When we turn our attention to the pastimes of our ancestors, who were brave, but illiterate, we perceive, that they delighted more in such sports, as resembled the grappling vigour of war, than the modest stillness of peace. Tournaments were, in those times, not only the delight of barons, bold; but of ladies, gay^{7 note}. In the regulation of the household by Henry VII. it is ordained, that three dayes after the coronation, “the Queene, and all the ladies in their freshest array, may go to behold the justes^{8 note}; but not

to see the play.” Even as late as 1515, Henry VIII. on May-day, in the morning, with Queen Katharine, and many lords and ladies, rode a-maying from Greenwich to Shooter's Hill; where they were entertained by Robin Hood, and his men, to their great contentment^{9 note}. While the people were yet gross, the sports of the field being agreeable to their natures, were more encouraged, from policy, than the effeminate pastimes of “a city-feast.”

It was with the revival of learning, during the middle ages, that a new species of entertainment was introduced, which was addressed rather to the intellect, than to the eye. A religious colloquy, which was aptly called a mystery, was contrived, without much invention, indeed, and without plan; consisting, often, of the allegorical characters, Faith, Hope, Charity, Sin, and Death. The mysteries were originally represented in religious houses, in which places only learning was, in those days, cultivated; and whence instruction of every kind was dispersed among a rude people. The ancient mysteries were introduced upon the same principle, which has often been adduced in defence of the modern drama, that they instructed by pleasing, and pleased by instructing. While few could read; and at a time when few were allowed to peruse the Scriptures, religious truths of the greatest importance were, in this manner, pleasantly conveyed to illiterate minds. Thus, too, was the rudeness of their manners gradually changed into the softer modes of polished life: And, at length, the mysteries obtained a conquest over the tournament, which was less relished, as manners were more refined, and were less frequented, as the mind was elevated to a greater desire of gentle peace.

But, the invention of printing, and the introduction

of learning, made the mysteries of ruder times, less necessary; when a new age was induced by more knowledge, and civility, to practise new customs. Henry the Eighth tried to abolish the mysteries by act of^{1 note} parliament; and the Puritans with a wilder spirit, but more effectual success, exploded the religious dramas, as sinful, and sacrilegious; though they had been authorised by popes, for the propagation of the gospel, and encouraged by bishops, for the polish of manners.

As the people advanced from rudeness to refinement, the mysteries were succeeded by the moralities. Simplicity now gave way a little to art. Characters began to be delineated, by the introduction of historical personages, in the room of allegorical beings; and plot to be attempted, by the unravelment of some fable, for the inculcation of some moral. The reign of Edward the IVth is supposed to be the epoch of moralities. The reign of Henry the VIIth was the period of the greatest prevalence of those moralities: But, they were not often acted, during Elizabeth's reign of gradual improvement.

The moralities gave place, in their turn, to the interlude^{2 note}; something played, says Johnson, at the intervals of festivity, a farce, or drama, of the lowest order. It seems certain, then, that in every period of our annals, we had players of some species, for the benefit of instruction, and the purpose of amusement. Henry the VIIth, “the qwene, and my ladye the Kyng's moder,” amused themselves with a play at Candlemas^{3 note}. Henry the VIIIth was, probably, the

first of our kings, who formed an establishment of players, for the amusement of his many qwenes: but, he was the first, who introduced a master of the revels, for promoting mirth, and at the same time preserving order.

But, abuse, and the use, are the necessary concomitants of each other. Even the Reformation, a necessary good, brought with it religious contest, its concomitant evil. The poets, and the players, who were to live by pleasing, presented to the people such dramas, as pleased, rather than instructed; offered to a coarse populace what was profitable, rather than what was fit.

Such a government, indeed, as Henry the VIIIth bequeathed to his infant son, necessarily produced every kind of grievance. One of the first complaints of Edward VIth's reign, was the seditiousness of the “common players of interludes and playes, as well within the city of London, as else where.” On the 6th of August, 1547, there issued “A proclamacion for the inhibition of players^{4 note}

in that reign, sent to the Tower, for the writing of playes; the offence being probably aggravated by disobedience to some injunction^{5 note}. The jealousy, and strictness, of that period, would only permit the players of the highest noblemen to play, within their own houses^{6 note}. The court of Edward had, however,

a few joyous moments. Military triumphs were exhibited “at Shrovetide, and at Twelftide^{7 note}.” At the festivals of Christmas, and Candlemas, A lord of the pastimes was appointed, and playes were acted: and for the greater joyousance, poets of the greatest talents were sought, to promote festivity. George Ferrers, a person of superior rank, who was educated at Oxford, and entered at Lincoln's Inn, and who was a gentleman belonging to the Protector Somerset, was employed, as the lord of the pastimes^{8 note}. William Baldwyn, who was a graduate of Oxford, and another of the celebrated authors of the Myrrour for Magistrates, was appointed to set forth a play^{9 note}. Edward had a regular establishment of players of interludes; and of mynstrels^{1 note}, and singing men, who sung in the King's presence^{2 note}. But, the festivities of Edward's days

were soon clouded over by the reign of blood, which succeeded his premature demise.

