As it is uncertain at what period of time the ancient Mysteries ceased to be represented as an ordinary spectacle for the amusement of the people, and Moralities were substituted in their room, it is equally difficult to ascertain the precise time when the latter gave way to a more legitimate theatrical exhibition. We know that Moralities were exhibited occasionally during the whole of the reign of Queen Elizabeth,

and even in that of her successor, long after regular dramas had been presented on the scene^{5 note}

year by the Students of the Inner Temple, before Queen Elizabeth at Whitehall. Neither of these pieces appears to have been acted on a publick theatre, nor was there at that time, I believe, any building in London constructed solely for the purpose of representing plays. Of the latter piece, which, as Mr. Warton has observed, is perhaps “the first specimen in our language of an heroick tale written in verse, and divided into acts and scenes, and cloathed in all the formalities of a regular tragedy,” a correct analysis may be found in The History of English Poetry^{6 note}, and the play itself has been accurately reprinted in Dodsley's collection, 1780, vol. i.

It has been justly remarked by the same judicious writer, that the early practice of performing plays in schools and universities^{7 note}

In confirmation of what has been suggested, it may be observed, that the principal dramatick writers,

before Shakspeare appeared, were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlowe, Nashe, Lily, and Kyd, had all a regular university education. From whatever cause it may have arisen, the dramatick poetry about this period certainly assumed a better, though still an exceptionable, form. The example which had been furnished by Sackville was at length followed, and a great number of tragedies and historical plays was produced between the years 1570 and 1590; some of which are still extant, though by far the greater part is lost. This, I apprehend, was the great era of those bloody and bombastick pieces, which afforded subsequent writers perpetual topicks of ridicule: and during the same period were exhibited many Histories, or historical dramas, formed on our English Chronicles, and representing a series of events simply in the order of time in which they happened. Some have supposed that Shakspeare was the first dramatick poet that introduced this species of drama; but this is an undoubted error. I have elsewhere observed that every one of the subjects on which he constructed his historical plays, appears to have been dramatized, and brought upon the scene, before his time^{9 note}

drama is by an elegant modern writer supposed to have owed its rise to the publication of The Mirrour for Magistrates, in which many of the most distinguished characters in English history are introduced, giving a poetical narrative of their own misfortunes^{1 note}. Of this book three editions, with various alterations and improvements, were printed between 1563 and 1587.

At length (about the year 1591) the great luminary of the dramatick world blazed out, and our poet produced those plays which have now for two hundred years been the boast and admiration of his countrymen.

Our earliest dramas, as we have seen, were represented

in churches or near them by ecclesiastics: but at a very early period, I believe, we had regular and established players, who obtained a livelihood by their art. So early as in the year 1378, as has been already noticed, the singing boys of St. Paul's represented to the King, that they had been at a considerable expence in preparing a stage representation at Christmas. These, however, cannot properly be called comedians, nor am I able to point out the time when the profession of a player became common and established. It has been supposed that the license granted by Queen Elizabeth to James Burbage and others, in 1574, was the first regular license ever granted to comedians in England; but this is a mistake, for Heywood informs us that similar licenses had been granted by her father King Henry the Eighth, King Edward the Sixth, and Queen Mary. Stowe records, that “when King Edward the Fourth would shew himself in state to the view of the people, he repaired to his palace at St. John's where he was accustomed to see the City Actors^{2 note}.” In two books in the Remembrancer's-office in the Exchequer, containing an account of the daily expences of King Henry the Seventh, are the following articles; from which it appears, that at that time players, both French and English, made a part of the appendages of the court, and were supported by regal establishment.

“Item, to Hampton of Worcester for making of balades, 20s. Item, to my ladie the kings moders

poete, 66s. 8d. Item to a Welsh Rymer, in reward, 13s. 4d. Item, to my Lord Privie-Seals fole, in rew. 10s. Item, to Pachye the fole, for a rew. 6s. 8d. Item, to the foolish duke of Lancaster, 3s. Item to Dix the foles master, for a months wages, 10s. Item, to the King of Frances fole in rew. 41. Item, to the Frenshe players, in rew. 20s. Item, to the tumbler upon the ropes, 20s. Item, for heling of a seke maid, 6s. 8d. [Probably the piece of gold given by the King in touching for the evil.] Item, to my lord princes organ-player, for a quarters wages at Michell. 10s. Item, to the players of London, in reward, 10s. Item, to Master Barnard^{3 note}, the blind poete, 100s. Item, to a man and woman for strawberries, 8s. 4d. Item, to a woman for a red rose, 2s.” The foregoing extracts are from a book, of which almost every page is signed by the King's own hand, in the 13th year of his reign. The following are taken from a book which contains an account of expences in the 9th year of his reign: “Item, to Cart for writing of a boke, 6s. 8d. Item, payd for two playes in the hall, 26s. 6d. Item, to the kings players for a reward, 100s. Item, to the king to play at cardes, 100s. Item, lost to my lord Morging at buttes, 6s. 8d. Item, to Harry Pyning, the king's godson, in reward, 20s. Item, to the players that begged by the way, 6s. 8d^{4 note}.”

Some of these articles I have preserved as curious, though they do not relate to the subject immediately before us. This account ascertains, that there was then not only a regular troop of players in London, but also a royal company. The intimate knowledge of the French language and manners which Henry

must have acquired during his long sojourn in foreign courts, (from 1471 to 1485,) accounts for the article relative to the company of French players.

In a manuscript in the Cottonian Library in the Museum, a narrative is given of the shews and ceremonies exhibited at Christmas in the fifth year of this king's reign, 1490: “This Cristmass I saw no disgysyngs, and but right few plays; but ther was an abbot of mis-rule, that made muche sport, and did right well his office.—On Candell Mass day, the king, the qwen, my ladye, the king's moder, with the substance of al the lordes temporell present at the parlement, &c. wenten a procession from the chapell into the hall, and soo into Westmynster Hall:—The kynge was that daye in a riche gowne of purple, pirled withe gold, furred withe sabuls.—At nyght the king, the qwene, and my ladye the kyngs moder, came into the Whit hall, and ther had a pley.”—“On New-yeeres day at nyght, (says the same writer, speaking of the year 1488,) ther was a goodly disgysyng, and also this Cristmass ther wer many and dyvers playes^{4 note}.”

