Jjriivfi-R'sirv Preys' 1 * LIBRARY OF THK University of California. RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE Class r x ^ k ^> COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH Series II. Vol. IV, No. i. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE ELIZABETHAN DRAMA This Monograph has been approved by the Department of English in Columbia University as a contribution to knowledge worthy of Publication. A. H. THORNDIKE, Secretary. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE ELIZABETHAN DRAMA BY VIRGINIA CROCHERON GILDERSLEEVE Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia University NEW YORK 1908 • U N i V e r. X" Copyright, 1908, By THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS. Set up and electrotyped. Published July, 1908. XortoooD }3rrsa J. 3. Cushlng Co. —Berwick & Smith Co. Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. PREFACE In preparing this essay I have, of course, obtained many sug- gestions from the well-known works of Collier, Fleay, and Ordish, and especially from Mr. Chambers' admirable Mediaeval Stage and Tudor Revels, which, in the portion of my field that they cover, have been of great use to me. So far as possible, I have based my work on the official documents of the time, in the form in which they appear in the authoritative governmental collec- tions, such as the Statutes of the Realm and the Acts of the Privy Council. But in many instances, of course, I have had to use transcripts and excerpts made by independent scholars. In the case of quotations of any considerable length, I have endeavored, so far as I could, to reproduce the spelling used in my source. I cannot pretend, however, that there is the slight- est consistency in the usage found in my various documents ; for the methods of transcribers vary greatly, — ranging from Mr. Kelly's apparently exact reproductions of the Leicester Records, showing every curl and abbreviation, to such forms as some of Collier's, which are quite modern in spelling save for the interjection of an occasional final e, and to the entirely modern- ized versions, such as Birch's Charters. From the point of view of my subject, fortunately, this matter is of small importance. All dates I have expressed in the new style, except in the case of direct quotations. In these few instances the reader should bear in mind that according to the old style the year began on March 25. I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor William Allan Neilson, of Harvard University, who first suggested to me an investigation into some of the social conditions surrounding the theaters of Shakspere's day, and to the inspiration of whose teaching I owe much. My thanks are due also to Professor William W. Lawrence, of Columbia University, for suggestions, VI and to Professor John W. Cunliffe, of the University of Wiscon- sin, for his kindness in assisting me to procure some material. I am chiefly indebted, however, to Professor Ashley H. Thorn- dike, of Columbia University, who has aided me with constant advice and kindly encouragement, and, from his wide and minute knowledge of the Elizabethan drama, has contributed to my essay many valuable suggestions. Columbia University, March, 1908. CONTENTS PACE Introduction i CHAPTER I . National Regulation 4 II. The Master of the Revels 44 III. The Nature of the Censorship 89 IV. Local Regulations in London, 1543-1592 . . . 137 V. Local Regulations in London, 1 592-1 642 . . .178 VI. The Puritan Victory 215 Appendix — Royal Patents to Companies of Players . .231 List of Books Cited 235 Index 241 Vll UNIV GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE ELIZABETHAN DRAMA INTRODUCTION The following study has grown out of an investigation into the conditions surrounding the Elizabethan theaters and the char- acteristics of the people who attended them. In endeavoring to secure some light on Shakspere's audience, I was led to investigate the standing of players and playhouses in the eyes of the law. Since the facts concerning the government regula- tion of the drama under the Tudors and the early Stuarts have apparently never been collected in complete and orderly form, — though they have been incidentally treated in various books, — it seemed to me worth while to attempt an account of the laws and regulations, national and local, which affected the drama during this important period of its history. The results of such an investigation have considerable his- torical and sociological interest. They illustrate the political and religious controversies following the Reformation, when the still primitive drama was a dangerous controversial weapon. They bring us into touch with the economic and social unrest in the days when multitudes of "rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars" roamed through the country, and the memorable Poor Laws of Elizabeth made the first serious attempt to grapple with this problem, — laws which mentioned strolling "players in their interludes" among many other varieties of "masterless" vagabonds. We see, too, the economic system of monopolies, so widespread under Elizabeth and James, applied to the stage, in the granting to certain favored companies of players royal patents which gave them practically the exclusive right to per- form. From the point of view of constitutional history it is interesting to note the development of the Tudor and Stuart B l despotism, — the gradual extension of royal power and the overriding of the rights of local self-government ; so that finally, instead of regulation of plays by municipal and shire authorities, we find an officer of the King's household, the Master of the King's Revels, endowed with absolute licensing power over plays, players, and playhouses throughout the kingdom. . Of more concrete interest is the long controversy over plays in London, with edicts and counter-edicts from the royal Coun- cil and the municipal government. In miniature we see here the same conflict as in the civil war which was soon to come, — a spirit of Puritanism and love of civil liberty encountering the increasingly autocratic power of the royal government. This long controversy over the stage is supposed to have helped in- flame the Puritans with hatred of the Court and of royal despot- ism. They were forced to subside for a time, to submit to royal encroachment upon their liberties; but in 1642 and the years that followed they obtained their revenge upon players and Court alike. In the course of the controversy we gain also an interesting glimpse of the illogical irregularities of the English governmental system, the complicated and confused organization which the government of London had gradually developed, with its uncer- tain jurisdiction, its privileged persons and places, its laws which might or might not be enforced, its strange relics of guild rights and ecclesiastical exemptions. From the literary point of view such a study of laws and ordi- nances is of course valuable only in so far as it throws light on the history of the stage during this golden age. Patents and laws regulating the licensing of plays may be dull reading in themselves, but it is interesting to watch the pen of the censor rigorously expurgating pages of the plays submitted to him, and to speculate on the different lines the drama might have followed had it been free to treat all subjects at will. By far the most striking aspect of the study, however, is the acquaintance it gives us with the actual conditions surrounding the theaters of Shak- spere's day, when the Lord Mayor endeavored to suppress them as resorts where the "basest sort of people" rioted and plotted " most ungodly conspiracies," and as abominations which drew down upon the city the wrath of God. Through the maze of conflicting regulations and protesting letters one can catch vivid glimpses of that strange audience for whom Shakspere wrote, — ranging from the noblemen of the Essex conspiracy, who met at the Globe, including the brilliant figure of the young Earl of Southampton, a daily frequenter of the playhouses, down to the rabble of apprentices, vagabonds, and cutpurses who rioted in the pit, to the scandal of all peaceful citizens. In the essay which follows I have partially abandoned the usual chronological plan, in order to obtain a clearer and more unified view of the development of the different aspects of legis- lation and regulation. I shall deal first with the general regu- lation of the drama by the central government, through parlia- mentary statutes, royal proclamations, council orders, and patents, applying to the country at large. This includes the laws and patents concerning the status of players and the licens- ing of them, the licensing of playhouses, and, in general outline, the development of the power of censorship. The succeeding section traces the rise of the Master of the Revels from mere manager of court entertainments to regulator of the drama throughout the kingdom, the growth and exercise of his very extensive powers of licensing players, playhouses, and plays. Following this is a fairly minute study of the nature of that cen- sorship of which the Master was the official administrator, as it appears in the expurgations he made, and in the cases when players or playwrights were disciplined for indiscretions. The next two chapters give a somewhat detailed account of the local regulations in London, especially of the long and bitter strife between a municipal government trying to keep plays out of the city and royal authority endeavoring to have them admitted. With details of dramatic regulation in other parts of England I have not attempted to deal. The period is finally and defi- nitely closed by the victory of the Puritan movement. This had caused bitter attacks on the stage during most of the Elizabethan era, and it culminated at last in the Ordinances of the Long Parliament in 1642, 1647, and 1648, prohibiting all theatrical performances whatsoever. CHAPTER I National Regulation Before investigating the more interesting details of adminis- trative history in London during the golden years of the Eliza- bethan age, it is essential to survey the general regulation of the drama by the national government throughout our period, until 1642; that is, to consider such statutes, orders, proclamations, and patents as emanated from royal and parliamentary authority and applied to the kingdom at large. It is convenient to con- sider such legislation under three general heads, as it concerned itself with the licensing of plays, the licensing of players, or the licensing of playing places. The licensing of plays was the first to receive serious consideration from the government, and may conveniently be treated first. The licensing of plays evidently involved two questions, — when they should be allowed, and what they should contain. Sometimes they were suppressed altogether; sometimes merely their content was restricted, — they were censored. The exercise of the censorship in London under Elizabeth and the early Stuarts will be treated in detail in a later chapter. We have here to consider the general history of the censoring power from the beginning of the Tudor period until the Civil War. When Henry VII ascended the throne in 1485, the drama was already flourishing in England. Mysteries were being performed in many towns and parishes, and moralities were common. Noblemen kept among their retainers companies of professional players, and the King himself had a company in his household. 1 But in spite of all this dramatic activity, apparently no necessity for governmental censorship was yet felt. The regulation of plays seems to have been attended to 1 Sec below, pp. 22-23. I satisfactorily enough by the local civil and ecclesiastical authori- ties. Not until the troubles of the Reformation and the policies of Henry VIII began to arouse a spirit of revolt among the people, did the royal government feel that there was anything to fear from the content of plays. Then it became evident that the religious nature of the drama at this time, coupled with the religious nature of the questions in dispute, made the stage a peculiarly dangerous weapon. According to most stage historians, a proclamation in 1533 V attempted to regulate the content of plays. It forbade, we are told, all evil-disposed persons to preach, either in public or pri- vate, "after their own brains, and by playing of interludes and printing of false, fond books, ballads, rhymes, and other lewd treatises in the English tongue, concerning doctrines in matters now in question and controversy." . Were this authentic, it would be the earliest formal pronouncement concerning censor- ship. But no such edicl was issued in 1533. This proclama- tion, as may be seen by a comparison of the phrasing, was that promulgated by Queen Mary on August 18, 1553. 