The gloom, which hung over the court of Mary, did not spread far beyond the influence of her presence. In London, and in Canterbury, in Essex, and in Yorkshire, plays continued to be acted, because they were agreeable to the country, however displeasing to the court, which, in its own darkness, saw danger from merriment, and, from its own weakness, perceived sedition, in the hilarity of the drama. Special orders were, accordingly, issued to prevent the acting of plays in particular places^{3 note}. When these failed of effect, a general order was issued from the star-chamber, in Easter term 1557; requiring the justices of the peace, in every shire, to suffer no players, whatsoever the matter were, to play, within their several jurisdictions. But, these injunctions, as they were displeasing to the people, were not every where enforced; and the strolling players found means to save themselves from the penalties, which the law inflicted on vagabonds^{4 note}. The magistrates of Canterbury were

remarkably active in obeying those orders; in committing the players, and seizing their lewd playbook^{5 note}. But, the Mayor of London seems not, like his brother of Canterbury, to have merited, on that occasion, the thanks of the privy council, for his zeal against plays^{6 note}.

On the 5th of September, 1557, he was ordered to cause his officers forthwith to repair to the Boar's Head, without Aldgate, and to apprehend the players, who were then, and there, to represent a lewd play, called A Sack full of News; which was thereupon so completely suppressed, as to prevent its subsequent publication. The representation of this lewd play induced the privy council to direct the Lord Mayor to suffer no plays to be played, within London, but such as were seen and allowed by the Ordinary. In the mean time, the Queen continued the household establishment, which her father had made, for eight players of interludes. The great poet of her reign was John Heywood, the epigrammatist, who fled from the face of Elizabeth, at the revival of the reformation, which immediately succeeded her accession. If any drama were printed, during the reign of Mary, it has escaped the eyes of the most diligent collectors.

The sun of Elizabeth rose, in November, 1558, and went not down, until March, 1603. This reign, as it thus appears to have been long in its duration, and is celebrated for the wisdom of its measures, enabled learning, by its kindly influences, to make a vast progress; and assisted the stage, by its salutary regulations, to form a useful establishment. What Augustus said of Rome, may be remarked of Elizabeth, and the stage, that she found it brick, and left it marble. The persecutions of preceding governments had, indeed,

left her without a theatre, without dramas, and without players^{7 note}. These positions appear, from what has been already said; and are confirmed by A Breif Estimat, which I discovered in the paper-office; and which, being very interesting in its matter, and curious in its manner, is subjoined in the marginal note below.^{8 note}

Such was the state of the drama, when Shakspeare was born. We shall perceive that, before he came

out upon the stage, great improvements had been made in the plays; in the actors; and in the theatre; but that much was still wanting to reduce dramatick representations into the most perfect form.

When we throw our eyes upon the scenick pastimes of those days, we see that Queen Elizabeth was chiefly entertained by children; by the children of Paul's; by the children of Westminster; by the children

of the chapel; and by the children of Windsor. The truth is, that our drama first took its rise in the schools; which were settled in the monasteries, or were established in the Universities^{9 note}. The sock, and the buskin, passed, by an easy transition, from the school boys to the singing boys. As early as the year 1430, the choristers, or eleemosinary boys of Maxtoke-priory, near Coventry, acted a play every year^{1 note}. Henry the VIIth was entertained, in a similar manner, by the choristers of Winchester, in 1487^{2 note}. Henry the VIIIth, Edward the VIth^{3 note}, and Mary, were, in their turns, dramatically amused by singing boys. As early as the year 1378, the choristers of St. Paul's cathedral, in London, petitioned Richard the IId, that he would prohibit ignorant persons from acting The History of the Old Testament, which the clergy of that church had prepared, at a great expence, for publick representation, during the ensuing Christmas. From acting mysteries, these choristers passed, by a gradual progress, to the performance of more regular dramas^{4 note}. They became so famous for the superiority of their scenick skill, that they were sent for, whenever great entertainments were given in the country; in order to contribute, by their mimick art, diversion to the Briton reveller^{5 note}.

The children of St. Paul's were the favourite actors, at the accession of Elizabeth: And, in consequence of their celebrity, and success, they at length found imitators, and rivals, in the children of Westminster, in the children of the Chapel^{6 note}, and in the children of

Windsor; who all continued to entertain Elizabeth while she lived; though much seldomer towards the conclusion of her reign, as the established actors, necessarily, gained a superiority over them in the art, and its accommodations^{7 note}.