A proclamation which was issued out in the year 1547 by King Edward the Sixth, to prohibit for about two months the exhibition of “any kind of interlude, play, dialogue, or other matter set forth in the form of a play, in the English tongue,” describes plays as a familiar entertainment, both in London and in the country^{5 note}, and the profession of

an actor as common and established. “Forasmuch as a great number of those that be common players of interludes and playes, as well within the city of London as elsewhere within the realme, doe for the most part play such interludes as contain matter tending to sedition^{6 note},” &c. By common players of interludes here mentioned, I apprehend, were meant the players of the city, as contradistinguished from the king's own servants. In a manuscript which I saw some years ago, and which is now in the library of the Marquis of Lansdown, are sundry charges for the players belonging to King Edward the Sixth; but I have not preserved the articles. And in the house-hold book of Queen Mary, in the Library of the Antiquarian Society, is an entry which shows that she also had a theatrical establishment: “Eight players of interludes, each 66s. 8d.—26l. 13s. 4d.”

It has already been mentioned that originally plays were performed in churches. Though Bonner Bishop of London issued a proclamation to the clergy of his diocese in 1542, prohibiting “all manner of common plays, games or interludes, to be played, set forth, or declared within their churches, chappels,” &c. the practice seems to have been continued occasionally during the reign of Queen Elizabeth; for the author of The Third Blast of Retrait from Plays and Players complains, in 1580, that the players are permitted to publish their mammetrie in every temple of God, and that throughout England;” &c. and this abuse is taken notice of in one of the Canons of King James the First, given soon after his accession in the year 1603. Early, however, in Queen Elizabeth's reign, the established players of London began to act in temporary theatres constructed in the yards of inns^{7 note}; and about the year 1570, I imagine, one or

two regular playhouses were erected^{8 note}. Both the theatre in Blackfriars and that in Whitefriars were certainly built before 1580; for we learn from a puritanical pamphlet published in the last century, that soon after that year, “many goodly citizens and well disposed gentlemen of London, considering that playhouses and dicing-houses were traps for young gentlemen, and others, and perceiving that many inconveniences and great damage would ensue upon the long suffering of the same,—acquainted some pious magistrates therewith,—who thereupon made humble suite to Queene Elizabeth and her privy-councell, and obtained leave from her majesty to thrust the players out of the citty, and to pull down all playhouses and dicing-houses within their liberties; which accordingly was effected, and the playhouses in Gracious-street, Bishopsgate-street, that nigh Paul's, that on Ludgate-hill, and the White-friers, were quite pulled down and suppressed by the care of these religious senators^{9 note}.” The theatre in Blackfriars, not being

within the liberties of the city of London, escaped the fury of these fanaticks. Elizabeth, however, though she yielded in this instance to the frenzy of the time, was during the whole course of her reign a favourer of the stage, and a frequent attendant upon plays. So early as in the year 1569, as we learn from another puritanical writer, the children of her chapel, (who are described as “her majesty's unfledged minions,”) “flaunted it in their silkes and sattens,” and acted plays on profane subjects in the chapel-royal^{1 note}. In 1574 she granted a licence to James Burbage, probably the father of the celebrated tragedian, and four others, servants to the Earl of Leicester, to exhibit all kinds of stage-plays, during pleasure, in any part of England, “as well for the recreation of her loving subjects, as for her own solace and pleasure when she should think good to see them^{2 note}

1583, soon after a furious attack had been made on the stage by the puritans, twelve of the principal comedians of that time, at the earnest request of Sir Francis Walsingham, were selected from the companies then subsisting, under the licence and protection of various noblemen^{3 note}

servants^{4 note}

eight companies of comedians, each of which performed twice or thrice a week^{6 note}.”

King James the First appears to have patronized the stage with as much warmth as his predecessor. In 1599, while he was yet in Scotland, he bestowed his favour upon an English company of comedians that had arrived in Edinburgh, whom (as a modern historian asserts) he had solicited Elizabeth to send down to him, but Mr. Chalmers has shown this to be an error; and very soon after his accession to the throne, granted the following licence to the company at the Globe, which is found in Rymer's Fœdera.

Having now, as concisely as I could, traced the History of the English Stage, from its first rude

state to the period of its maturity and greatest splendor, I shall endeavour to exhibit as accurate a delineation of the internal form and economy of our ancient theatres, as the distance at which we stand, and the obscurity of the subject, will permit.

The most ancient English playhouses of which I have found any account, are, the playhouse in Blackfriars, that in Whitefriars^{7 note}

am unable to ascertain the situation^{8 note}, and The Curtain, in Shoreditch^{9 note}. The Theatre, from its name, was probably the first building erected in or near the metropolis purposely for scenick exhibitions.

In the time of Shakspeare there were seven principal theatres: three private houses, namely, that in Blackfriars, that in Whitefriars, and The Cockpit or Phœnix^{1 note}, in Drury-Lane, and four that were called publick theatres; viz. The Globe on the Bank-side,

The Curtain^{2 note}

Whitecross Street. The last two were chiefly frequented by citizens^{4 note}. There were however, but six

companies of comedians; for the playhouse in Blackfriars, and the Globe, belonged to the same troop. Beside these seven theatres, there were for some time on the Bankside three other publick theatres; The Swan, The Rose^{5 note}, and The Hope^{6 note}

All the established theatres that were open in 1598, were either without the city of London or its liberties^{7 note}.

It appears from the office-book^{8 note}

and the two succeeding kings, that very soon after our poet's death, in the year 1622, there were but

five principal companies of comedians in London; the King's Servants, who performed at the Globe and in Blackfriars; the Prince's Servants, who performed then at the Curtain; the Palsgrave's Servants^{9 note}, who had possession of the Fortune; the players of the Revels, who acted at the Red Bull^{1 note}; and the Lady Elizabeth's Servants, or, as they are sometimes denominated, the Queen of Bohemia's players, who performed at the Cockpit in Drury Lane^{2 note}

When Prynne published his Histriomastix, (1633,) there were six playhouses open; the theatre in Blackfriars; the Globe; the Fortune: the Red Bull; the Cockpit or Phœnix, and a theatre in Salisbury Court, Whitefriars^{3 note}

All the plays of Shakspeare appear to have been performed either at The Globe, or the theatre in Blackfriars. I shall therefore confine my inquiries principally to those two. They belonged, as I have already observed, to the same company of comedians, namely, his majesty's servants, which title they obtained after a licence had been granted to them by King James in 1603. Like the other servants of the household, the performers enrolled into this company were sworn into office, and each of them was allowed four yards of bastard scarlet for a cloak, and a quarter of a yard of velvet for the cape, every second year^{4 note}.