1 Warton, in his History of English Poetry, 2 by a slip, mentioned the document as having been issued in 1533, describing it as I have quoted above and citing Foxe's Martyrologie as his authority. But Foxe mentions no such edict in 1533. He does, however, on the page referred to by Warton, 3 give at length Mary's proc- lamation of 1553. Historians of the stage, following Warton's statement, have continued this error. 4 Though no formal censoring regulation of this sort was made at this early date, the drama was already being used for con- troversial purposes. Even in 1526 Wolsey had felt obliged to defend himself against the political attacks of a play at Gray's Inn, John Roo's morality of Lord Govemaunce and Lady Publike-Wele. 5 In the religious controversy it is interesting to note how, under royal sanction, the stage was being employed as a weapon on both sides, as the policy of the Crown changed. 1 See below, p. 10. 5 1824 edition, III, 428. 3 Martyrologie (1576 edition), 1339. * Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 119; Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, II, 220. * Chambers, op. cit., II, 192, 219. 6 The royal Defender of the Faith smiled at first on dramas in support of the Papacy. In 1527 there is record of a play by the St. Paul's boys before ambassadors from France, on the captivity of the Pope, in which the "herretyke Lewtar" was a character; and in 1528 comedies were acted before Wolsey on the release of the Pope, — also orthodox, no doubt. 1 But in 1533, the year of Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn, we note a change. A comedy was acted at Court in that year "to the no little defamation of certain cardinals"; 2 and in 1537 much offense was given to Bishop Gardiner, the Chancellor of Cam- bridge University, by the performance at Christ's College of a "tragedie," part of which was "soo pestiferous as were in- tolerable" — no less a play than the famous anti-papal Pam- machius itself. 3 The high officials of church and state now seem to have encouraged the use of interludes to spread the Protes- tant doctrine. There is evidence that Cromwell, especially, found the stage a convenient weapon in the Protestant cause; 4 and Cranmer was apparently in sympathy with this policy, for in 1539 there was an interlude at his house which a Protestant described as "one of the best matiers that ever he sawe touching King John," and which may have been John Bale's famous play. 5 When thus used to support views favored by the Crown, the controversial drama was graciously approved. But as the spirit of revolt spread through the country, the government discovered that plays could be used also as a weapon of attack by the oppo- nents of the royal policy. In 1537 it was found necessary to prohibit games and unlawful assemblies in Suffolk, on account of a "seditious May-game," which was "of a king, how he should rule his realm," and in which "one played Husbandry, and said many things against gentlemen more than was in the book of the play." 8 A more serious case of seditious use of the drama occurred in York about the same time (the exact date is unknown). We learn of it from a letter written by Henry VIII to some Jus- tice of the Peace in York, 7 regarding the "late evil and seditious 'Chambers, Mediaval Stage, II, 2x9-220. ' Ibid., II, 220. s Ibid. * Ibid. » Ibid., 221. c Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, XII, 557, 585. 7 Printed in a translation from the original Latin in Halliwell-Phillipps, Letters 0/ the Kings 0/ England, I, 354. rising" in that city at the performance of a " religious interlude of St. Thomas the Apostle." The King has been informed that the disorder was due to the seditious conduct of certain papists who took part in preparing for the interlude, and he exhorts the Justice to prevent any such commotion in future, and gives him authority to arrest and imprison "any papists who shall, in performing interludes which are founded on any portions of the Old or New Testament, say or make use of any language which may tend to excite those who are beholding the same to any breach of the peace." The passage, in 1539, of the Act abolishing Diversity in Opinions, which reasserted the doctrine of transubstantiation, communion in one kind, the celibacy of the clergy, monastic vows, private masses, and auricular confession, marked Henry's reaction against Protestantism, and was followed by persecution of the unorthodox. One Spencer, an ex-priest who had become an interlude-player, was burned at Salisbury for "matter con- cerning the sacrament of the altar"; 1 and in London a man was " presented for procuring an interlude to be openly played, wherein priests were railed on and called knaves." 2 Such cases as these led to the first legislation concerning the content of plays, — an important step in the history of govern- mental censorship. (This was the Statute 34 and 35 Henry VIII, cap. 1, passea in 1543, and entitled "An act for the ad- vancement of true religion and for the abolishment of the con- trary." 3 With the drama it deals only incidentally. It con- demns Tyndale's translation of the Bible and other unorthodox writings, and orders the suppression of anything conflicting with the doctrines authorized by the King. Seditious people, the act states, have tried to subvert the true doctrine not only by sermons, "but allso by prynted bokes, prynted^balades, jplayes, rymes, songes, and other fantasies." Any of these conflicting with the authorized religion are to be "abolished, extinguished, and for- bidden." j But the act shows no trace of the later Puritan dis- approvatof plays as such ; seditious matter in them it condemns, but their use for proper ends it expressly approves. ( It provides 1 Chambers, Medieval Stage, II, 221. * Ibid. 3 Statutes of the Realm, III, 894. 8 that "it shalbe lawfull to all and everye prsone and prsones, to sette foorth songes, plaies and enterludes, to be used and exer- cysed within this Realme and other the kinges Domynions, for the rebuking and reproching of vices and the setting foorth of vertue : so allwaies the saide songes, playes or enterludes med- dle not with interpretacions of Scripture, contrarye to the doc- tryne set foorth or to be sett foorth by the Kinges Majestic '} Any one accused of spreading unorthodox views in such ways is to be tried before any two of the King's Council or the Ordi- nary of the diocese (i.e. the bishop sitting in ecclesiastical court), and two Justices of the Peace of the same shire where the Or- dinary sits, or before any other person especially appointed for the purpose. Such censorship as there was, was therefore in the hands of these officials. With the accession of Edward VI, in 1547, royal approval turned again to extreme Protestantism. But during this reign there was, nevertheless, much difficulty in keeping plays within proper bounds. We find at the very outset that the actors were not held in good discipline. On February 5, 1547, the Bishop of Winchester wrote to the Lord Protector, requesting his inter- ference to thwart the Southwark players' project for a "solemn play" during his memorial services for the late King, "to trye who shall have most resorte, they in game, or I in ernest." x Protestant dramas were now written and encouraged by those high in authority. Edward VI, according to Bale, wrote a comedy De Meretrice Babylonica, John Foxe, the martyrologist, a Christus Triumphans, and Bale himself was of course the chief Protestant writer of controversial plays. 2 In 1551 the English comedies "in demonstration of contempt for the Pope" were reported by the Venetian Ambassador to his government. 3 - It was now the Catholic interludes which needed suppression ; and so serious was the danger of sedition from this source, that on August 6, 1549, there was issued a royal proclamation pro- hibiting English plays altogether for the next three months. "For asmuche as a greate number of those that be common 1 Stale Papers, Dom., 1547-1580, 1. 2 For details, sec Chambers, op. cit., II, 217-218, 223-224. ' Ibid., II, 222-223. 9 Plaicrs of Enterludes and Plaics," the edict recites, "as well within the citie of London, as els where within the realme, do for the moste pari plaie suche Interludes' as contain matter tendyng to sedicion and contempnyng of sundcry good orders and lawes, where upon are growen, and daily are like to growe and ensue, muche disquiet, division, tumultes, and uproares in this realme; the Kynges Maiestie . . . straightly chargeth and commaundeth al and every his Maiesties subjectes . . . that from the ix day of this present moneth of August untill the feast of all Sainctes ncxte comming, thei ne any of them, openly or secretly plaie in the English tongue any kynde of Interlude, Plaie, Dialogue or other matter set furthe in forme of Plaie in any place publique or private within this realme, upon pain that whosoever shall plaie in Englishe any such Play, Interlude, or other matter, shall suffre imprisonment, and further punishment at the pleasure of his Maiestie." ! — " The Act of Uniformity, passed by Parliament in the same year, 1549 (2 and 3 Edward VI, cap. 1), forbade interludes con- taining anything ''depraving and despising" the Book of Com- mon Prayer. 2 Serious trouble with the drama evidently continued, for on April 28, 1 55 1, another royal proclamation dealt with plays, and made the first attempt to establish a definite system of censor- ship. The avowed purpose of the edict is the "reformacion of Vagabondes, tellers of newes, sowers of seditious rumours, players, and printers without license & divers other disordred persons." It inveighs at length against sedition, unfaithfulness to the true religion, and lawbrcaking, and commands magis- trates to enforce the statutes. Devisers of rumors and tales touching his Majesty are to be punished. No one is to print, sell, or distribute anything in English without the written per- mission of the King or the Privy Council, on pain of imprison- ment and fine. Finally, a regulation similar to this one concerning the licensing of printing, is made concerning the cen- soring of plays : V Xor that any common players or other persons, vpon like paines, to play in thenglish tong, any maner Enter- lude, play or mattre, without they have special licence to shew 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 8. 2 Statutes of the Realm, IV, pt. i, 38. 10 for the same in writing vnder his maiesties signe, or signed by .vi. of his highnes priuie counsaill." ' J It was impossible, of course, for the Privy Council to exercise this censorship with any thoroughness throughout the kingdom ; but in some cases they certainly acted. In June, 1551, for ex- ample, the Council apparently considered that even noblemen's players should not perform before their masters without special leave, for they granted the Marquis of Dorset permission to have his players play "only in his lordship's presence." 2 And in June, 1552, it appears that they had ordered a "cowper" shut up in the Tower "for the making of plays." 3 With Mary's accession, in 1553, the pendulum swung again. At the very commencement of her reign a morality called Res- publica was represented at Court, which was bitterly anti-Protes- tant in sentiment, and introduced the Queen herself in the char- acter of Nemesis. 4 On the occasion, also, of her marriage with Philip, there were Catholic interludes and pageants. 5 Her realization of the danger from the use of the same weapon by her enemies to stir up Protestant revolt is shown in the long and interesting proclamation of August 18, 1553. 6 This declares that the Queen favors the Roman Catholic doctrine, but that she will not at present compel her subjects to accept it. She commands them, however, not to stir up any sedition or any disputes about these matters. Among methods of arousing revolt printing and playing again appear prominently. " And furthermore, forasmuche also as it is well knowen, that sedi- tion and false rumours haue bene nouryshed and maynteyned in this realme, by the subteltye and malyce of some euell disposed persons, whiche take vpon them withoute sufficient auctoritie, to preache, and to inter- prete the worde of God, after theyr owne brayne, in churches and other places, both publique and pryuate. And also by playinge of Inter- ludes and pryntynge false fonde bookes, ballettes, rymes, and other lewde treatises in the englyshe tonge, concernynge doctryne in matters now in question and controuersye, touchinge the hyghe poyntes and misteries 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, O-14. 