Whether those choristers were always children may admit of some doubt. The word child had

formerly a very different signification, than it has lately had; as we may learn from our old English ballads; in the same manner, as the word bairn, in the Scottish poets, and in Shakspeare's dramas^{7 note}, denotes a youth, as well as a child; and as the word child signifies a youth, and a youth of a higher rank; so child and knight, and bairn and knight, came to be synonimous; as we may perceive in the Reliques of Ancient Poetry: Hence, the children of the chapel, and the youths of the chapel, were, really, the same, though, nominally, different. From those seminaries, some of the ablest actors were transplanted into the regular companies^{8 note}. Contributing so much

to festivity, by their acting, they, in some measure, communicated their denomination of children to the professed actors, by the name of the children of the Revels. By the celebrity of their performances, they even envenomed the established comedians with rival-hating envy, as we may learn from Shakspeare. During Elizabeth's reign, there had been four companies of children, who, under distinct masters, gave life to the revelry of that extended period. They continued, after the accession of King James, to exhilarate the faint slumbers of his peaceful reign. And, they were deemed so important, that there sometimes were granted royal patents to particular persons; empowering them, “to bring up companies of children, and youths, in the quality of playing interludes, and stage plays^{9 note}

Thus have I tried to shed a few rays of brighter light on this curious subject, which had been thrown too much into shade, by the pencil of our scenick painters. Yet, have I perhaps raised, rather than gratified curiosity. And those, who find a pleasure, in reviewing the amusements of former times, may wish for more gratification, from additional notices. It was with design to gratify this reasonable desire, that I compiled a Chronological List of such plays, as were acted by those companies of theatrical children, which is subjoined in the note^{1 note}
The chronology

was adjusted from the several dates of the successive publications; whence may be conjectured, rather

than ascertained, when each play was acted. Amid other novelties, it is curious to remark, that none of the many plays, which were presented by the children of Paul's, and the children of the Chapel, before the year 1571, have been preserved, at least been published; and none of the plays are said to have been acted by the children of the revels, subsequent to the year 1633. An attention to this date would

carry the inquirer into the gloom of puritanism: And, from authority, he would be told:

Thus much, then, for the children of St. Paul's, of Westminster, of Windsor, of the Chapel, and of the Children of the Revels. As early as the reign of Henry the VIIth, French players appeared in London, though not as an established company; for we see nothing of them in the subsequent reigns. The Italian language became as much the object of cultivation, during Elizabeth's reign, as the French had ever been, or is at present. And, Italians showed their tricks, daily, in our streets, and exhibited their dramas, often, in our halls^{2 note}: In January, 1577–8, Drousiano, an Italian commediante, and his company, were authorised by the privy council, to play within the jurisdiction of the city of London. It does not, however, appear, that there was then any settled company of foreign players; though Lord Strange's tumblers may have had strangers among them.

As soon as the acting of plays became a profession, jealousy of abuse made it an object of regulation. Accordingly, in 1574, the puritanick zeal, or the prudential caution of the Lord Mayor, Hawes, procured various bye-laws of the common council, to regulate

the representation of plays within the city of London^{3 note}. Yet, this zeal was not wholly approved of at Whitehall. And the privy council wrote the Lord Mayor, on the 22d of March, 1573–4, “to advertize their Lordships what causes he hath to restrain playes; to the intent their Lordships may the better answer such as desire liberty for the same^{4 note}.”

The year 1574 is probably the epoch of the first establishment of a regular company of players. It was on the 10th of May, 1574, that the influence of the Earl of Leicester obtained for his servants, James Burbadge, John Parkyn, John Lanham, William Johnson, and Robert Wilson, a license under the privy seal, “to exercise the faculty of playing, throughout the realm of England^{5 note}.” Leicester was not a man who would allow the Queen's grant to be impugned, or his own servants to be opposed. And, his influence procured, probably, directions from the privy council to the Lord Mayor, on the 22d of July, 1574,” to admit the comedy players within the city of London; and to be otherwise favourably used^{6 note}.”

But, the zeal of the Lord Mayor neither darkened the gaiety of the city, nor obstructed the operations of the players so much as did the plague; which, in that age, frequently afflicted the nation with its destructive

ravages. During several years of Elizabeth's reign, the privy council often gave directions for restraining players, within the city and its vicinage; on account of the frequent pestilence, which was supposed to be widely propagated, by the numerous concourse of people, at theatrical representations. It is to this cause that we ought to attribute the many orders which were issued under the prudent government of Elizabeth, with regard to players; and which are contradictory in appearance, more than in reality: When the city was sickly, the playhouses were shut; when the city was healthy, they were opened; though dramatick entertainments were not always allowed in the dog-days.

Among those expedient orders, the privy council required the Lord Mayor, on the 24th of December, 1578, “to suffer the children of her Majesty's chapel, the servants of the Lord Chamberlain, of the Earl of Warwick, of the Earl of Leicester, of the Earl of Essex, and the children of Paul's, and no companies else, to exercise plays within the city; whom their Lordships have only allowed thereunto, by reason that the companies aforenamed are appointed to play this Christmas before her Majesty.” Yet, it is said^{7 note}, that there were then, within the city, eight ordinary places for playing publickly, to the great impoverishment of the people.