The Theatre in Blackfriars was situated near the present Apothecaries' Hall, in the neighbourhood of which there is yet Playhouse Yard, not far from which the theatre probably stood. It was, as has been mentioned, a private house; but what were the distinguishing marks of a private playhouse, it is not easy to ascertain. We know only that it was smaller^{5 note}

than those which were called publick theatres; and that in the private theatres plays were usually presented by candle-light^{6 note}.

In this theatre, which was a very ancient one, the children of the Revels occasionally performed^{7 note}

It is said in Camden's Annals of the reign of King James the First, that the theatre in Blackfriars fell down in the year 1623, and that above eighty persons were killed by the accident; but he was misinformed^{8 note}

The room which gave way was in a private house, and appropriated to the service of religion.

I am unable to ascertain at what time the Globe theatre was built. Hentzner has alluded to it as existing in 1598, though he does not expressly mention it^{9 note}. I believe it was not built long before the year 1596^{1 note}. It was situated on the Bankside, (the southern side of the river Thames,) nearly opposite to Friday Street, Cheapside. It was an hexagonal wooden building, partly open to the weather, and partly

thatched^{2 note}

THOMAS POPE.

This actor likewise performed the part of a Clown^{4 note}


. He died before the year 1600^{5 note}.

HENRY CUNDALL is said by Roberts the player to have been a comedian, but he does not mention any other authority for this assertion but stage-tradition. In Webster's Dutchess of Malfy he originally acted the part of the Cardinal; and as, when that play was printed in 1623, another performer had succeeded him in that part, he had certainly before that time retired from the stage. He still, however, continued to have an interest in the theatre, being mentioned with the other players to whom a licence was granted by King Charles the First in 1625. He had probably a considerable portion of the shares or property of the Globe and Blackfriars theatres. This actor as well as Heminges lived in Aldermanbury, in which parish he served the office of Sideman in the year 1606. I have not been able to ascertain his age; but he appears to have married

about the year 1598, and had eight children, the eldest of whom was born in Feb. 1598–99, and died an infant. Three only of his children appear to have survived him; Henry, born in 1600; Elizabeth in 1606; and William, baptized May 36, 1611. Before his death he resided for some time at Fulham, but he died in London, and was buried in his parish church in Aldermanbury, Dec. 29, 1627. On the 13th of that month he made his will, of which I subjoin a copy, extracted from the registry of the Prerogative Court:

WILLIAM SLY was joined with Shakspeare, &c. in the licence granted in 1603.—He is introduced, personally, in the Induction to Marston's Malecontent, 1604, and from his there using an affected phrase of Osrick's in Hamlet, we may collect that he performed that part. He died before the year 1612^{7 note}.

RICHARD COWLEY appears to have been an actor of a low class, having performed the part of Verges in Much Ado about

Nothing. He lived in the parish of St Leonard, Shoreditch, and had two sons baptized there; Cuthbert, born in 1597, and Richard, born in 1599. I know not when this actor died.

JOHN LOWIN was a principal performer in these plays. If the date on his picture^{8 note} in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford is accurate, he was born in 1576. Wright mentions in his Historia Histrionica that “before the wars he used to act the part of Falstaff with mighty applause;” but without doubt he means during the reign of King Charles the First, from 1625 to 1641. When our poet's King Henry IV. was first exhibited, Lowin was but twenty-one years old; it is therefore probable that Heminges, or some other actor, originally represented the fat knight, and that several years afterwards the part was resigned to Lowin.

He is said by Roberts the player to have also performed King Henry the Eighth and Hamlet; but with respect to the latter his account is certainly erroneous; for it appears from more ancient writers, that Joseph Taylor was the original performer of that character^{9 note}

Lowin is introduced in person, in the Induction to Marston's Malecontent, printed in 1604; and he and Taylor are mentioned in a copy of verses, written in the year 1632, soon after the appearance of Jonson's Magnetick Lady, as the two most celebrated actors of that time:

Beside the parts already mentioned, this actor represented

the following characters; Morose, in The Silent Woman;—Volpone, in The Fox;—Mammon, in The Alchymist;—Melantius, in The Maid's Tragedy; —Aubrey, in The Bloody Brother;—Bosola, in The Dutchess of Malfy;—Jacomo, in The Deserving Favourite;—Eubulus, in Massinger's Picture; —Domitian, in The Roman Actor;—and Belleur, in The Wild Goose Chase.

Though Heminges and Condell continued to have an interest in the theatre to the time of their death, yet about the year 1623, I believe, they ceased to act; and that the management had in the next year devolved on Lowin and Taylor, is ascertained by the following note made by Sir Henry Herbert in his office-book, under the year 1633:

‘To Sir Henry Herbert, K^t. master of his Ma.^ties Revels.

‘After our humble servise^{2 note} remembered unto your good worship, Whereas not long since we acted a play called The Spanishe Viceroy, not being licensed under your worships hande, nor allowd of: wee doe confess and herby acknowledge that wee have offended, and that it is in your power to punishe this offense, and are very sorry for it; and doe likewise promise herby that wee will not act any play without your hand or substituts hereafter, nor doe any thinge

that may prejudice the authority of your office: So hoping that this humble submission of ours may bee accepted, wee have therunto sett our hands. This twentiethe of Decemb. 1624.

“Mr. Knight,

“In many things you have saved mee labour; yet wher your judgment or penn fayld you, I have made boulde to use mine. Purge ther parts, as I have the booke. And I hope every hearer and player will thinke that I have done God good servise, and the quality no wronge; who hath no greater enemies than oaths, prophaness, and publique ribaldry, wh^ch for the future I doe absolutely forbid to bee presented unto mee in any playbooke, as you will answer it at your perill. 21 Octob. 1633.”

“This was subscribed to their play of The Tamer Tamd, and directed to Knight, their book-keeper.

“The 24 Octob. 1633, Lowins and Swanston were sorry for their ill manners, and craved my pardon, which I gave them in presence of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Benfeilde.”