2 Acts of the Privy Council, III, 307. s Ibid., IV, 73. * Printed in Brandl, Quellen des weltlkhen Dramas in England. 1 Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, II, 223. • Printed in full in Hazlitt, English Drama, 15-18. 11 of christen religion. . . . Her highnes therfore strayghtly chargeth and commaundeth all and every her sayde subiectes . . . that none of them presume from henceforth to preache . . . or to interprete or teache any scriptures, or any maner poyntes of doctryne concernynge religion. Neythcr also to prynte any bookes, matter, ballet, ryme, interlude, processe or treatyse, nor to playe any interlude, except they haue her graces speciall licence in writynge for the same, vpon payne to incurre her highnesse indignation and displeasure." In this provision for royal license and censorship no express mention is made, as in Edward's proclamation of 1551, of the license by six of the Privy Council as alternative to the royal permission. But it was evidently through the Council that the royal authority was exercised. In spite of the proclamation, troubles with plays were frequent, and we find the Council vigi- lantly interfering in various parts of the country. In 1556 and 1557 the difficulties seem to have grown acute. On February 14, 1556, the Privy Council ordered Lord Rich, the Lord Lieu- tenant of Essex, to stop and investigate a play about to be given in that county, and report to the Council. 1 In the following April they directed the Lord President of the North to suppress a company of players who had "wandered abowt the North partes, and represented certaine playes and enterludes, conteyn- ing very naughty and seditious matter touching the King and Quene's Ma u and the state of the realme, and to the slaunder of Christe's true and Catholik religion, contrary to all good ordre, and to the manifest contempt of Allmighty God, and daungerous example of others." The Council directed the Lord President of the North to give orders to all the Justices of the Peace within his rule that "they doo in no wyse suffer any playes, enterludes, songues, or any suche lyke pastymes whereby the people may any wayes be steryd to disordre, to be used by any manner p'sonnes, or under any coulour or pretence." 2 It is evident from this that, in spite of the proclamation limiting the licensing power to the Crown, the actual exercise of censorship, the re- sponsibility of determining whether any play contained seditious 1 Acts of the Privy Council, V, 234, 237. 1 Letter printed in Lodge, Illustrations, I, 212-213. 12 or heretical matter, rested with the Justices of the Peace and other local officials. In May there is another mention of an order "against players and pipers strolling through the kingdom, disseminating sedition and heresies." l In June of the following year, 1557, the Council ordered the Mayor of London to arrest players who had been giving "naughty plays," and to permit no play henceforth within the City "except the same be first seen and allowed" 2 — pre- sumably by the municipal officials. In the same month the Mayor of Canterbury arrested some actors and sent their "lewd play-book" to the Council for its consideration. 3 The boldness of the players apparently became so great that the Council de- cided to forbid all plays during the summer. Orders to this effect were sent to the Justices of the Peace of every shire, 4 but the enforcement of the rule was difficult. The Council reprimanded the Justices of Essex, because of their laxness in this duty ; 5 in September it directed the Mayor of London to prevent the performance of another "lewd play," called a "Sacke full of Newes," at the Boar's Head without Aldgate, to arrest the players, and to send their playbook to the Council. 6 On due consideration the Lords evidently decided that the " Sacke full of Newes" was harmless, for the next day they bade the Mayor release the players. 7 At the same time they directed him to charge the actors throughout the city "not to play any plays, but between the feasts of All Saints 8 and Shrovetide, and then only such as are seen and allowed by the Ordinary," 9 —that is, by the Bishop of London sitting in ecclesiastical court. This appears to be the first formal delegation by the Crown and Privy Council of the power of licensing plays, though, as we have seen, in practice such power had been exercised before by local officials. In view of the religious nature of the plays and of the matters in dispute, it was natural that the Bishop should be chosen for this duty in London. As we have found, the Ordinary had before 1 State Papers, Dom., 1547-1580, 82. 2 Acts, VI, 102. 5 Ibid., 119. 8 November 1. 3 Ibid., no, 148. 6 Ibid., 168. 9 Acts, VI, 169. *Ibid., 118-119. 7 Ibid., 169. 13 this possessed a somewhat similar jurisdiction. 1 Concerning the Bishop of London's administration of this power, we have no definite information. In later years, as we shall see, he and the Archbishop of Canterbury sometimes interfered again in dramatic affairs in London. In tracing the history of the censorship we have now reached the opening of Elizabeth's reign. Hitherto, as we have seen, such scanty and vague legislation as there was concerning the licensing of plays had reserved this power to the Crown and the Priw Council, except for some authority granted to the Ordinary. In practice, however, it is evident that the Council did not ex- pect this rule to be followed. It was obviously impossible for them to overlook beforehand and license plays throughout the kingdom. There was no definite system of licensing, but they apparently expected the local officials, — the Lord Lieutenants and the Justices of the Peace in the shires, and in the towns the Mayors. — to exercise supervision. The Council reserved, of course, supreme authority, and in cases of flagrant impropriety they interfered, through the local officials, and sometimes called for the book of the play, to see how serious the matter was. We shall find that during the early years of Elizabeth's reign practically the same system was in force, though it was now formulated more definitely. In summing up this early period we should notice also that the censorship and licensing apparently applied to both public and private performances; that it sometimes, however, dealt only with those in English, not with Latin plays ; and that the censoring was concerned with suppressing sedition and heresy, — anything likely to stir up political revolt, — and not with matters of decency and morality. The opening of Elizabeth's reign reveals a situation in the dramatic world not unlike that which confronted her prede- cessors. Moderate Protestantism was now again in the ascen- dant, and steps were taken to prevent danger of sedition from Catholic or other unorthodox plays. The Act of Uniformity, in 1559 (1 Elizabeth, cap. 2), reenacted the provision of 2 and 3 Edward VI, cap. 1, against "depraving or despising" the Book 1 See above, p. 8. 14 of Common Prayer in interludes. 1 In April, 1559, Elizabeth found it necessary to adopt the precaution used at times by her predecessors, — that of prohibiting plays altogether for a season. As in the past, it was felt that summer was the time of greatest danger from the controversial drama. This first proclamation of Elizabeth therefore inhibited all plays and interludes until the following November. So, at least, Holinshed informs us, and he refers to this proclamation as having been issued "at the same time" as another which he has just been telling us was made on April 7. 2 As we find no other reference to this April proclamation on the drama, and as Holinshed does not mention Elizabeth's second edict on the subject, in the following month, it may be that he is here referring rather inaccurately to this edict of May 16, generally called by stage historians Elizabeth's second proclamation concerning plays. It is certain, at all events, that on May 16, 1559, the Queen issued an important proclamation 3 which explicitly established a more definite system of licensing plays than had previously existed, though it was really little more than a codification of the practice hitherto in use, — supervision by the municipal officers in towns and by Lord Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace in shires. "Forasmuche as the tyme wherein common Interludes in the Englishe tongue are wont vsually to be played, is now past vntyll All Halloutyde," the proclamation recites, "and that also some that haue ben of late vsed, are not conuen- ient in any good ordred Christian Common weale to be suft'red. The Quenes Maiestie doth straightly forbyd al maner Interludes to be playde, eyther openly or priuately, except the same be noticed before hande, and licenced within any citie or towne corporate by the Maior or other chiefe officers of the same, and within any shyre, by suche as shalbe Lieuetenaunts for the Queenes Maiestie in the same shyre, or by two of the Justices of peax inhabyting within that part of the shire where any shalbe played." » Then follow instructions to guide the officials in their censoring, 1 Statutes, IV, pt. i, 356. And see above, p. 9. 2 Holinshed, Chronicles (1586-1587 edition), III, 1184. 3 Printed in full in Hazlitt, English Drama, 19-20. 15 and these show in an interesting way the establishment of the conciliatory policy followed, in the main, during all of Eliza- beth's reign, — that of removing the drama altogether from the field of political and religious controversy. "And for instruc- tion to cucry of the sayde officers, her maiestie doth likewise charge euery of them as they will aunswere :(that they permyt none to be played, wherin either matters of religion or of the governance of the estate of the commo weale shalbe handled, or treated; beyng no meete matters to be wrytten or treated vpon, but by menne of aucthoritie, learning, and wisedome, nor to be handled before any audience but of graue and dis- creete persons. '1 If any shalfat tempt to disobey this edict, the officials are ordered to arrest and imprison the persons so offending for fourteen days or more, as the case shall warrant, and until they give surety that they will be of good behavior in the future. This system of censorship by local authorities continued in force undisputed for some fifteen years, nor was it, indeed, ever entirely superseded. We should not imagine, however, that it was ever very rigorously carried out, and that every play was carefully "seen and allowed" before presentation. There must have been great laxness in the administration. Royal / authority was still, of course, supreme, ancL_directly or through the Prrry^ouncilT^rrntervened at will to permit favored plays or to suppress and punish peculiarly flagrant impropriety in dramatic handling of political affairs. An example of the working of the system is to be seen in a letter of June, 1559, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord President of the North, from Sir Robert Dudley, afterwards Earl of Leices- ter, on behalf of his servants, players of interludes. They have received, he says, license for their interludes in various shires from the Lord Lieutenants, and he begs that they may be simi- larly favored for Yorkshire by Lord Shrewsbury. They are " honest men," he assures the Earl, " and suche as shall plaienone other matters, I trust, but tollerable and convenient." ' /The administration of the system in towns is strikingly exemplified in the Order of the London Common Council, of 1 Lodge, Illustrations, I, 307. y 16 December 6, 1574, 1 which we shall consider at length in a later chapter. In the matter of censorship this provides that, before presentation,yplays must be perused and permitted by the persons appointed for that purpose by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen ; and the utterance of unchastity or sedition at performances is to be punished by a fine and the fourteen days' imprisonment specified by the proclamation of 1559. "}Yery striking is the emphasis laid upon the necessity of censoring "unchaste, un- comely, and unshamefaced speeches," — a Puritan care for morality in contrast with the purely political attitude of the J governmental declarations which we have hitherto considered, concerned, as they were, solely with the suppression of matter tending to sedition. A few months before this order of the London authorities, the first definite step had been taken towards the establishment of a licensing power which was eventually to supersede that of town and shire officials. The Master of the Revels will be treated in detail in the following chapter; it is here necessary only to survey very briefly his place in the general history of the censorship. An official of the King's household, subordinate to the Lord Chamberlain, he was originally concerned only with the management of court entertainments. In the performance of this duty he naturally overlooked beforehand and expurgated, if need be, plays which were to be performed at Court. The first sign of the extension of this power to outside performances is found in the royal patent to Leicester's players issued on May 7, 1574, 2 i which granted them the privilege of performing throughout the kingdom, provided that their plays "be by the Master of our Revels (for the time being) before seen and allowed." The authority here given over one company was immensely extended by a patent to the Master in 1581, 3 which, among other powers, authorized him to "warne, comaunde and appointe in all places <> within this our Realme of England, as well within Francheses and Liberties as without, all and ev'ry plaier or plaiers, with their playmakers, either belonginge to any Noble Man or other- 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 27-31. See below, pp. 156 ff. 2 Ibid., 25—26. Sec below, pp. 33—34. 