No sooner was the drama protected by the wise ministers of Elizabeth, who distinguished, nicely, between the use, and the abuse, of every institution, than plays, and players, were persecuted by the Puritans, whose enmity may be traced up to the publication of the Laws of Geneva, which prohibited stage plays, as sinful^{8 note}. In 1574, A Form of Christian

Policy was drawn out of the French, and dedicated to Lord Burleigh, by Geoffry Fenton^{8 note}. Gosson printed his School of Abuse, in 1578, which was dedicated to Sir Philip Sydney, by whom it was disdainfully rejected. In 1579, John Northbrooke published A Treatise, wherein dicing, dauncing, vaine plaies, or enterludes, with other idle pastimes were reprooved^{9 note}. Stubbes exhibited his Anatomie of Abuses, in 1583; showing the wickedness of stage playes, and enterludes. The churches continually resounded with declamations against the stage. And, in 1592, the vanity, and unlawfulness, of plaies, and enterludes, were maintained, in the university of Cambridge^{1 note}, by Doctor Rainolds, against Doctor Gager, the celebrated dramatist. This academical controversy was soon followed by a kind of theatrical rescript in the form of a letter to the vice chancellor of Cambridge^{2 note}

the 29th of July, 1593; the same year, in which appeared the first heir of Shakspeare's invention.

From this outcry against the drama, loud as it was, and long as it continued, some good effects resulted; as there did from a similar outcry, which was raised by Collier against the stage, in more modern times. As early as 1578, the privy council endeavoured, though not with complete success, to prevent the acting of plays, during Lent^{3 note}. This solicitude, for the interests of religion, was soon after extended to the preventing of stage plays on Sundays^{4 note}

The players were also obstructed in the exercise of their profession by orders, which originated from a less pious source, and deprived of their profits, by injunctions, which proceeded from a less disinterested motive. The royal bearward found, that the people, who are entitled to praise for such a preference, took more delight in stage-playing, than in bear-baiting; their second sight foreseeing, no doubt, that Shakspeare was at hand, to justify their choice: Accordingly, in July, 1591, an order was issued by the privy council^{6 note} that there should be no plays, publickly, showed on Thursdays; because, on Thursdays, bear-baiting, and such like pastimes, had been usually practised. In this manner, were the ministers of Elizabeth, at times, gravely, and wisely, occupied.

By those various causes, were the players, who had no other profession, deprived of their livelihood; by the recurrence of pestilence, by the intervention of Lent, by the return of Sunday, and by the competition of bearwards. On the 3d of December, 1581, the players stated their case to the privy council; represented their poor estates, as having no other means to sustain their wives, and children, but their

exercise of playing; showed, that the sickness within the city were well slacked; and prayed that their Lordships would grant them license to use their playing as heretofore: The privy council, thereupon, for those considerations, and recollecting also, “that they were to present certain plays before the Queen's Majesty, for her solace, in the ensuing Christmas,” granted their petition; ordered the Lord Mayor to permit them to exercise their trade of playing, as usual. On the 22d of April, 1582, this order was extended for a further time, and enforced by weightier considerations; “for honest recreation sake, and in respect, that her Majesty sometimes taketh delight in these pastimes^{7 note}.”

Yet, the privy council did not, in their laudable zeal for honest recreation, depart, in the least, from accustomed prudence; requiring, as essential conditions of removing those restrictions, that “the comedies and interludes be looked into” for matter, which might breed corruption of manners; and that fit persons might be appointed, for allowing such plays only, as should yield no example of evil. We shall find, in our progress, that regular commissioners were appointed in 1589, for reviewing the labours of our dramatists; for allowing the fit, and rejecting the unmannerly; which appointment seems to be, only, a systematick improvement of Queen Elizabeth's ecclesiastical injunctions, in 1559.

Of such players, and such companies, that incited honest merriment, during Elizabeth's days, and were regarded as objects of consideration, by some of the wisest ministers, that have ever governed England, who would not wish to know a little more? The children of St. Paul's appear to have formed a company, in very early times. At the accession of Elizabeth, Sebastian Westcott was the master of those children. With his boyish actors, he continued to entertain that great Queen, and to be an object of favour, and reward, till the year 1586. He was succeeded, as master of the children of Paul's, by Thomas Giles, who, in the same manner tried to please, and was equally rewarded for his pains. Thomas Giles was succeeded, in 1600, by Edward Piers, as the master of the children of Paul's, who was to instruct them in the theory of musick, and direct them “to hold, as 'twere, the mirrour up to nature.” The establishment of the children of her Majesty's honourable chapel seems to have been formed on the plan of that of the children of St. Paul's. Richard Bower, who had presided over this honourable chapel under Henry the Eighth, continued to solace Elizabeth, by the singing, and acting, of the children of the chapel, till 1572. Richard Bower was then succeeded, in his office, and in those modes of pleasing, by John Honnys. This master was followed by William Hunnis, one of the gentlemen of the chapel; who, not only endeavoured to gladden life, by the acting of his children, but to improve it, by the publication of the penitential psalms, with appropriate musick^{8 note}. The children of Westminster had for their director, John Taylor, from the year 1565, for a long succession of theatrical

seasons. And, the children of Windsor were, in the same manner, employed by Richard Ferrant, during Elizabeth's residence there, “to ease the anguish of a torturing hour.”