SAMUEL CROSS. This actor was probably dead before the year 1600; for Heywood, who had himself written for the stage before that time, says he had never seen him.

ALEXANDER COOKE. From The Platt of the Seven Deadly Sins, it appears that this actor was on the stage before 1588, and was the stage-heroine. He acted some woman's part in Jonson's Sejanus, and in the Fox; and we may presume, performed all the principal female characters in our author's plays.

SAMUEL GILBURNE. Unknown.

ROBERT ARMIN performed in The Alchemist in 1610, and was alive in 1611, some verses having been addressed to him in that year by John Davies of Hereford; from which he appears to have occasionally performed the part of the Fool or the Clown^{4 note}





.

He was author of a comedy called The Two Maids of More-clacke, [Mortlake it ought to be,] 1609. I have also a book, called A Nest of Ninnies simply of themselves, without Compound, by Robert Armin, published in 1608. And at Stationers' Hall was entered in the same year, “a book called Phantasm the Italian Taylor and his Boy, made by Mr. Armin, servant to his majesty.”

Mr. Oldys, in his MS. notes on Langbaine, says, that “Armin was an apprentice at first to a goldsmith in Lombard-street.” He adds, that “the means of his becoming a player is recorded in Tarleton's Jests, printed in 1611, where it appears, this 'prentice going often to a tavern in Gracechurch-street, to dun the keeper thereof, who was a debtor to his master, Tarleton, who of the master of that tavern was now only a lodger in it, saw some verses written by Armin on the wainscot, upon his master's said debtor, whose name was Charles Tarleton, and liked them so well, that he wrote others under them, prophecying, that as he was, so Armins hould be: therefore, calls him his adopted son, to wear the Clown's suit after him. And so it fell out, for the boy was so pleased with what Tarleton had written of him, so respected his person, so frequented his plays, and so learned his humour and manners, that from his private practice he came to publick playing his parts; that he was in good repute for the same at the Globe on the Bankside, &c. all the former part of King James's reign.”

WILLIAM OSTLER had been one of the children of the Chapel; having acted in Jonson's Poetaster, together with Nat. Field, and John Underwood, in 1601, and is said to have

performed women's parts. In 1610 both he and Underwood acted as men in Ben Jonson's Alchemist. In Davies's Scourge of Folly, there are some verses addressed to him with this title, “To the Roscius of these times, William Ostler.” He acted Antonio in Webster's Dutchess of Malfy, in 1623. I know not when he died.

NATHANIEL FIELD. JOHN UNDERWOOD.

Both these actors had been children of the Chapel^{5 note}; and probably at the Globe and Blackfriars theatres performed female parts. Field, when he became too manly to represent the characters of women, played the part of Bussy d'Ambois in Chapman's play of that name. From the preface prefixed to one edition of it, it appears thar he was dead in 1641.

There is a good portrait of this performer in Dulwich College, in a very singular dress.

Fleckno, in his little tract on the English Stage, speaks of him as an actor of great eminence. He was the author of two comedies called A Woman's a Weathercock, and Amends for Ladies, and assisted Massinger in writing The Fatal Dowry^{6 note}.

The only intelligence I have obtained of John Underwood, beside what I have already mentioned, is, that he performed the part of Delio in The Dutchess of Malfy, and that he died either in the latter end of the year 1624 or the beginning of the following year, having first made his will, of which the following is a copy:

“In the name of God, Amen. I John Underwood, of the parish of Saint Bartholomew the Less, in London, gent. being very weak and sick in body, but, thanks be given to Almighty God, in perfect mind and memory, do make and declare my last will and testament, in manner and form following: viz. First, I commend and commit my soul to Almighty God, and my body to the earth, to be buried at the discretion of my executors; and my worldly goods and estate which it hath pleased the Almighty God to bless me with, I will, bequeath, and dispose as followeth; that is to say, to and amongst my five children, namely, John Underwood, Elizabeth Underwood, Burbage Underwood, Thomas Underwood, and Isabell Underwood, (my debts and other legacies herein named paid, and my funeral and other just dues and duties discharged) all and singular my goods, household stuff, plate and other things whatsoever in or about my now dwelling house, or elsewhere; and also all the right, title, or interest, part or share, that I have and enjoy at this present by lease or otherwise, or ought to have, possess, or enjoy in any manner or kind at this present or hereafter, within the Blackfryars, London, or in the company of his M.^ties servants, my loving and kind fellows, in their house there, or at the Globe on the Bankside; and also that my part and share or due in or out of the playhouse called the Curtaine, situate in or near Holloway in the parish of St. Leonard, London, or in any other place; to my said five children, equally and proportionably to be divided amongst them at their several ages of one and twenty years; and during their and every of their minorities, for and towards their education, maintenance, and placing in the world, according to the discretion, direction, and care which I repose in my executors. Provided always and my true intent and meaning is, that my said executors shall not alienate, change or alter by sale or otherwise, directly

or indirectly, any my part or share which I now have or ought to hold, have, possess, and enjoy in the said playhouses called the Blackfryars, the Globe on the Bancke-side, and Curtaine aforementioned, or any of them, but that the increase and benefit out and from the same and every of them shall come, accrue, and arise to my said executors, as now it is to me, to the use of my said children, equally to be divided amongst them. Provided also that if the use and increase of my said estate given (as aforesaid) to my said children, shall prove insufficient or defective, in respect of the young years of my children, for their education and placing of them as my said executors shall think meet, then my will and true meaning is, that when the eldest of my said children shall attain to the age of one and twenty years, my said executors shall pay or cause to be paid unto him or her so surviving or attaining, his or her equal share of my estate so remaining undisbursed or undisposed for the uses aforesaid in their or either of their hands, and so for every or any of my said children attaining to the age aforesaid: yet if it shall appear or seem fit at the completion of my said children every or any of them at their said full age or ages, which shall first happen, my estate remaining not to be equally shared or disposed amongst the rest surviving in minority, then my will is, that it shall be left to my executors to give unto my child so attaining the age as they shall judge will be equal to the rest surviving and accomplishing the aforesaid age; and if any of them shall die or depart this life before they accomplish the said age, or ages, I will and bequeath their part, share or portion to them, him or her surviving, at the ages aforesaid, equally to be divided by my executors as aforesaid. And I do hereby nominate and appoint my loving friends (in whom I repose my trust for performance of the premises) Henry Cundell, Thomas

Sanford, and Thomas Smith, gentlemen, my executors of this my last will and testament; and do intreat my loving friends, Mr. John Heminge, and John Lowyn, my fellowes, overseers of the same my last will and testament; and I give to my said executors and overseers for their pains (which I entreat them to accept) the sum of eleven shillings apiece to buy them rings, to wear in remembrance of me. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred twenty four. John Underwood.