3 Shakspere Society Papers, III, 1 17. See below, p. 51. 17 wise bearinge the Name or Names or usingc the Facultie of Pla\ makers or Plaiers of Comedies, Trajedies, Enterludes, or what other Showes soever, from tyme to tyme and at all tymes to appeare before him, with all suche IMaies, Tragedies, Comedies or Showes as they shall have in readiness, or mcanc to set forth, and them to presente and reeite before our said Servant or his sufficient Deputie, whom we ordeyne, appointe and authorise bv these presentes of all suche Showes, Plaies, Plaiers and Play- makers, together with their playinge places, to order and reforme, auctorise and put downe, as shalbe thought meete or unmeete unto himself or his said Deputie in that behalfe." The first part of this passage may refer merely to his selection of plays for court performance, but it could be stretched to other purposes. The latter part certainly confers on him very ex- tensive, if rather vague, powers over all the drama. Since the licensing of plays was a profitable business, it was to the interest of the Master to develop this authority as extensively as possible. This he began straightway to do ; but it would be folly to sup- pose that this patent created at once any revolution in the censor- ing of the drama. It was years before the Master's licensing authority was thoroughly established in and about London. It could never have been thoroughly established throughout the rest of the kingdom. But it grew steadily during all our period. The London officials continued for some time to exercise censoring power; but the system outlined in the Common Council Order of 1574 was apparently not carried out very con- sistently. In 1582, when the Privy Council was requesting that plays be allowed in ~London7~iTsuggested that the City should "appoint some proper person to consider and allow such plays only as were fitted to yield honest recreation and no ex- ample of evil." 1 The Mayor replied that this suggestion would be carried out, and that "some grave and discreet person" would be appointed to peruse the plays. 2 When the Martin Marprelate Controversy was raging in 1589, some of the players ridiculed the Martinists on the stage. Though the persons attacked were the adversaries of the Estab- lished Church, the government, in pursuance of its policy of al- 1 Acts, XIII, 404. 2 Remcmbruiicia, 351. c 18 lowing no matters of "divinity and state" to be agitated upon the stage, took rigorous steps to suppress all offensive plays. For more effective censorship in this emergency, the Privy Council devised a commission representing the three powers which had been recognized as possessing authority over the drama, — the Church, the City, and the Crown. The Council requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint "some fit person well learned in Divinity," and the Mayor to choose " a sufficient per- son learned and of judgment." These two were to act with the Master of the Revels, the representative of the Crown, in examining all plays to be publicly presented in and about Lon- don, and striking out and reforming "such parts and matters as they shall find unfit and undecent to be handled in plays, both for Divinity and State." x There is no further record of this commission. Whether it was ever appointed and ever acted, we do not know. The episode is interesting and illuminating, however, as showing the conception of the power of censorship in 1589, and the ( gradual progress of the Master of the Revels towards exclu- sive licensing power. In 1592, the city authorities refer to his supreme power of licensing plays in and about London, 2 but he does not seem to have established this firmly and per- manently until the beginning of the seventeenth century. He appears but dimly in the agitation of the years 1 600-1601, when the Privy Council was trying to restrain "the immoderate use and company of Playhouses and Players" in and about London, and sent urgent orders to the Lord Mayor and to the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex and Surrey. 3 In May, 1601, when the Council was displeased by the content of a play at the Curtain, it wrote to the Justices of Middlesex as those having power of censorship, and directed them in the exercise of this. 4 But by the accession of James I the Master was fairly well \ established as censor of plays in and about London. As we shall see, he performed this duty rigorously and profitably under 1 Acts, XVIII, 214-216; Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 268-269, note. 2 Remembrancia, 352-353. 3 See below, pp. 190 ff. * See below, p. 100. 19 the Stuart rule. A slight invasion of his prerogatives is found in January, 1604, when the royal patent to the Children of the Queen's Revels provided that Samuel Daniel should approve and allow all plays to be performed, before the Queen or pub- licly, by this company. 1 The city authorities seem to have made no further claim to licensing plays. The church only occa- sionally interfered. In 1619, for example, the Bishop of Lon- don exercised the right once granted him, by forbidding the production of Barnevelt. 2 The Crown and the Privy Council, — still reserving supreme power, of course, — frequently inter- vened, as we shall see, through the Master or over his head, to protest against unfit matter in plays or to suppress them alto- gether at times, as during the plague, in Lent, or on Sundays. The Lord Chamberlain, as the immediate superior of the Master, also claimed especial authority over the drama, and towards the end of the period he frequently acted directly in cases of trouble. Thus the hierarchy of dramatic rulers ran, — King, Privy Council, Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Revels ; and all the higher powers interfered at will, though for the most part they left the exercise of authority to the Master, the servant of the Crown. There remains to be considered in this connection some gen- eral legislation affecting the licensing of plays, — their content or their entire suppression at times. The Puritans had a ma- jority in James' first Parliament, and this domination continued. Its influence now appears in legislation. ( In May, 1606, an act was passed "for the preventing and avoiding of the great abuse of the Holy Name of God in Stage playes, Interludes, , Maygames, Shows and such like." If any person shall, in such J performances, "jestingly or prophanely speak or use the Holy Name of God or of Christ Jesus, or of the Holy Ghost or of the Trinity, which are not to be spoken but with fear and reverence," 1 Patent in Hazlitt, English Drama, 40-41. 2 State Papers, Dom., 1619-1623, 71. Mr. Fleay (London Stage, 266), con- sidering the intervention of the Bishop a "remarkable innovation in stage his- tory," thinks the mention of him a mistake, the Lord Mayor being the person really meant. But, as we have seen, the Bishop had previously possessed such authority, and the Mayor would not have been likely to interfere at this late date. See below, p. 114. 20 he shalL the act provides, be fined ten pounds for each offense. 1 jAs we shall see, the Master of the Revels conscien- tiously eTTaeavored to put this into effect. The Puritan objection to any sports on the Sabbath also ap- pears in general legislation. On his accession James issued a proclamation forbidding all " Bearbaiting, Bullbaiting, Enter- ludes, Common plays, or other like disordered or unlawful Exercises or pastimes" on the Sabbath. 2 But the extremes to which the Puritans went in their suppression of " lawful recrea- tions and honest exercises" on Sunday annoyed James. Such exercises were beneficial to the people, he declared, and besides, this prohibition of them would militate against the conversion of papists, who would think our religion allowed "no honest mirth or recreation." In 1618 the King therefore issued the order known as the "Book of Sports," 3 and to the indignation of the Puritans commanded that it be published in all parish churches. This allowed, after evening prayers, on Sundays and holy days, dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, May-games, Whitsun Ales, and Morris Dances. But plays were still pro- hibited, along with bear and bull baitings and bowling. Apparently these unlawful pastimes still continued, for the first statute of the first Parliament of Charles I was one for "punishing of divers abuses committed on the Lord's day, called Sunday." * The phrasing of this act is strongly Puritan in tone. Under penalty of a fine, all persons are forbidden to produce or attend the condemned shows, — bear baitings, bull baitings, interludes, etc. "Lawful sports" are still permitted. The Puritans complained that this prohibition of Sunday plays was not enforced ; 5 but to Charles it seemed that the Puritan extremists were again prevailing. In 1633, accordingly, he ratified and republished his father's order of 1618, declaring that no one was to be molested when engaging in " lawful sports" 1 3 James I, cap. 21. Statutes, IV, pt. ii, 1097. Journals of the House of Commons, I, 270, 286, 294, 300. Journals of the House of Lords, II, 416, 419, 422, 436. 2 Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 341. 3 Printed in Lang, Social England Illustrated, 311-314. 4 Statutes, V, 1. Continued by 3 Charles I, cap. 5. Statutes, V, 30. ' Prynne, Histrio-Mastix, 645, 717; 1821 Variorum, III, 148, note. on Sunday. The prohibition of plays on the Sabbath remained as before. 1 Such was the course of general legislation on this subject until 1642, when the Puritans prevailed and prohibited all plays whatsoever at all times and seasons. The details of the London regulations will be considered in a later chapter. We have followed, in general outline, the history of the power of licensing plays, of determining what might be played, and when plays must be stopped altogether. The next point to consider is the licensing of players. Who might play? How were they licensed? There has been some misunderstanding on these points. The mention in the statutes of unlicensed players as "rogues and vagabonds," liable to brutal punishment, and the frequency with which Puritan w T riters reproached the profession with this degrading fact, have led people to believe that according to the English law all players were outcasts. It is true that the Roman law regarded the actor as without civic standing, incapable of citizenship, and the early church legis- lation continued this policy, compelling him to give up his pro- fession before he could be baptized. 2 Though the class of actors against whom these laws were made died out, the medieval church preserved in its legislation much the same attitude towards their successors, the minstrels, regarding them as beyond the pale. But until the growth of extreme Puritanism revived the early church policy on the subject, this attitude towards players does not appear in English law. No explicit provision for the licensing of actors was made until the statute of 1.572; but, as we found in the case of the censor- ship, when the law came it was little more than a codification of the practices which had already grown up. Our first step is to try to discover what the status of players was during the preceding century or more, when feudal England was passing over to modern. It is important to bear in mind that, according to the feudal conception of society, every man must have a definite place in 1 Lang, Social England Illustrated, 316. 2 See Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, I, chap. I, and Thompson, Puritans and Stage, 20-21. 