It was from those nurseries, that many a cyon was grafted into the more regular companies of players. During the infancy of the drama, the players were driven, by the penalties of the statutes against vagabonds, to seek for shelter under private patronage, by entering themselves, as servants, to the greater peers, and even to the middling sort of gentlemen. At the accession of Elizabeth, the Lord Robert Dudley's players became conspicuous. When, by his influence, they were incorporated, into a regular company, in 1574, their leaders were James Burbadge^{9 note}; John Perkyn; John Lanham^{1 note}; William Johnson; and Robert Wilson. None of these rose to eminence, or contributed much to the advancement of the stage. When the Earl of Leicester died, in September, 1588, they were left to look for protection from a new master.

In 1572, Sir Robert Lane had theatrical servants, at the head of whom was Laurence Dutton, who appears to have joined the Earl of Warwick's company: but Lane's servants seem not to have long continued,

either to profit, by pleasing others, or to please themselves, by profit.

In 1572, Lord Clinton entertained dramatick servants, who, as they did little, have left little for the historian of the stage to record. When the Lord Clinton died, on the 16th of January, 1584–5, those servants found shelter probably from some other peer, who, like him, was ambitious of giving and receiving the pleasures of the stage.

In 1575, appeared at the head of the Earl of Warwick's company, Laurence Dutton, and John Dutton, who, as they did not distinguish themselves, cannot be much distinguished by the historian of the theatre.

In 1575, the Lord Chamberlain had a company of acting servants: whether William Elderton, and Richard Mouncaster, were then the leaders of it, is uncertain: But, Shakspeare was, certainly, admitted into this company, which he has immortalized more by his dramas, than by his acting. In 1597, John Heminges, and Thomas Pope^{2 note}, were at the head of the Lord Chamberlain's servants, who were afterwards retained by King James; and long stood the foremost, for the regularity of their establishment, and the excellency of their plays.

In 1576, the Earl of Sussex had a theatrical company, which began to act at The Rose, on the 27th of December, 1593; yet, never rose to distinguished eminence.

In 1577, Lord Howard had dramatick servants, who, as they did not distinguish themselves, have not been remembered by others.

In 1578, the Earl of Essex had a company of players, who probably finished their career, when he paid the penalty of his treason, in 1601.

In 1579, Lord Strange had a company of tumblers, who, at times, entertained the Queen with feats of activity; and who began to play at The Rose, under the management of Philip Henslow, on the 19th of February, 1591–2; yet, were never otherwise distinguished, than like the strutting player, whose conceit lay in his hamstring.

In 1579, the Earl of Darby entertained a company of comedians, which had at its head, in 1599, Robert Brown, to whom William Slye devised, in 1608, his share in the Globe.

In 1585, the Queen had certainly a company of players, which is said, without sufficient authority, to have been formed, by the advice of Walsingham, in 1581. The earliest payment, which appears to have been made to the Queen's company, was issued on the 6th of March, 1585–6^{2 note}. And, in March, 1589–90, John Dutton, who was one of Lord Warwick's company, and John Lanham, who belonged to Lord Leicester's, appear to have been at the head of Elizabeth's company, which must be distinguished from the ancient establishment of the household, that received a salary at the Exchequer, without performing any duty at court.

In 1591, the Lord Admiral had a company of comedians, who began to act at The Rose, on the 14th of May, 1594; and who had at its head, in 1598, Robert Shaw, and Thomas Downton. Connected with them, in the management, and concerns, of the company, were Philip Henslow, and

Edward Alleyn; two persons, who are better known, and will be longer remembered, in the theatrical world^{3 note}

servants of the Lord Admiral had the honour to be taken into the service of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales^{3 note}
.

In 1592, the Earl of Hertford entertained a company of theatrical servants, who have left few materials for the theatrical remembrancer.

In 1593, the Earl of Pembroke sheltered, in the same manner, under his protection, a company of persons, who equally made a profession of acting, as a mode of livelihood, and who were more desirous of profit, than emulous of praise. This company began to play at The Rose, on the 28th of October, 1660.

The Earl of Worcester had also a company of theatrical servants, who, at the accession of King James, had the honour to be entertained by Queen Anne, in the same capacity.

Thus, we see, in this slight enumeration, fifteen distinct companies of players; who, during the protracted reign of Elizabeth, and in the time of Shakspeare, successively gained a scanty subsistence, by lascivious pleasing. The demise of the Queen brought along with it the dissolution of those companies, as retainers to the great: And, we shall find, that the accession of King James gave rise to a theatrick policy, of a different kind. The act of parliament^{4 note}, which took away from private persons the

privilege of licensing players, or of protecting strolling actors, from the penalties of vagrancy, put an end for ever to the scenick system of prior times.

This subject, though curious, has hitherto remained very obscure. A laudable curiosity still requires additional information, which can only be furnished, by the communication of new notices, in a distinct arrangement. This, I have endeavoured to perform, by compiling a chronological series of the several payments, which were made, from time to time, by Elizabeth's orders, to those various companies, for their respective exhibitions: And, this chronological series, I have subjoined in the marginal note; because it will show more clearly, than has yet been done, in which company Elizabeth oftenest “took delight;” on what days she enjoyed this recreation; and what she gave for each day's enjoyment; whether that delight was communicated, by the acting of the players, the feats of the tumblers, or the grosser sports of the bear-garden^{5 note}.