NICHOLAS TOOLEY acted Forobosco in The Dutchess of Malfy. From the Platt of the Seven Deadly Sinns, it appears, that he sometimes represented female characters. He performed in The Alchemist in 1610.

WILLIAM ECCLESTONE. This performer's name occurs for the first time in Ben Jonson's Alchemist, 1610. No other ancient piece (that I have seen) contains any memorial of this actor.

JOSEPH TAYLOR appears from some verses already cited, to have been a celebrated actor. According to Downes the prompter, he was instructed by Shakspeare to play Hamlet: and Wright, in his Historia Histrionica, says, “He performed that part incomparably well.” From the remembrance of his performance of Hamlet,

Sir William D'Avenant is said, by Downes, to have conveyed his instructions to Mr. Betterton. Taylor likewise played Iago. He also performed Truewit in The Silent Woman, Face in The Alchemist^{6 note}, and Mosca in Volpone; but not originally^{7 note}. He represented Ferdinand in The Dutchess of Malfy, after the death of Burbadge. He acted Mathias in The Picture, by Massinger; Paris in The Roman Actor; the Duke in Carlell's Deserving Favourite; Rollo in The Bloody Brother; and Mirabel in The Wild Goose Chase. There are verses by this performer prefixed to Massinger's Roman Actor, 1629; and a poem containing high encomiums on his performance in Fletcher's Faithful Shepherdess, when it was revised in 1633, prefixed to the edition of that play printed in 1634, by Shakerly Marmion.

In the year 1614, Taylor appears to have been at the head of a distinct company of comedians, who were distinguished by the name of The Lady Elizabeth's Servants^{8 note}. However, he afterward's returned to his old friends; and after the death of Burbadge, Heminges and Condell, he in conjunction with John Lowin and Eliard Swanston had the principal management of the king's company. In Sept. 1639, he was appointed Yeoman of the Revels in ordinary to his Majesty, in the room of Mr. William Hunt. There were certain perquisites annexed to this office, and a salary of sixpence a day. When he was in attendance on the king he had 3l. 6s. 8d. per month.

I find from Fleckno's Characters, that Taylor died either in the year 1653, or in the following year^{9 note}:

and according to Wright he was buried at Richmond. The Register of that parish antecedent to the Restoration being lost, I am unable to ascertain that fact. He was probably near seventy years of age at the time of his death.

He is said by some to have painted the only original picture of Shakspeare now extant, in the possession of the Duke of Chandos. By others, with more probability, Richard Burbadge is reported to have been the painter: for among the pictures in Dulwich College is one, which, in the catalogue made in the time of Charles the Second by Cartwright the player, is said to have been painted by Burbadge.

ROBERT BENFIELD appears to have been a second-rate actor. He performed Antonio in The Dutchess of Malfy, after the death of Ostler. He also acted the part of the King in The Deserving Favourite; Ladislaus in The Picture; Junius Rusticus in The Roman Actor; and De-Gard in The Wild Goose Chase.

He was alive in 1647, being one of the players who signed the dedication to the folio edition of Fletcher's plays, published in that year.

ROBERT GOUGHE.

This actor at an early period performed female characters, and was, I suppose, the father of Alexander Goughe, who in this particular followed Robert's steps. In The Seven Deadly Sins, Robert Goughe played Aspatia; but in the year 1611 he had arrived at an age which entitled him to represent male characters; for in The Second Maiden's Tragedie^{1 note}, which was

produced in that year, he performed the part of the usurping tyrant.

RICHARD ROBINSON is said by Wright to have been a comedian. He acted in Jonson's Catiline in 1611; and, it should seem from a passage in The Devil is an Ass, 1616, that at that time he usually represented female characters:

In The Second Maiden's Tragedie, he represented the Lady of Govianus. I have not learned what parts in our author's plays were performed by this actor. In The Deserving Favourite, 1629, he played Orsinio; and in The Wild Goose Chase, LeCastre. In Massinger's Roman Actor, he performed Æsopus; and in The Dutchess of Malfy, after the retirement of Condell, he played the Cardinal. Hart, the celebrated actor, was originally his boy or apprentice. Robinson was alive in 1647, his name being signed, with several others, to the dedication prefixed to the first folio edition of Fletcher's plays. In the civil wars he served in the king's army, and was killed in an engagement, by Harrison, who was afterwards hanged at Charing Cross. Harrison refused him quarter, after he had laid down his arms, and shot him in the head, saying at the same time, “Cursed is he that doth the work of the Lord negligently^{2 note}.”

JOHN SHANCKE was, according to Wright, a comedian. He was but in a low class, having performed the part of the Curate in Fletcher's Scornful Lady, and that of Hillario (a servant) in The Wild Goose Chase. He was

a dramatick author, as well as an actor, having produced a comedy entitled Shanke's Ordinary, which was acted at Blackfriars in the year 1623–4^{3 note}.

JOHN RICE.

The only information I have met with concerning this player, is, that he represented the Marquis of Pescara, an inconsiderable part in Webster's Dutchess of Malfy. He was perhaps brother to Stephen Rice, clerk, who is mentioned in the will of John Heminges.

The foregoing list is said in the first folio to contain the names of the principal actors in these plays.

Beside these, we know that John Wilson played an insignificant part in Much Ado About Nothing.

Gabriel was likewise an inferior actor in these plays, as appears from the Third Part of King Henry VI. p. 150, edit. 1623, where we find “Enter Gabriel.” In the corresponding place in the old play entitled The True Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c. we have—“Enter a Messenger.” Sinkler or Sinclo, and Humphrey^{4 note}, were likewise players in the same theatre, and of the same class. William Barksted^{5 note}, John Duke, and Christopher Beeston^{6 note}, also belonged to this company. The latter from the year 1624 to 1638, when he died, was manager of the Cockpit theatre in Drury Lane.