22 the social hierarchy; some personage or organization must be responsible for him; he must owe allegiance to some suzerain, lay or ecclesiastical, or to some guild or town corporation. The unattached person, "the masterless man," was an object of sus- picion, an outcast ; feudal society had no hold upon him. How, then, did the players fit into this social system? The predeces- sors of the professional actors, the minstrels, had solved the problem in various ways : they had been retainers of nobles and other powerful personages; they had imitated the trades in organizing guilds with power to license and regulate the pro- fession. 1 By the time the professional players developed, how- ever, it was too late for a guild system to be the natural method of regulation. It was rather the protection of a powerful lord given to his retainers that grew into a licensing system. As we view the state of affairs in the latter part of the fifteenth century, we find various sorts of companies performing. There were, as every one knows, many plays given in towns, especially the great cycles of mysteries presented by the trades guilds. The actors in these were members of the guilds, in good civic standing, and the performance was generally regarded as a worthy religious act. There were parish plays somewhat simi- lar in character. There were — rather later, perhaps — plays given by pupils in schools, by students in universities, by the young lawyers of the Inns of Court. All these were more or less amateur performances, approved by public opinion; the actors were persons of definite standing in the community; there was, of course, no suspicion of their being "rogues and vagabonds." Of a somewhat different type were the companies kept by noblemen for their own amusement, — the strictly professional players, descendants, apparently, of the minstrel class. By the opening of the Tudor period these were fairly well established. The earliest of which we have definite record are those of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, afterwards Richard III, both mentioned in 1482. 2 Before the end of the century the Earls of Northumberland, Oxford, Derby, 1 Chambers, op. cit., I, 55. J Collier, in Shakspere Society Papers, II, 87-88. 23 and Shrewsbury, and Lord Arundel, all had their players, 1 and later the practice became widespread. Royal patronage was not lacking. Henry VII had four players of interludes in his household ; his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, had a company of his own by 1498, and Prince Henry, afterwards Henry VIII, one by 1506. 2 All the Tudor rulers continued to have a royal company in their household. As personal retainers of such noble and royal personages, these players had, of course, adequate protection and a definite place in the social system. No explicit recognition of their rights by the law was necessary. The earliest mention of them in the statutes, in 1463, though merely incidental, indicates a rather favorable attitude towards them. Together with hench- men, heralds, pursuivants, swordbearers to mayors, messengers, and minstrels, "players in their enterludes" are exempted from the sumptuary law regulating the apparel to be worn by differ- ent classes of society. 3 This exemption was continued by later statutes. 4 While such town, parish, and household players performed in their own homes, they were obviously safe from arrest as vagabonds. It was the players who "wandered abroad" who needed some definite license to protect them. And they began to travel very early. The guild and parish players frequently left their homes. In the towns of Lydd and New Romney, for instance, we find, as Mr. Chambers tells us, records of the visits of players, between 1399 and 1508, from no less than fourteen neighboring places in Kent and Sussex. 5 When their services were not required in the households of their masters, royal and noblemen's companies also traveled, 6 playing wherever most profit might be gained. Court performances by outside com- panies also began early. Under Henry VII there are records of payments to players of noblemen and corporate towns, and to "French players." 7 1 Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, II, 186. * Ibid., 188, note. 5 3 Edward IV, cap. 5. Statutes, II, 402. 4 1 Henry VIII, cap. 14; 6 Henry VIII, cap. 1; 7 Henry VIII, cap. 6; 24 Henry VIII, cap. 13. Statutes, III, 9, 122, 181, 432. 1 Mediaeval Stage, II, 121. See also ibid., 184-185. ' Ibid., 187. 7 1821 Variorum, III, 42-43; Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 75, note. 24 While he could show his connection with some guild or town corporation, or some royal or noble personage, and claim such protection, the traveling player was safe from molestation by the authorities, except in cases of flagrant misbehavior. But the player who wandered without any such connection was obviously a "masterless man," without place in the social system, and if he attracted the notice of the local officials, he was liable — not as player, but as masterless man — to the penalties imposed upon all vagabonds. And these penalties were severe. For centuries England had suffered from the disorders caused by multitudes of such unattached and irresponsible persons. With the Statutes of Laborers, in the middle of the fourteenth century, began a long course of legislation endeavoring to suppress such "vagabonds and valiant beggars." As the feudal households broke up after the Wars of the Roses, as soldiers found no lord to follow to battle, as the monasteries were dissolved, and the monks and the beggars they had fed were thrown upon the world, the necessity grew for rigorous action against the hordes of tramps and rogues who infested and made dangerous the highways. The laws became extremely severe; but severity alone could accomplish little. Under Elizabeth, however, a great series of statutes grappled seriously with the problem, and established what remains to this day the basis of the English Poor Law. 1 It was one of this series which first laid down, in 1572, a definite system of licensing players. But before taking up these pro- visions in detail, it is well to consider a few incidents of govern- ment action showing the situation of players during the period just before the passage of the statute. The notable act of 1543, already mentioned as the first to suggest censorship, indicates that at this time no license for players was required, at least for mysteries and" moralities, for it provides that "it shalbe Iawfull to all and everye prsone and prsoncs, to sette foorth songes, plaies and enterludes, to be used and exercysed within this Realme and other the kinges Domyn- lons, for the rebuking and reproching of vices and the setting ' ' foorth of vertue." 2 1 For the history of this legislation, see Nicholls, English Poor Law, I. 2 See above, p. 7. 25 There arc signs that wandering players were beginning to become prominent among the crowd of other troublesome vaga- bonds. In 1545 Henry VIII issued a proclamation "for the punishment of Vagabonds, RulTins, and Idlepsons," ' condemn- ing the evils of vagabondage and declaring that for the reforma- tion thereof the King had decided to employ on his galleys and other vessels, for service in his wars, "all such ruffyns, Vaga- bonds, Masteries men, Comon players, and euill disposed psons." It is probable from the context, as Mr. Chambers sug- gests, 2 that "Comon players" here refers to gamblers; or it may be the first appearance of actors in the ignoble classifica- tion of vagabonds. The protection of great names had evidently been wrongfully used by wanderers, for the proclamation re- quires that no one shall avow any man to be his servant unless he really and legally is. An example of a company traveling under the protection of a nobleman's name is found in the incident already referred to, when, during the acutely troubled times of Queen Mary's reign, in April, 1556, the Privy Council wrote to the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord President of the North, requiring him to suppress a company which had been presenting "naughty and seditious plays" in the north parts. These players, six or seven in number, had "named themsellfs to be servaunts unto S r Frauncis Leek," and had worn "his livery and badge on theyr sieves." Evidently Sir Francis was considered responsible for the conduct of his servants, for the Council ordered Lord Shrewsbury to write to him, "willing him to cause the said players that name themsellfs his servaunts to be sought for, and sent forthw th unto you, to be farther examined, and ordred according to theyr deserts," and commanding also "that he suffer not any of his servaunts hereafter to goo abowte the coun- trie, and use any playes, songs, or enterludes, as he will aunswer for the contrary." 3 The liability of unprotected traveling players to punishment as vagabonds is evident in the concluding portion of this letter. 1 Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 6-7. 2 Mediccval Stage, II, 222, note. 3 Lodge, Illustrations, I, 212-213. 26 " And in caase any p'sonne shall attempt to sett forth these sorte of games or pastymes at any tyme hereafter, contrary to this ordre, " — i.e. the order given earlier in the letter against seditious plays, etc. — "and doo wander for that purpose, abrode in the countrie; yo r L. shall do well to gyve the Justices of Peace in charge to see them apprehendyd owt of hande, and punished as vagabounds, by vertue of the statute made agaynst loytering and idle p'sonnes." Elizabeth's proclamation of 1559, though containing no y provision concerning the licensing of players, mentions the companies of noblemen and gentlemen, and recognizes the re- sponsibility of the patrons in seeing that their servants obey the regulations concerning censorship. "And further her Maiestie gyueth speciall charge to her nobilitie and gentilmen, as they professe to obey and regarde her maiestie, to take good order in thys behalfe wyth their servauntes being players, that this her Maiesties commaundement may be dulye kepte and obeyed." 1 We have seen how, in accordance with this order, Sir Robert Dudley, in the following month, wrote a letter on behalf of his players to the Lord President of the North. 2 The operation of this system of licensing — if it may be called a system — can be observed also in the records of the town of Leicester, which Mr. Kelly has published. Many traveling companies appeared in Leicester, and when the Mayor or other municipal officers had approved of their right to play, they were permitted to give a sort of official performance. It is interesting to note the kind of license these companies had, — that is, under the protection of what personage or corporation they traveled. 3 The first company so recorded is in 1530, — a royal one, the Princess Mary's players. In the following year the same company came again, and also the King's players. In 1537 came the Earl of Derby's company and the Lord Secre- tary's. Later on appear those of Sir Henry Parker, of the Lord 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 20. 2 See above, p. 15. 3 See the records in Kelly, Drama in Leicester, under the years mentioned. Portions of similar records for other towns may be found in the Historical MSS. Commission Reports. See, for example, visits of companies to Cambridge from 1530 on, III, 322-323; and to Abingdon from 1559 on, II, 149-150. 27 Protector, of the Marquis of Northampton, of the Duke of Northumberland, and in 1555 and 1557 the Queen's players. After Elizabeth's accession the "Queen's players" appear frequently, and the number of noblemen's and gentlemen's companies increases. One appears under the name of "my Lady of Suffolk." Companies from other towns also come, — the "players of Coventry" in 1564, 1567, 1569, and 1571, the "players of Hull" in 1568. So runs the record up to the pas- sage of the statute of 1572. It is evident, then, that in this period, though no license was explicitly required, something like a licensing system had grown naturally out of existing social conditions. Players who wan- dered abroad needed to have their legal status certified to by connection with some town or some person of rank. Otherwise they were liable to be treated as vagabonds, like other master- less men. The determination of their standing was naturally left to the discretion of the local authorities, — Mayors and Justices of the Peace. In all cases, of course, they were supposed to obey such censorship regulations as there were, and the edicts stopping plays at times. The famous Statute 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5 (1572), 1 was entitled "An Acte for the Punishement of Vacabondes, and for Relief of the Poore and Impotent." Besides many other provisions, it endeavored to regulate the throngs of wanderers on the high- ways, and it provided a system of licensing for such of them as were engaged in legitimate business, — proctors, fencers, bear- wards, actors, minstrels, jugglers, peddlers, tinkers, chapmen, and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge going about begging. Two forms of license were available for players who "wandered abroad." They might "belong to any baron of the realm or other honorable personage of greater degree." Mere gentlemen, who had previously authorized companies, as we saw in the proclamation of 1559, 2 were no longer allowed the licensing power. If players had not the protection of a noble personage, they were required to procure a license from " two Justices of the Peace at the least, whereof one to be of the Quorum, where and in what shire they shall happen to wander." 