While the actors were chiefly children; and while the theatrical companies were noblemen's servants;

the theatres, on which they presented their interludes, and displayed their various powers of performance,

could not have been very large, or commodious. When Queen Elizabeth did her best, to entertain the

French ambassador, with her tayllors, payntors, silk-wemen, and drappars, “to garnish the old garments

to make them same fresh againe;” and with all her houses, and clouds, and hills, and other devices, she

appears neither to have made any splendid show, nor furnished any adequate accommodations. The children of St. Paul's probably exhibited their pastimes in the hall of their own school-house. The regular companies had only the publick inns, within the city of London, where they could please by acting, and obtain their subsistence by pleasing.

The year 1570 has been marked, by our theatrical historians, as the probable epoch, of the first erection of regular playhouses. As early as the year 1576, there certainly existed a building which was appropriated to scenick representations, and was emphatically called The Theatre. It was probably situated in the Blackfriers, without the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction^{6 note}. Before the year 1583, theatres and curtaines were familiarly known, and puritanically reprobated, as Venus palaces^{7 note}. Before the year 1586, there was a playhouse at Newington-butts, in the county of Surrey, which was denominated the Theatre^{8 note}. The passion for theatrical representations was, at that time, become excessive: as we may learn,

indeed, from Stubbs's Anatomy of Abuses: So there were managers, who endeavoured to gratify the popular passion for scenick amusement, by erecting theatres. But, it is not easy to calculate the number of playhouses, in those days, nor to ascertain their sites. It seems, however, certain, that, while the beams of Shakspeare's sun brightened the stage, there were seven principal theatres in London, and its suburbs: The Globe on the Bankside, the Curtain in Shoreditch, the Red Bull in St. John's Street, and the Fortune in White-cross Street; the Theatre in Blackfriers, the Cockpit in Drury Lane, and a more private playhouse in Whitefriers: Add to these the several theatres, which had, in the mean time, arisen in St. Saviour's parish from this passion of the people, who laudably preferred the sentimental pleasure of the drama, to the savage entertainment of bear-baiting.

But this preference, which encreased the number of theatres, gave offence to those, who wished to influence the people, in their religious opinions, and to direct them, in their social conduct. A violent outcry was, now, raised against the number of playhouses. Complaints were repeatedly made to the privy-council^{9 note}, of the manifold abuses, that had

grown from the many houses, which were employed in, and about London, for common stage plays. These complaints were, at length, fully considered by the privy-council. The wise men, who composed the councils of Elizabeth declared, that stage-playing was not evil in itself. They distinguished between the use, and the abuse, of salutary recreations, in a well governed state. And they determined, “as her Majestie sometimes took delight in seeing, and hearing the stage-plays,” to regulate the stage, by reducing the number of theatres, and encreasing their usefulness. For these ends, the privy-council, who did not distrust their owne power, issued, on the 22d of June, 1600, an order “for the restraint of the immoderate use of playhouses,” which, as it does honour to their wisdom, and is curious in itself, I have subjoined in a marginal note^{1 note}

In this theatrical edict of the privy-council, we see the wisdom of Elizabeth's ministers. They allowed

the use of theatres, but endeavoured, by corrective regulations, to prevent the abuses of them; acknowledging, in the language of John Taylor, the water-poet:
“For, plays are good, or bad, as they are us'd;
“And, best inventions often are abus'd.” For all the salutary purposes of honest recreation, they deemed two playhouses sufficient; one in Middlesex, which was to be The Fortune; and one in Surrey, to be The Globe: And, foreseeing that those regulations would be of little effect, without enforcement, either for enjoying the use, or correcting the abuse of many playhouses, the privy-council wrote letters from Greenwich, on the 22d of June, 1600, to the Lord Mayor of London, and to the justices of Middlesex, and of Surrey; urging them, by every proper motive, to carry those wise regulations into effectual execution^{2 note}. Owing to whatever cause, whether want of authority, in the magistrates, or want of

inclination in the men, these orders of the privy-council were not executed. The disorders of the playhouses rather increased, than diminished. The mayor, and aldermen of London felt the grievance, without being able to apply the remedy: For, they were neither urged, by the clamour of the multitude, nor supported, by the voice of the people; who now relished theatrical amusements, as they were better accommodated, in the many new playhouses, and better gratified by the representation of Shakspeare's dramas. The privy-council did not so much partake of the scenick enthusiasm of the people, as they viewed the popular concourse to scenick representations, in the light of a political disorder; which, having increased under restraint, required correction, rather than countenance. In this spirit, they wrote a stronger letter to the Lord Mayor, and aldermen, of London, on the 31st of December, 1601; reprehending past neglects, and requiring future compliance with the former orders^{3 note}

same day, wrote, with a sharper pen, to the justices of Middlesex, and Surrey, letters of reproof, rather than directions, in these energetick terms: “It is in vain for us to take knowledge of great abuses, and to give order for redress, if our directions find no better execution, than it seemeth they do: and we must needs impute the blame thereof to you, the justices of peace, that are put in trust to see them performed; whereof we may give you a plain instance in the great abuse continued, or rather increased, in the multitude of playhouses, and stage plays, in, and about, the city of London^{4 note}.”