In a book of the last age of no great authority, we are told that “the infamous Hugh Peters, after he

had been expelled from the University of Cambridge, went to London, and enrolled himself as a player in Shakspeare's company, in which he usually performed the part of the Clown.” Hugh Peter (for that was his name, not Peters, as he was vulgarly called by his contemporaries,) was born at Fowey or Foye in Cornwall in 1599, and was entered of Trinity College, in Cambridge, in the year 1613. In 1617 he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and that of Master of Arts in 1622. On the 23d of December 1621, as I find from the Registry of the Bishop of London, he was ordained a deacon, by Dr. Mountaine then bishop of that see; and on June 8, 1623, he was ordained a priest. During his residence at Trinity College, he behaved so improperly, that he was once publickly whipped for his insolence and contumacy^{7 note}; but I do not find that he was expelled. It is, however, not improbable that he was rusticated for a time, for some misconduct; and perhaps in that interval, instead of retiring to his parent's house in Cornwall, his restless spirit carried him to London, and induced him to tread the stage. If this was the case, it probably happened about the time of our author's death, when Hugh Peter was about eighteen years old.

Langbaine was undoubtedly mistaken in supposing that Edward Alleyn was “an ornament to Blackfriars.” Wright, who was much better acquainted with the ancient stage, says, “he never heard that Alleyn acted there:” and the list in the first folio edition of our author's plays proves decisively that he was not of his company; for so celebrated a performer could not have been overlooked, when that list was forming. So early as in 1593, we find “Ned Alleyn's company mentioned^{8 note}.” Alleyn was sole proprietor and manager of the Fortune theatre, in which he performed from 1599, (and perhaps before) till 1616,

when, I believe, he quitted the stage. He was servant to the Lord Admiral (Nottingham): all the old plays therefore which are said to have been performed by the Lord Admiral's Servants, were represented at the Fortune by Alleyn's company^{9 note}

The history of the stage as far as it relates to Shakspeare, naturally divides itself into three periods: the period which preceded his appearance as an actor or dramatick writer; that during which he flourished; and the time which has elapsed since his death. Having now gone through the two former of these periods, I shall take a transient view of the stage from the death of our great poet to the year 1741, still with a view to Shakspeare, and his works.

Soon after his death, four of the principal companies then subsisting, made a union, and were afterwards called The United Companies; but I know not precisely in what this union consisted. I suspect it arose from a penury of actors, and that the managers contracted to permit the performers in each house occasionally to assist their brethren in the other theatres in the representation of plays. We have already seen that John Heminges in 1618 pay'd Sir George Buck, “in the name of the four companys, for a lenten dispensation in the holydaies, 44s.;” and Sir Henry Herbert observes that the play called Come See a Wonder, “written by John Daye for a company of strangers,” and represented Sept. 18, 1623, was “acted at the Red Bull, and licensed without his hand to it, because they [i. e. this company of strangers] were none of the four companys.” The old comedy entitled Amends for Ladies, as appears from its title-page, was acted at Blackfriars before the year 1618, “both by the Prince's servants and Lady Elizabeth's,” though the theatre at Blackfriars then belonged to the king's servants.

After the death of Shakspeare, the plays of Fletcher appear for several years to have been more admired, or at least to have been more frequently acted, than those of our poet. During the latter part of the reign of James the First, Fletcher's pieces had the advantage of novelty to recommend them. I believe, between the time of Beaumont's death in 1615 and his own in 1625, this poet produced at least twenty-five plays. Sir Aston Cokain has informed us, in his poems, that of the thirty-five pieces improperly ascribed to Beaumont and Fletcher in the folio edition of 1647, much the greater part were written after Beaumont's death^{1 note}










; and his account is partly confirmed

by Sir Henry Herbert's Manuscript, from which it appears that Fletcher produced eleven new plays in the last four years of his life. If we were possessed of the Register kept by Sir George Buck, we should there, I make no doubt, find near twenty dramas written by the same author in the interval between 1615 and 1622. As, to ascertain the share which each of these writers had in the works which have erroneously gone under their joint names, has long been a desideratum in dramatick history, I shall here set down as perfect a list as I have been able to form of the pieces produced by Fletcher in his latter years.

The Honest Man's Fortune, though it appeared first in the folio 1647, was one of the few pieces in that collection, which was the joint production of Beaumont and Fletcher. It was first performed at the Globe theatre in the year 1613, two years before the death of Beaumont^{2 note}.

The Loyal Subject was the sole production of Fletcher, and was first represented in the year 1618.

It appears from Sir Henry Herbert's Manuscript, that the new plays which Fletcher had brought out in the course of the year, were generally presented at court at Christmas. As therefore The Island Princess, The Pilgrim, and The Wild Goose Chase are found among the court exhibitions of the year

1621, we need not hesitate to ascribe these pieces also to the same poet. The Wild Goose Chase, though absurdly printed under the joint names of Beaumont and Fletcher, is expressly ascribed to the latter by Lowin and Taylor, the actors who published it in 1652. The Beggar's Bush, being also acted at court in 1622, was probably written by Fletcher. The Tamer Tamed is expressly called his by Sir Henry Herbert, as is The Mad Lover by Sir Aston Cockain: and it appears from the manuscript so often quoted that The Night-Walker and Love's Pilgrimage, having been left imperfect by Fletcher, were corrected and finished by Shirley.

I have now given an account of nine of the pieces in which Beaumont appears to have had no share; and subjoin a list of eleven other plays written by Fletcher, (with the assistance of Rowley in one only,) precisely in the order in which they were licensed by the Master of the Revels.

Sir William D'Avenant, about sixteen months after the death of Ben Jonson, obtained from his Majesty (Dec. 13, 1638,) a grant of an annuity of one hundred pounds per ann. which he enjoyed as poet laureat till his death. In the following year (March 26, 1640,) a patent passed the great seal authorizing him to erect a playhouse, which was then intended to have been built behind The Three Kings Ordinary in Fleet-street: but this scheme was not carried into execution. I find from a Manuscript in the Lord Chamberlain's Office, that after the death of Christopher Beeston, Sir W. D'Avenant was appointed by the Lord Chamberlain, (June 27, 1639,) “Governor of the King and Queens company acting at the Cockpit in Drury Lane, during the lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson, hath or doth hold in the said house:” and I suppose he appointed her son Mr. William Beeston his deputy, for from Sir Henry Herbert's office-book, he appears for a short time to have had the management of that theatre.