1 Statutes, IV, pt. i, 590. 2 See above, p. 26. 28 Subsequent Poor Laws altered this system, steadily limiting the number of those authorized to license traveling players, taking away power from local officials, and gradually concen- trating it, theoretically at least, in the Crown. The 39 Elizabeth (1 597-1 598), cap. 4, 1 no longer permitted the license of two Jus- tices of the Peace. Only barons or other personages of greater degree could license players who "wandered abroad," and the authorization must be in writing, "under the hand and seal of arms of such baron or personage." Finally, the Statute 1 James I, cap. 7 2 (1604), limited the licensing power to the Crown alone. "Henceforth," it declared, "no authority to be given or made by any baron of this realm, or other honorable personage of greater degree, shall be available to free and discharge the said persons, or any of them, from the pains and punishments" inflicted on vagabonds. This left only the possibility of royal license. It will be noticed that these laws applied only to players "wandering abroad." This was a vague and elastic term, never, so far as I know, explicitly defined. It might have been taken, one would suppose, to apply to any town actors perform- ing away from their home town, and to any nobleman's or royal company acting in public away from the household and presence of their patron. The penalties to which the unlicensed traveling player was liable were extremely severe. According to the 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5, if convicted of vagabondage, he was "grievously whipped, and burnt through the gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch about . . . except some honest per- son take such offender into his service for one whole year next following." If he left this service, he was to suffer the punish- ment just described. On a second offense he was to be put to ■ death as a felon, unless taken into service for two years, and if he deserted from this, he was to be executed. On a third con- viction he was to suffer death and loss of land and goods as a felon, without allowance of benefit of clergy or sanctuary. 3 These punishments were altered somewhat by later laws. The 35 Elizabeth, cap. 7, substituted setting in the stocks for the burn- 1 Statutes, IV, pt. ii, 899. 2 Ibid., 1024. 3 Ibid., pt. i, 590. 29 ing described above. 1 According to the 39 Elizabeth, cap. 4, the vagabond was to be whipped and sent back to his birthplace or last residence; on repeated offenses to be imprisoned and banished; and if he returned, put to death. 2 According to the 1 James I, cap. 7, incorrigible rogues, considered dangerous by Justices of the Peace, were to be branded with an "R" and sentenced to labor ; on the second offense to be declared felons without benefit of clergy. 3 When one considers these laws baldly, it certainly seems that players must have been a degraded and outcast class. But this impression is hardly justified. Of course the inclusion of any sort of players in such company was discreditable to the profession; and wandering actors must have made themselves obnoxious, to cause their specific mention among vagabonds. But in estimating the significance of the laws, we must remember that the rigor of these statutes was not directed primarily against players. Their purpose and scope was vastly greater than any mere regulation of actors. The severity of the penalties was supposed by a brutal age to be necessary for the suppression of the grave dangers of vagabondage. The 14 Elizabeth, cap 5, recites in its preamble that "all the partes of this Realme of England and Wales be p'sentlye with Roges Vacabondes and Sturdy Beggers excedinglye pestred, by meanes wherof daylye happencth in the same Realme Murders, Theftes and other greate Outrage." The remedy of this grave social trouble was the object of the act. The status of players it touched on only incidentally. We must remember, too, that the term "vagabond" was applied only to players who "wandered abroad," and only to unlicensed players; and that it was similarly applied to many other classes of people, some of them pursuing occupations con- sidered entirely legitimate, when carried on under the regula- tions laid down by law. The significance of the mention of players in this connection can best be seen from a perusal of the very interesting definition of Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars in the 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5, which gives a vivid picture of English wayfaring life in the days of the great Queen. 1 Statutes, IV, pt. ii, 855. 2 Ibid., 899. 3 Ibid., 1024. 30 "All & every suche p'sone & p'sones that be or utter themselves to be Proctours or Procuratours, going in or about any Countrey or Countreys within this Realme, without sufficyent Aucthoritye de- ryved from or under our Soveraigne Ladye the Queene, and all other ydle p'sones goinge aboute in any Countrey of the said Realme, using subtyll craftye and unlawfull Games or Playes, and some of them fayninge themselves to have knowledge in Phisnomye, Palmes- trye or other abused Scyences, whereby they beare the people in Hand they can tell their Destinyes Deathes and Fortunes and suche other lyke fantasticall Imaginacions; And all and every p'sone and p'sones beynge whole and mightye in Body and able to labour, havinge not Land or Maister, nor using any lawfull Marchaundize, Crafte or Mysterye whereby hee or shee might get his or her Lyvinge, and can gyve no reckninge how hee or shee dothe lawfully get his or her Lyvinge; & all Fencers Bearewardes Comon Players in Enter- ludes, and Minstrels, not belonging to any Baron of this Realme or towardes any other honorable Personage of greater Degree ; all Juglers Pedlars Tynkers and Petye Chapmen; whiche said Fencers Bearewardes Comon Players in Enterludes Mynstrels Juglers Pedlers, Tynkers and Petye Chapmen, shall wander abroade and have not Lycense of two Justices of the Peace at the leaste, whereof one to be of the quorum, wher and in what Shier they shall happen to wander. And all Comon Labourers being persons able in Bodye using loyter- ing, and refusinge to worke for suche reasonable Wages as ys taxed and comonly gyven in suche partes where such persones do or shall happen to dwell; and all counterfeytures of Lycenses Passeportes and all users of the same, knowing the same to be counterfeyte; And all Scollers of the Universityes of Oxford or Cambridge y* goe about begginge, not beinge aucthorysed under the Seale of the said Univ'- sities, by the Comyssarye Chauncelour or Vicechauncelour of the same; And all Shipmen p'tendinge Losses by Sea, other then suche as shalbe hereafter provided for; And all p'sones delivered out of Gaoles that begge for their Fees or do travayle to their Countreys or Freendes, not having Lycense from two Justices of the Peace of the same Countye where he or shee was delyv'ed." l Though they wandered in such company at times, players, as players, were evidently not vagabonds in the eyes of the law. Players who disobeyed the government regulations were liable 1 Statutes, IV, pt. i, 591-592. Definitions in subsequent laws differ somewhat, but follow this in the main. Hazlitt notes (English Drama, 37, note) that the Statute 7 James I (1609-1610), cap. 4, directed against Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars, contains no mention of "Common Players." This is, however, of no significance, since the act does not contain any definition or enumeration of vagabonds, and so would not mention players. 31 to be considered such, as were other masterless and lawless men. Of course this argument is not intended to imply that actors were, on the whole, high in the social scale; that is a different matter. But to say, as does one of the most scholarly of stage historians, that "but for courtesy and a legal fiction, they were vagabonds and liable to a whipping," l seems inaccurate and unjust. As is the case to-day, there were players of all sorts, — some no better than tramps, some, like William Shakspere, high in prosperity and royal favor. The royal patents, which we shall consider later on, show the regard in which many actors were held and their assured legal status. And no player, while he obeyed the regulations laid down by the law, had need to fear punishment as a vagabond. Under Puritan domination, of course, the whole situation was radically altered. It is interesting to investigate the practical effect of these laws, though it is naturally possible to consider here only a few ex- amples of their operation. So far as we can see, the statute of 1572 made very little change from the conditions which we ob- served in the preceding period. The number of town players was diminishing; but companies still traveled under royal or noble protection; the validity of their license was still passed on by town and shire officials, who would, however, as in the past, rarely venture to refuse their approval for performances \ by a properly protected company. Somewhat more regularity and rigor was perhaps observed. As time went on, and the relics of feudal ideas waned, the players seem to have had a less personal relation to their patron. They were no longer always servants of the household; their noble patron often conferred his name and license on them largely as a matter of form, in token of his approval of the drama, or perhaps sometimes in return for favors received. 2 We have noticed that Sir Francis Leek's company, in 1556, wore his livery and his badge on their sleeves, 3 in token of their connec- 1 Chambers, Mediceval Stage, II, 226. 2 It seems very likely that some of the traveling companies may have pur- chased from impecunious noblemen the right to use their name and license. Such a commission had a considerable cash value. Later on, royal licenses were some- times bought and sold, even pawned. See below, pp. 41-42. 3 See above, p. 25. 32 tion with him. Later on, as the relation became less personal, the system of a formal written license apparently became com- mon, and this was required, as we have seen, by the statute of 1 597-1 598. ' An example of such a license has come down to us, — that shown to the town officials of Leicester in 1583 by the Earl of Worcester's company. The following copy of it is given in the town records : — "William Earle of Worcester &c. hathe by his wrytinge dated the 14 of Januarye A 25 Eliz. R e licensed his s'unts v'z. Robt Browne, James Tunstall, Edward Allen, W m Henryson, Tho. Coke, Rye' Johnes, Edward Browne, Rye' Andrewes to playe & goe abrodc, vsinge themselves orderly &c. (in theise words &c.) These are therefore to require all suche her Highnes offycers to whom these p'nts shall come, quietly & frendly w th in yo r severall p'sincts & Cor- porac'ons to p'myt & suffer them to passe w th yo r furtherance usinge & demeanynge y em selves honestly & to geve them (the rather for my sake) suche intertaynement as other noblemens players haue (In Wytnes &c.) " 2 Companies still traveled, also, under royal authority. As we have seen, the players of interludes belonging to the royal household had gone on tour during the earlier Tudor reigns and the first years of Elizabeth's. 3 In March, 1583, a new company of the "Queen's servants" was organized, apparently on much the same basis as these earlier household players, but consisting of the most prominent members of the profession. 4 These actors traveled frequently. "The Queen's Majesty's players" are noted as visiting Leicester thirteen times within the years 1582- 1602. 5 In 1 591 came "the Queen's Majesty's players, being another company called the Children of the Chapel." This deserves further notice. From the time of Richard III it had been customary to issue orders for taking boys with good voices from the choirs of cathedrals and elsewhere in order that they might sing in the Chapel Royal or St. Paul's. 6 Various patents 1 See above, p. 28. 2 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 212-213. 