In those proceedings, for restraining the number of playhouses, and checking the popular concourse to scenick entertainments, a discerning eye may perceive, that stage plays, rather than the English stage in general, had risen to great, though not to the greatest splendour. At the demise of Elizabeth, Shakspeare had produced two and twenty of his immortal dramas. The commission, which Elizabeth established, in 1589, for revising plays, before Shakspeare's

appearance, as a dramatist, had an obvious tendency to form the chastity of his muse; as the chastity of Shakspeare's muse had the same tendency to reform the popular taste. To this pure source of refinement, and of pleasure, we may trace the popular passion for theatrical representations, which the ministers of Elizabeth regarded as a disorder, requiring necessary reform. The concourse of the people to the playhouse enabled the managers of them, first, to furnish simple accommodation, then to give greater convenience, and lastly, to superadd ornamental splendour: This progress of improvement, we may remark, drew still more the popular resort; while more ample recompense supplied the means of higher gratification to the multitudes, who, at the demise of Elizabeth, found in theatrical representations their greatest amusement.

Such are the various views, which those new notices give of the stage, in England, at every step of its progress. As Scotland was inhabited, during every period, by people of the same lineage, its laws, its customs, and its amusements, were, in every age, nearly alike. When the warlike sports of the field were fashionable among the valorous people of England, tournaments, and other martial pastimes, were the delight of the hardy inhabitants of Scotland^{5 note}. When London had its abbot of misrule, Edinburgh had its abbot of unreason^{6 note}; when the citizens of

London amused themselves with the festive feats of Robin Hood, the citizens of Edinburgh diverted themselves with the manly exercises of Robert Hude^{7 note}; and while the youth of London rose in tumult, when their sports were restrained, the bairns^{8 note} of Edinburgh ran into insurrection, when an attempt was made, at the æra of the Reformation, to suppress the game of Robin Hood. In Scotland, the drama held the same course, as in England, from rudeness to refinement; beginning with scriptural mysteries^{9 note}; improving with moralities; and finishing off with monarchicke tragedies^{1 note}.

It was not at Edinburgh alone, that the Abbot of Unreason practised his rustick revelry. At Aberdeen, a city, noted in every age for hilarity, they had in very early times, an Abbot of Bonne-Acorde^{2 note}, who gratified the citizens with a play; a scriptural play, or mystery^{3 note}. About a century after the acting

of the mystery of the Haliblude on the Wyndmyllhill, at Aberdeen, Sir David Lyndsay exhibited his moralities upon the Castlehill, near Cowpar-in-Fife. The sarcasm of the satirist was chiefly levelled at the prelats, the monks, and the nuns, who were exhibited, as extremely worthless; But, what must have been the coarseness of the barons, the dames, and the monarch, who could hear such ribaldry, without indignation, and see such obsceneness, without a blush^{4 note}.

A reformation was, however, at hand, which is said to have been brought forward, full as much by the moralities of Lindsay, as by the sermons of Knox. The Church of Scotland, as it adopted its fundamental principles, from the religious practices of Geneva, at the same time assumed its enmity to dramatick exhibitions. It is, nevertheless, certain, that a company of players performed at Perth, in June, 1589. In obedience, indeed, to the act of the assembly, which had been made in 1575^{5 note}

of the church, for a licence; showing a copy of their play: And, they were, accordingly, permitted to act the play, on condition, however, that no swearing, banning, nor any scurrility shall be spoken, which would be a scandal to religion, and an evil example to others^{6 note}.” Thus, it appears, that the church of Scotland adopted analogous measures to the judicious regulations of the wise ministers of England, at the same epoch; by allowing the use, but preventing the abuse of dramatick exhibitions. As a scholar, and a poet, King James admired the drama. And, some English comedians coming to Edinburgh, in 1599, he gave then a license to act, though he thereby offended the ecclesiasticks, who wanted not such provocation to disturb his government^{7 note}.

Yet, plays and players may be considered, as sightless substances, in Scotland, during that age. Nor, has diligence been able to show in the Scottish literature, any thing like a comedie, historie, or tragedie, from the revival of learning, to the accession of King James. The scurrilities of Lyndsay can no more be considered as legitimate dramas, than the scurril jests of Skelton, “a sharpe satirist indeed,” says Puttenham, “but with more rayling and scoffery than became a poet laureat^{8 note}.” Philotus, which, when originally printed, in 1603, was entitled, “Ane verie excellent, and delectabill Treatise,” was called a comedie, when it was republished in 1612. The marriage of Philotus, as we see it, in this rhapsodical colloquy, can scarce be called “a wedding mannerly modest:” Nor ought we to be surprized, that the church of Scotland preferred “a sad funeral feast,” to the coarse and immodest dialogues which were presented on the playfield to an unenlightened people. But Lord Stirling was now “weaving warp, and weaving woof,” the winding sheet of obscene plays: And, the monarchicke tragedies, which must be allowed to have sentiments that sparkle, though no words that burn, were entitled to the honour of James's acceptance, and to the higher honour of Shakspeare's adoption.

