

OLD SIMPLETON. Why it is this: this is my Son. Nay, it is my Son, I'll assure you.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Yes, forsooth, he is sure I am his Son; my Mother told him so.

DOLL. Now I look better on him, he seems to me more hand-some then before; your company seasons him with discretion: but what's your business, pray Sir?

OLD SIMPLETON. Why, if you please, forsooth, I would fain joyn you two together in the way of Matrimony.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Yes forsooth, to mock a marriage.

DOLL. But hold, Sir, two words to a bargain: what profession is your Son of?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Forsooth I am a Blacksmith: and though I say it, I have as good

Working-gear as any Smith in the Parish; all my Neighbours Wives shall be my witness.

OLD SIMPLETON. Sirrah, hold your tongue.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Why, shall I come a wooing, and say nothing for myself?

DOLL. But what Estate, I pray, has your Son in posse?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Father, what Estate have I in a posset?

OLD SIMPLETON. Forsooth, two Cowes you shall have with him.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. With a Calf, to my knowledge.

OLD SIMPLETON. Four Ewes and Lambs, and a Horse to ride to market on.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Yes, and an Asse. No, now I think on it, you may keep your

Asse your self.

OLD SIMPLETON. Four Mark in money.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Do you mark that?

OLD SIMPLETON. With a Bed and Blankets.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. And then we may daunce the shaking of the sheets when we can.

DOLL. These promises are fair; and if performed, I hope I shall not need repent my bargain.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Nor I neither: Come, let's to bed presently, and afterwards we'll talk on it.

DOLL. No, no; f1rst to Church, and then to bed.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Oh! then you wo'nt follow the fashion of our Country; we commonly go to bed first, and to Church when we can: but come, I am contented.

Exeunt.1

GENTLEMAN 1. What should this mean? Doll has a Hat on: she did not use to wear one.

Enter Doll.

DOLL. Oh Gentlemen! though I desire your company, yet now I could heartily wish your absence.

GENTLEMAN 1. Why? what's the matter, Doll

DOLL. I am married.

GENTLEMAN 1. To whom?

DOLL. Do you not know him? Young Simpleton the Smith.

GENTLEMAN 1. That Fool, that Coxcomb: I'll break his Hammer with his own jolt- head.

DOLL. Stand close, I hear him coming.

Enter Young Simpleton.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Sweet-heart, now we are married, things ought to be well carried: and the first thing we should take care for, is, how to get Victuals. What's that?

They wistle.

DOLL. Nothing but the Rats and Mice.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. As sure as I live, I'll lay a trap for those Rats. But what's the matter now? They hem.

DOLL. Nothing but the Neighbours Dogs.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. "l1s a thousand pities but such Curs were hang'd up presently.

Exit Simpl.

DOLL. Oh Gentlemen, I would you were out of the House; for I am afraid he will return again ere I can handsomely shut the door.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. within. Why Doll, Dolll

DOLL. Come ye behind me presently; I pray dispatch.

Enter Young Simpleton.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Doll, I have considered, that to set up my Trade is the way to get

Victuals; and I want nothing of my Tools, but onely a pair of Bellows.

DOLL. Fear not, Husband, I have a little money that you know not of; and if I can but hear of a good bargain, I will not fail to buy a pair of Bellows.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Oh thou pretty loving kinde Pigsnie! but what makes thee wear thy Coats of that fashion?

She spreads her Coats.

DOLL. Do not you know, Husband, it is the fashion for new-married Wives?

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Is it so? it is an excellent fashion in the Summer-time: but I'll go out, and return presently.

Exit Young Simpleton

DOLL. What will you do? 'tis ten to one he spies you, and then my reputation runs a hazard.

GENTLEMAN 1. Appoint what way you will, we are contented.

DOLL. I see him coming back; and truth to say, the course I shall advise, will seem a strange one, yet it must be: you know he did appoint that I should buy for him a pair of

Bellows; now if you two can beat it lustily, and blow it strongly, this visit may be kept off from his knowledge.

GENTLEMAN 1. Nay, any thing, good Doll; we cannot now be chusers.

DOLL. So, lie down: I'll fetch a Chafingdish of Charcoal hither, and practise you a while before he come.

Exit Doll.

GENTLEMAN 1. I have plaid many a mad prank in my Life, yet ne'er till now acted a pair of Bellows.

Enter Doll.

DOLL. So, so, blow lustily, and fear not. ses them.

Enter Young Simpleton.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Wife, I have considered with my self, that if we lay out all the mony in a pair of Bellows, we should have little or nothing left to buy Victuals.

DOLL. Oh Husband, you are deceived; for I have bought you a pair of Bellows, the whole Town shews not a neater.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Is this a pair of Bellows? let me see, this is an a-la-modal pair of

Bellows. But look you, Doll, when the Bellows-mender comes by, let him stop this hole here; for the winde comes out abominably. I'll call my Father Simpleton to see this pair of

Bellows. Father, father, come hither.

Enter Old Simpleton.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Did you ever see such a pair of Bellows as my Wife has bought?

OLD SIMPLETON. A pair Bellows, Son! Me-thinks this would serve better for an Anvil:

Let's try how it will bear our stroaks.

YOUNG SIMPLETON. Well, a match.

Exeunt.