In the latter end of the year 1659, some months before the restoration of K. Charles II. the theatres, which had been suppressed during the usurpation, began to revive, and several plays were performed at the Red Bull in St. John's Street, in that and the following year, before the return of the king. In June, 1660, three companies seem to have been formed; that already mentioned; one under Mr. William Beeston in Salisbury Court, and one at the Cockpit in Drury Lane under Mr. Rhodes, who had been wardrobe-keeper at the theatre in Blackfriars before the breaking out of the Civil Wars. Sir

Henry Herbert, who still retained his office of Master of the Revels, endeavoured to obtain from these companies the same emoluments which he had formerly derived from the exhibition of plays; but after a long struggle, and after having brought several actions at law against Sir William D'Avenant, Mr. Betterton, Mr. Mohun, and others, he was obliged to relinquish his claims, and his office ceased to be attended with either authority or profit. It received its death wound from a grant from King Charles II. under the privy signet, August 21, 1660, authorizing Mr. Thomas Killigrew, one of the grooms of his majesty's bedchamber, and Sir William D'Avenant, to erect two new playhouses and two new companies, of which they were to have the regulation; and prohibiting any other theatrical representation in London, Westminster, or the suburbs, but those exhibited by the said two companies.

Among the papers of Sir Henry Herbert several are preserved relative to his disputed claim, some of which I shall here insert in their order, as containing some curious and hitherto unknown particulars relative to the stage at this time, and also as illustrative of its history at a precedent period.

I.

“For Mr. William Beeston,

“Whereas the allowance of plays, the ordering of players and playmakers, and the permission for erecting of playhouses, hath, time out of minde whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, belonged to the Master of his Ma.^ties office of the Revells; And whereas Mr. William Beeston hath desired authority and lycence from mee to continue the house called Salisbury Court playhouse in a playhouse, which was

formerly built and erected into a playhouse by the permission and lycence of the Master of the Revells.

“These are therefore by virtue of a grand under the great seal of England, and of the constant practe thereof, to continue and constitute the said house called Salisbury Court playhouse into a playhouse, and to authorize and lycence the said Mr. Beeston to sett, lett, or use it for a playhouse, wherein comedies, tragedies, tragicomedies, pastoralls, and interludes, may be acted. Provided that noe persons be admitted to act in the said playhouse but such as shall be allowed by the Master of his Ma.^ties office of the Revells. Given under my hand and seale of the office of the Revells, this &lblank;”

[This paper appears to be only a copy, and is not dated nor signed: ending as above. I believe, it was written in June, 1660.]

II.

“To the kings most excellent Majesty.

“The humble Petition of John Rogers,

“Most humbly sheweth,

“That your petitioner at the beginning of the late calamitys lost thereby his whole estate, and during the warr susteyned much detriment and imprisonment, and lost his limbs or the use thereof; who served his Excellency the now Lord General, both in England and Scotland, and performed good and faithfull service; in consideration whereof and by being so much decreapitt as not to act any more in the wars, his Excellency was favourably pleased, for your petitioners future subsistance without being further burthensome to this kingdom, or to your Majesty for a pension, to grant him a tolleration to erect a playhouse or to have a share out of them already tollerated,

your petitioner thereby undertaking to suppress all riots, tumults, or molestations that may thereby arise. And for that the said graunt remains imperfect unless corroborated by your majesty.

“He therefore humbly implores your most sacred Majesty, in tender compassion, out of your kingly clemency to confirm unto him a share out of the profitts of the said playhouses, or such allowance by them to be given as formerly they used to allow to persons for to keep the peace of the same, that he may with his wife and family be thereby preserved and relieved in his maimed aged years; and he shall daily pray.”

“At the Court at Whitehall, the 7th of August, 1660.

“His Majesty is graciously pleased to refer this petition to Sir Henry Herbert, Master of his Majesties Revells, to take such Order therein, as shall be agreeable to equity, without further troubling his majesty.

“(A true Copye.) J. Hollis.”

“August 20, 1660. From the office of the Revells.

“In obedience to his M.^ties command I have taken the matter of the Petitioners request into consideration, and doe thereupon conceive it very reasonable that the petitioner should have the same allowance weekly from you and every of you, for himselfe and his men^{6 note}, for guarding your playhouse from all molestations and injuries, which you formerly did or doe

allow or pay to other persons for the same or such like services; and that it be duely and truely paid him without denial. And the rather for that the Kings most excellent Ma.^tie upon the Lord General Monks recommendation, and the consideration of the Petitioners losses and sufferings, hath thought fitt to commisserate the Petitioner John Rogers his said condition, and to refer unto me the relief of the said petitioner. Given at his Ma.^ties office of the Revells, under my hand and the seale of the said office, the twentieth day of August, in the twelve yeare of his Ma.^ties raigne.

“To the Actors of the playhouses called the Red Bull, Cockpit, and theatre in Salisbury Court, and to every of them, in and about the citties of London and Westminster.

III.

“To the kings most excellent Majestie.

“The humble petition of Sir Henry Herbert, Knight, Master of your Majesties office of the Revels.

“Sheweth,

“That whereas your Petitioner by vertue of severall Grants under the great seale of England hath executed the said office as Master of the Revells, for about 40 yeares, in the times of King James, and of King Charles, both of blessed memory, with exception only to the time of the late horrid rebellion.

“And whereas the ordering of playes and playmakers, and the permission for erecting of playhouses are peculiar branches of the said office, and in

the constant practice thereof by your petitioners predecessors in the said office and himselfe, with exception only as before excepted, and authorized by grante under the said greate seale of England; and that no person or persons have erected any playhouses, or raysed any company of players, without licence from your petitioners said predecessors or from your petitioner, but Sir William D'Avenant, Knight, who obtained leave of Oliver and Richard Cromwell to vent his operas, at a time when your petitioner owned not their authority.

“And whereas your Majesty hath lately signified your pleasure by warrant to Sir Jeffery Palmer, Knight and Bar. your Majesties Attorney General, for the drawing of a grante for your Majesties signature to pass the greate seale, thereby to enable and empower Mr. Thomas Killegrew and the said Sir William D'Avenant to erect two new playhouses in London, Westminster, or the subburbs thereof, and to make choice of two companies of players, to bee under their sole regulation, and that noe other players shall be authorized to play in London, Westminster, or the subburbs thereof but such as the said Mr. Killegrew and Sir William D'Avenant shall allow of.