3 See above, pp. 23, 26-27. * For a more detailed account of this company, see below, pp. 166 ff. 6 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, under the years cited. Probably this title does not always designate the same company. 6 See Richard Ill's warrant in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 41-42, note. 33 conferring such authority were granted under Elizabeth. 1 These companies of children, as is well known, were used for dramatic as well as choral purposes. A striking case in connec- tion with this same company which we find in Leicester in 1591, came up in 1600, when a complaint was made against Nathaniel Giles, Master of the Chapel Children, and others. Under her Majesty's patent, the complainant declares, Giles has wrongly and unjustly taken children away from schools and prentices from their masters, against the will of themselves, their parents, tutors, and guardians, — children not fitted for singing in the Chapel, but intended by Giles for acting in plays and interludes. 2 The case is an interesting one, and shows how royal patents were sometimes twisted to dramatic purposes. The Crown also began to show favor to other companies besides those immediately in the royal service. The tendency towards greater formality in the licensing system and towards the concentration of licensing power in the Crown is shown strikingly in the royal patent to the Earl of Leicester's company in 1574, which is, so far as we know, the first explicit authoriza- tion of this kind to be made formally under the Great Seal. This document showing the high favor in which the Queen held the company which was afterwards Shakspere's, deserves to be quoted at length. "Elizabeth by the grace of god Quene of England, France, and Ireland, defendo 1 of the faith &c. To all Justices, Mayors, Sheriefs, Bayliffs, heade Constables, under Constables, and all other our officers and ministers greeting. Knowe ye that we, of o r esp'iall grace, certen knowledge and mere moc'on, Have licensed and au- thorized, and by these p'sents do license and aucthorize, o r loving subjects James Burbadge, John Perkyn, John Lanham, William Johnson and Robert Wylson, servantes to o r trustie and welbeloved Cosyn and Counsello r , the Earle of Leicestre, To use, exercise and occupie the art and faculty of playeng comedies, tragedies, Enter- ludes, Stage playes, and such other like as they have alredy used and studied, or hereafter shall use and studye, aswcll for the recreac'on of o r loving subjects, as for o r solace and pleasure, when we shall 1 See Lvsons, Environs, I, 69, note; and such a patent printed in full in Hazlitt, English Drama, 33. ' See documents printed in Fleay, London Stage, 127 ft". U 34 thinke good to se them. As also to use and occupie all such Instrum" as they have alredy practised, or herafter shall practise, for and during our ples r : And the said Comedies, Tragedies, Enterludes and Stage playes, together w th there musick, to shewe, publishe, exercise and occupy to their best comoditie during all the terme afforesaid, as well w ttl in o r Cyty of London and Libties of the same, as also w th in the liberties and fredoms of any o r Cytyes, townes, Boroughes &c. whatsoever, as w th out the same, thoroughout o r Realme of England: willing and comaunding yow and every of yow, as ye tender our pleasure, to p'mit and suffer them herin w th out any yo r letts, hinder- ance, or molestac'on during the terme afforesaid, any act, statute, p'clamac'on, or com'aundm' hertofore made, or herafter to be made, to the contrary notw th standing. Provided that the saide Comedies, Tragadies, Enterludes and Stage-playes be by the M r of o r Revills (for the tyme being) before seen and allowed, and that the same be not published, or showen in the tyme of comen prayer, or in the tyme of greate and comen plague in o r said Cyty of London. In witnes whereof, &c." l It should be noted especially that this patent is explicitly declared to be supreme in all places over all other acts, statutes, proclamations, or orders whatsoever. The authority which it bestowed would naturally prevail over all local regulations in London or elsewhere, and is an interesting example of the auto- cratic power exercised by the Crown. 2 Less formal licenses were also granted indirectly by the royal authority. On April 29, 1593, for example, the Privy Council gave an "open warrant" to the Earl of Sussex's players, author- izing them to "exercise their quality of playing comedies and tragedies in any county, city, town, or corporation, not being within seven miles of London, where the infection is not, and in places convenient and times fit." 3 About a week later a similar license was issued to Lord Strange's company. 4 Such royal authorization, even if not necessary under the law, was very valuable to any nobleman's players. It brought them much greater consideration from local officials and higher pay, — for it was customary, as we see in the Leicester records, to pay a company in proportion to the rank and dignity of its protector. 5 1 From the text of the Privy Seal, printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 25-26. 2 See below, p. 155. 3 Acts, XXIV, 209. * Ibid., 212. 6 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 94. 35 Another form of indirect royal authorization grew up within this period, — that by the Master of the Revels. By his patent of 1 58 1, as we have seen, the Crown had delegated to him power "to order and reform, authorize and put down" all plays, players, and playmakers, together with their playing places, throughout the kingdom. 1 This appeared to confer power to license players everywhere. As we shall see, the Master suc- ceeded in course of time in establishing his right to do so in the country at large, but his right to license actors within Lon- don remained somewhat doubtful. An example of a company traveling under his license appears in Leicester in 1583. Un- familiar with this sort of authorization, the town officials entered the company on the records as the "servants of the Master of the Revels," — the form used in the case of noblemen's players. They entered also a copy of the license. 2 The patent of 1574 and the other royal favors to certain com- panies mark a change which was taking place in stage condi- tions. A few more or less permanent companies were now be- coming prominent, and as these gained in the newly erected theaters fixed playing places, they succeeded in establishing themselves more firmly and overshadowing the less important players. Certain prominent companies frequently performed at Court, and, as we shall see, the royal favor secured for them many privileges in London. The Privy Council occasionally requested the local officials in and about the city to permit per- formances by the favored players and no others, — thus giving them a sort of monopoly and foreshadowing the system which developed in the next reign. The conditions under James and Charles differed to some ex- tent from those under Elizabeth. As we have seen, the Statute 1 .„ James I, cap. 7, took away from noblemen the power of licensing ' players. 3 There remained only the license from the Crown. Besides some desire for stricter regulation, the purpose of this 1 See above, pp. 16-17. 3 See below, p. 53. Some additional references for records of traveling com- panies during this period may be found in Halliwcll-Phillipps, Visits of Shake- speare's Company; and J. T. Murray, English Dramatic Companies in the Towns outside of London, 1550-1600, in Modern Philology, II, no. 4 (April, 1905). 3 See above, p. 28. 36 law appears to have been the granting of a monopoly to the favored companies. The Puritan element in Parliament no doubt desired restriction of the number of players and would, indeed, probably have liked to abolish them utterly; 1 the King was glad to have the power of licensing entirely in his own hands. The system of royal patents, already begun, now developed ex- tensively. This sort of authorization had, we have observed, been available long before this, in one form or another : royal companies had traveled abroad under the protection of the royal name, probably under the earlier Tudor kings, and certainly from Mary's time onward; the Chapel Children had used their patent for a similar purpose; less formal authorizations, and in 1574 a patent under the Great Seal, had been issued to noble- men's companies. 2 The Crown now proceeded to extend this system of formal patents, and to convert the prominent noble- men's companies into servants of the various members of the royal family. This policy James had begun immediately after his accession, and before the passage of the statute. He arrived in London on May 7, and on May 1 7 there was issued the Privy Seal, directing the patent under the Great Seal to the Lord Chamberlain's com- pany, Shakspere's, to be known henceforth as the King's Men. This important document is here quoted as a type of such li- censes. It is obviously modeled on Elizabeth's patent of 1574, with some alterations. As permanent theaters were now in existence, the company's London playing place is here specified. The addition of the urgent royal request that courtesy and con- sideration be shown to the actors is also notable, and indicates the high favor in which they were held. "James, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, Fraunce & Irland, defendo r of the faith, &c. To all Justices, Maio", Sheriffs, Constables, Hedboroughes, and other o r officers and loving subjects greeting. Know ye, y' we of o r speciall grace, certaine knowledge, & meere motion have licenced and authorized, & by these prhts doo licence and authorize, these o r s'vants, Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John Hennings, Henry Condell, William Sly, Rob't Armyn, Richard Cowlye, and the 1 See below, p. 222. 2 See above, pp. 32 S. 37 rest of their associats, freely to use and exercise the Arte and facultie of playing Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Entcrludcs, Moralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, & such other like, as they have already studied, or heerafter shall use or studie, aswell for the recreation of o r loving subjects, as for o r solace and pleasure, when we shall thinke good to see them, during o r pleasure. And the said Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Knterludc, Morall, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, & such like, To shew and exercise publiqucly to their best Com- moditic, when the infection of the plague shall decrease, as well w th in theire now usuall howse called the Globe, w th in o r Countie of Surrey, as also w th in anie towne halls, or Mout halls, or other convenient places \v th in the lib'ties and frcedome of any other Cittie, Univ'sitie, Towne, or Borough whatsoev' w"'in o r said Realmes and dominions. Willing and comaunding you, and ev'y of you, as you tender o r pleasure, not only to p'mitt and suffer them heerin, w th out any yo r letts, hinderances or molestac'ons, during o r said pleasure, but also to be ayding and assisting to them yf any wrong be to them offered. And to allowe them such former Courtesies, as hathe bene given to men of their place and qualitie: And also what further favo r you shall shew to these o r s'vants for o r sake, we shall take kindely at y r hands. In witness wherof &c." ' Within a short time after the date of this patent the Earl of Worcester's players must have been taken into the service of Queen Anne, and the Admiral's into Prince Henry's; for on February 19, 1604, there is a record of payments to the " Prince's players" and the "Queen's Majesty's players," 2 and in April, 1604, the three companies of the King, the Queen, and the Prince are mentioned in a letter from the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor. 3 The patent for the Queen's players exists only in a rough, undated draft, conjecturally dated in the Calendar of State Papers, July, 1603. 4 No patent for the Prince's company exists of earlier date than 1606. 4 Perhaps the first one granted has been lost; or the early authorization of the company may have been in some less formal shape. In January, 1604, a patent appointed the Chapel boys Children of the Revels to the 1 From the text of the Privy Seal, printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 38-40. See Appendix. 2 Cunningham, Revels Accounts, xxxv. 5 Printed in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 472, and in Henslowe Papers, 61-62. * For particulars concerning dates and bibliography of patents, see the Appendix. 38 Queen. 1 In the following June was passed the Statute I James i, cap. 7, formally establishing this system by the abolition of noblemen's licenses. 