The historian of the English stage has aptly divided his subject into three periods: The first, from the origin of dramatick entertainments, to the appearance of Shakspeare's dramas; the second, during the illumination of the scene, by the sun of Shakspeare; and the third, from the time that this great luminary ceased to give light, and heat, and animation to the

theatrick world. Of the first of those periods, much has already been said; of the second, something remains to be added; and of the last, little need be remarked: It has been my constant endeavour, as it will be my subsequent practice, to add the new to the old, rather than to make the old seem new.

The demise of Elizabeth gave a different order to the several parts of our theatrical arrangements. King James is said “to have patronized the stage with as much warmth, as his predecessor:” But, after all the inquiries, which have been hitherto made, it has remained unknown, that a kind of theatrick revolution took place, on the arrival of James from Scotland. While he was bestowing grace on every rank, he showed particular favour to the actors^{9 note}. He accepted the Lord Chamberlain's servants, as his own; the Queen retained the Earl of Worcester's servants, as her's; and Prince Henry took the Earl of Nottingham's players, for his dramatick servants. King James arrived, at the Charterhouse, London, on the 7th of May, 1603; which may be deemed the epoch of that revolution. On the 19th of May he granted the license, which was first published by Rhymer, in 1705, to his servants, Laurence Fletcher, William Shakspeare, Richard Burbadge, Augustine Phillipes, John Hemings, Henrie Condel, William Slye, Robert Armin, and their associates, “freely to exercise the

faculty of playing comedies, tragedies, histories, interludes, morals, pastorals, stage plaies, as well within their now usual house, called the Globe, as within any convenient places, in any city, and universitie, within his kingdoms, and dominions.” Ample, and favourable, as this license was to those servants, it did not give them any exclusive privilege, which could prevent the actors of the Queen, or the servants of the prince, from acting similar plays, within his realms; though they were thus distinguished by the royal license. Of such players, who were still more distinguished, as the original actors of Shakspeare's characters, it may gratify curiosity, to know a little more of the life, and end.

RICHARD BURBADGE.

This celebrated comedian, who was, probably, born before the year 1570, in Holywell Street, and who rose, by his talents, to the highest rank of his profession, was the son of James Burbadge, who died in February, 1596–7, and may be regarded as one of the elders of the English stage: Yet, he lived to enjoy one of the greatest pleasures of a parent; to see his son at the head of his profession, and admired by the world. Richard Burbadge, probably, appeared on the stage, as soon as he could speak. In the year 1589, he represented Gorboduc, and Tereus, in Tarleton's Platt of the Seven Deadlie Sinns. In 1597, Richard Burbadge played the arduous character of Richard III. for the first time of its being performed. In the Cambridge comedy, called The Return from Parnassus, which was probably written about the year 1602, he is introduced, in his proper person; instructing a Cambridge scholar how to act Richard III. He performed the most difficult parts in Shakspeare's dramas; and was “such an actor, (says Sir Richard Baker, with an unprophetick spirit,) as no age must ever look to see the like.” He was an eminent partner in the Globe and Blackfriars theatres; so that the

actors, who performed there, were called Burbadge's Company. He was appointed by Augustine Phillips, in 1605, one of the overseers of his will. He continued to distinguish himself, and to amuse the lovers of the drama, till March 1618–19, when he was carried off by the plague; leaving his wife Winifrid^{5 note}, pregnant with her seventh child, and executrix of his nuncupative will. An epitaph, which was written for him, though not inscribed on his tomb, has the following couplet:

AUGUSTINE PHILLIPS

Was placed next to Richard Burbadge, in the royal license, of 1603. He was an author, as well as

an actor; And left behind him some ludicrous rhymes, which were entered in the Stationers' books, in 1593, and were entitled, The Jigg of the Slippers. In Tarleton's Platt of the Seven Deadlie Sinns, Phillips represented the effeminate Sardanapalus, in the year 1589. He is supposed to have represented characters in low life, with Kempe, and Armin, rather than royal personages, with Burbadge. Whatever he were, in the theatre, he certainly was a respectable man, in the world. He amassed considerable property by his prudence. And he died at Mortlake, in Surrey, in May, 1605; and was buried, by his dying request, in the chancel of the church of that parish; leaving his wife, Ann, executrix of his will, with this proviso, however, that if she married again, John Hemynges, Richard Burbadge, William Slye, and Timothie Whithorne, should be his executors. His widow did marry again: and John Hemynges immediately proved the will, on

the 16th of May, 1607; and assumed the trust, which Augustine Phillips had reposed in him. As the will of Phillips has escaped Mr. Malone's researches, and contains many curious particulars, I subjoin, in the note, a copy, which was extracted from the registry of the prerogative-court^{7 note}