“And whereas your petitioner hath been represented to your Ma.^ty as a person consenting unto the said powers expressed in the said warrant. Your petitioner utterly denies the least consent or fore-knowledge thereof, but looks upon it as an unjust surprize, and destructive to the power granted under the said greate seale to your petitioner, and to the constant practice of the said office, and exercised in the office ever since players were admitted by authority to act playes, and cannot legally be done as your petitioner is advised; and it may be of very ill consequence, as your petitioner is advised, by a new grante

to take away and cut of a branch of your ancient powers, granted to the said office under the great seale.

“Your petitioner therefore humbly praies that your Ma.^ty would be justly as graciously pleased to revoke the said warrant from your Ma.^ties said Attorney Generall, or to refer the premises to the consideration of your Ma.^ties said Attorney Generall to certify your Ma.^ty of the truth of them, and his judgement on the whole matters in question betwixt the said Mr. Killegrew, Sir William D'Avenant, and your petitioner, in relation to the legality and consequence of their demands and your petitioners rights.

And your petitioner shall ever pray.”

“At the Court at Whitehall, 4 August, 1660.

“His Ma.^tie is pleased to refer this petition to Sir Jeffery Palmer, Knight and Baronet, his Ma.^ties Attorney Generall; who haveing called before him all persons concerned, and examined the petitioners right, is to certify what he finds to be the true state of the matters in difference, together with his opinion thereupon. And then his Ma.^tie will declare his further pleasure. Edw. Nicholas.”

“May it please your most excellent M.^ty

“Although I have heard the parties concerned in this petition severally and apart, yet in respect Mr. Killigrew and Sir William D'Avenant, having notice of a time appointed to heare all parties together did not come, I have forborne to proceed further; having also received an intimation, by letter from Sir William D'Avenant, that I was freed from further hearing this matter.

“14 Sept. 1660. J. Palmer.”

V. On the 21st of August, 1660, the following grant, against which Sir Henry Herbert had petitioned to be heard, passed the privy signet:

“Charles the Second by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, defender of the fayth, &c. to all to whome these presents shall

come greeting. Whereas wee are given to understand that certain persons in and about our citty of London, or the suburbs thereof, doe frequently assemble for the performing and acting of playes and enterludes for rewards, to which divers of our subjects doe for their entertainment resort; which said playes, as we are informed, doe containe much matter of prophanation, and scurrility, soe that such kind of entertainments, which, if well managed, might serve as morall instructions in humane life, as the same are now used, doe for the most part tende to the debauchinge of the manners of such as are present at them, and are very scandalous and offensive to all pious and well disposed persons. We, takeing the premisses into our princely consideration, yett not holding it necessary totally to suppresse the use of theaters, because wee are assured, that, if the evill and scandall in the playes that now are or haue bin acted were taken away, the same might serue as innocent and harmlesse diuertisement for many of our subjects; and haueing experience of the art and skill of our trusty and well beloued Thomas Killegrew, esq. one of the Groomes of our Bedchamber, and of Sir William Dauenant, knight, for the purposes hereafter mentioned, doe hereby giue and grante vnto the said Thomas Killigrew and Sir William Dauenant full power and authority to erect two companies of players, consistinge respectively of such persons as they shall chuse and appoint, and to purchase, builde and erect, or hire at their charge, as they shall thinke fitt, two houses or theatres, with all convenient roomes and other necessaries thereunto appertaining for the representation of tragydies, comedyes, playes, operas, and all other entertainments of that nature, in convenient places: and likewise to settle and establish such payments to be paid by those that shall resort to see the said representations performed, as either

haue bin accustomely giuen and taken in the like kind, or as shall be reasonable in regard of the great expences of scenes, musick and such new decorations as haue not been formerly used; with further power to make such allowances out of that which they shall so receiue, to the actors, and other persons employed in the said representations in both houses respectively, as they shall think fitt: the said companies to be under the gouernement and authority of them the said Thomas Killigrew and Sir William Dauenant. And in regard of the extraordinary licentiousness that hath been lately used in things of this nature, our pleasure is that there shall be noe more places of representations, nor companies of actors of playes, or operas by recitative, musick, or representations by danceing and scenes, or any other entertainments on the stage, in our citties of London and Westminster, or in the liberties of them, then the two to be now erected by vertue of this authority. Nevertheless wee doe hereby by our authority royal strictly enjoine the said Thomas Killegrew and Sir William Dauenant that they doe not at any time hereafter cause to be acted or represented any play, enterlude, or opera, containing any matter of prophanation, scurrility or obscenity: And wee doe further hereby authorize and command them the said Thomas Killegrew and Sir William Dauenant to peruse all playes that haue been formerly written, and to expunge all prophanesse and scurrility from the same, before they be represented or acted. And this our grante and authority made to the said Thomas Killegrew and Sir William Dauenant, shall be effectuall and remaine in full force and vertue, notwithstanding any former order or direction by us given, for the suppressing of playhouses and playes, or any other entertainments of the stage. Given, &c. August 21, 1660.”

“Warrant sent to Rhodes, and brought backe by him the 10 of Octob. 60, with this answer— That the Kinge did authorize him.

“Whereas by vertue of a grante under the great seale of England, playes, players and playmakers, and the permission for erecting of playhouses, have been allowed, ordered and permitted by the Masters of his Ma.^ties office of the Revells, my predecessors successively, time out of minde, whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, and by mee for almost forty yeares, with exception only to the late times:

“These are therefore in his Ma.^ties name to require you to attend mee concerning your playhouse called the Cockpitt playhouse in Drury Lane, and to bring with you such authority as you have for erecting of the said house into a playhouse, at your perill. Given at his Ma.^ties office of the Revells the 8th day of Octob. 1660. Henry Herbert.
“To Mr. John Rodes at the Cockpitt
playhouse in Drury Lane.”

VII.

Copy of the Warrant sent to the actors at the Cockpitt in Drury Lane by Tom Browne, the 13 Octob. 60.

1661.

1661.

1662.

1661.

1661.

1662.