2 The process of taking over the prominent London companies to the service of members of the royal family continued. The Duke of York, afterwards Charles I, and the Lady Elizabeth, afterwards Queen of Bohemia, were patrons of companies. The Elector Frederick, the King's son-in-law, took over to his service the Prince's players on the death of Prince Henry in 1612. In 161 5 a provincial traveling company was granted a patent under the name of " Her Majesty's Servants of her Royal Chamber at Bristol." All these patents are modeled, in the main, on that of the King's Men, with some modifications. For example, more specific regulations are inserted concerning playing in time of plague ; in some later patents a proviso is introduced reserv- ing all rights granted to the Master of the Revels ; and various theaters are of course specified as the authorized playing places. A second patent was sometimes granted to a company for one cause or another : the company was reorganized in some way, or its patron changed, as when Charles I took over his father's players, or the Elector, Prince Henry's ; or it wished specific authority to perform in some other theater, as in the case of the new patent to the King's Men in 161 9, confirming their right to play at the Blackfriars theater as well as at the Globe. 3 In running over even thus briefly the history of royal patents, mention should be made of an interesting indication of the growth of Puritan influence. /The warrant to Giles in 1626, for taking up singing boys for service in the Royal Chapel, for the first time expressly forbids their acting in plays, because "it is not fit or decent that such as should sing the praises of God Almighty should be trained or employed in such lascivious and profane exercises." * ' The result of the system of patents was a practical monopoly 1 For particulars concerning dates and bibliography of patents, see the Appendix. 2 See Journals of the House of Commons, I, 193, 199, 207, 214, 240, 245; Journals of the House of Lords, II, 301, 303, 304, 315, 319, 320, 321, 327. 'See below, pp. 201-202, and Appendix. * Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 446. 39 of playing in London for the group of favored companies in'. royal service. This was eminently in keeping with the customs of the time. Under Elizabeth, as the system of central control over industries supplanted local trade regulation, there had been royal patents of monopoly granted to favored persons, — one, for example, giving sole right to import, make, and sell playing- cards, which gave rise to a famous suit, and glass, salt, soap, and saltpeter monopolies. Under James and Charles the Crown sold such patents, with more or less profit to the royal treasury. 1 In the case of the actors the monopoly of the patentees was not absolute. We find records of outside companies appearing occasionally in London. French players, for example, were granted permission to perform in 1629 and 1635, and a "com- pany of strangers" appeared in 1623. 2 There were other forms of license conferred on players besides the royal patents. The Lord Chamberlain, who, as we have seen, had special jurisdiction over the drama, issued various tickets of privilege to companies and to individual actors. 3 An interesting example is a "players' pass," issued in 1636 and signed by the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Lord Cham- berlain. It grants to certain members of the King's company who are to attend his Majesty on his progress, royal authority to travel and perform in all towns corporate, etc., while on this tour. 4 In the Leicester records we find in 1622 a note of a com- pany of players traveling "under the Lord Chamberlain's authority" ; and in 1625 and 1627 a company designated as "the Earl of Pembroke's servants," — a title which may indicate a similar authorization. 5 The Lord Chamberlain's subordinate, the Master of the Revels, extended during this period the exercise of the large powers 1 See Price, English Patents of Monopoly. 2 1821 Variorum, III, 120, note, 121, note, 224; Chalmers, Supplemental Apology, 215, 216, note. 3 Chalmers, Apology, 512, note. 4 Printed in 1S21 Variorum, 166-167, note, from MS. in the Lord Chamber- lain's Office. 5 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, under the years cited. Pembroke was Lord Chamberlain from 161 7 to 1630. He was succeeded in that office by his brother, the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery. 40 delegated to him by the King. Though it is doubtful whether he ever actually licensed companies of players in London, he seems to have exercised this power freely in other parts of the kingdom. During the period several companies appeared at Leicester traveling under the Master's license, — one in 1623, one in 1626, three in 1630, and one in 1639. 1 It seems that when a traveling company presented a proper license to town officials, it had by custom a right to perform. The royal patents, indeed, expressly granted this right, and later ones authorized the actors to play in any town halls, moot halls, or other convenient rooms within any town they visited. When such a performance in official buildings, or anywhere in the town, happened to be inconvenient or distasteful to the local authori- ties, they paid the players a lump sum of money for foregoing their right to perform. 2 From 1571 on, entries of such payments may be found in the Leicester records, varying in amount accord- ing to the dignity of the players' patron or license. As the Puritan feeling grew stronger these became more frequent, cul- minating in the year 1622, when seven such payments were made. 3 Similar entries are found in the records of other towns. 4 Though the Statute 1 James I, cap. 7, limiting the licensing power to the Crown, was fairly well obeyed in London, it was apparently not consistently enforced in the kingdom at large. Noblemen had theoretically no longer the right to license wan- dering players; but their companies still traveled through the 1 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, under the years cited. 3 Thompson, in his Puritans and Stage, 131, quotes from the Speech and Charge of Justice Coke in 1606, as printed in a pamphlet published in 1607, a passage which seems to contradict this view of the players' right to perform. Referring to the abuses caused by actors throughout the country, the Charge asserts that they may be easily reformed. "They hauing no Commission to play in any place without leaue: And therefore, if by your willingnesse they be not entertained you may soone be rid of them." But Coke himself, in the Preface to the seventh part of his Reports, condemned this pamphlet as "errone- ous" and "published without his privity." "Besides the omission of divers principal matters," he declared, "there is no one period therein expressed in that sort and sense that I delivered." (See a discussion of the matter in Notes and Queries, April 30, 1853.) We may therefore safely disregard the interpre- tation of the law contained in the printed Charge. See also below, p. 72. 3 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, under the years cited. * Sec Historical MSS. Commission Reports, X, pt. iv, 540; XI, pt. iii, 28. 41 country and were recognized by local officials as entitled to per- form. 1 In the Leicester records of payments to players I have noted such companies after 1604, when the new law was passed. One appeared in 1605, two in 1606, 1608, 1610, 1614, and one in 1615. About this time some inkling of the new regulations seems to have reached Leicester. In 1616, for the first time, players are noted as having a "warrant under the King's hand and privy signet." Two such entries appear in this year and one in 161 7 ; in 1618 is a notice of a company with a "commission under the Great Seal of England" ; and during these three years no noble- man's company is mentioned. But if the town was consciously living up to the new law, it soon relapsed. In the following years, among the entries of royal companies, noblemen's appear again, — one in 1619, two in 1620, and one in 1624, 1625, 1627, and 1637. During the later years the name or authority of a company is often omitted, and the records of licenses are thus incomplete. 2 One would not expect to find, of course, any rigorous or consis- tent enforcement of the law throughout the kingdom. Even if the local officials were familiar with the regulations and con- scientiously tried to put them into effect, there were numerous possibilities of evasion. A pathetic protest has come down to us from the London Common Council, in 1584, complaining that'll/ when special privileges were granted to the Queen's Men, all the playing places in the city were filled with players calling themselves the Queen's Men. 3 Even when formal patents were in use, they could be handed from one company to another. We see the Mayor of Exeter in anxious uncertainty as to whether he had offended the Crown by refusing permission to a company of men, thirty, forty, and fifty years of age, with only five youths among them, to act on the authority of a royal patent for chil- dren. 4 The Mayor of Banbury, in 1633, arrested a company as rogues, because, though they had two licenses, one from the Mas- 1 The company authorized by the Duke of Lennox in 1604 should perhaps be placed in this class. Or possibly his blood relationship to the King gave him some claim to licensing power. See his warrant in the Henslowe Papers, 62. 2 Kelly, op. cit., under the years cited. 3 Document printed in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 216. See below, p. 174. * Fleay, London Stage, 310; State Papers, Dom., 1611-1618, 549. 42 - ter of the Revels and the other from the King, the date of the first had been forged and the second had been purchased from a pawnshop ! * There remains to be considered the national regulation of playing places; but on this point there is comparatively little to be said. Apparently there was no definite system of licensing playhouses, and no general legislation on the subject. Such regulations as there were, were chiefly matters of local adminis- tration, and, in the case of London, will be treated in detail in a later chapter. There are a few points, however, which may fittingly be touched on here. The earliest concern about playing places was an affair of the church rather than of the state. Growing out of the liturgical origin of the English drama, the custom of giving plays in churches survived sporadically until Stuart times, though many efforts were made to suppress it. In 1542 Bishop Bonner of London issued a proclamation to the clergy of his diocese, prohibiting "all manner of common plays, games, or interludes to be played, set forth, or declared within their churches, chapels, etc." 2 Similar orders were promulgated at later dates, and even in 1603 the abuse was noticed in one of the Canons of James I, given soon after his accession. 3 As late as 1602 players apparently claimed at times a sort of prescriptive right to perform in churches, for we find entered in the parish register of Syston, a village near Leicester, a payment in that year by the churchwardens "to Lord Morden's players because they should not play in the church . . . xii d." * As in the licensing of plays and players, the Crown and the Privy Council exercised supreme power at will, and interfered in local administration. We shall find the Council frequently asking or commanding the London authorities to permit per- formances in certain playing places ; authorizing the erection of 1 State Papers, Dom., 1633-1634, 47-49. 2 ^ 2I Variorum, III, 45- 3 Ibid. ; and see also Chambers, Medurval Stage, II, 191, and Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 15-16. * Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 16. Probably the parish officials feared to offend the players' noble patron by an unqualified refusal to allow their performance in the church, and thus bought them off. > 43 a new theater; or ordering that an old one be "plucked down" and abolished. The Master of the Revels also had power to license playing places, and, in one case at least, he granted per- mission for the erection of a new theater in London. 1 The system of royal patents, moreover, extended to playing places. Those issued to certain companies, as we have seen, explicitly authorized performances in any "town halls, moot halls, guild halls, schoolhouses," or other convenient places in the towns they visited. And they also licensed the company specifically to perform in its permanent London theater, whether this was in the City or in the Liberties. Special royal patents, granting permission to erect new theaters in and about London, were issued, as we shall find, in 1615, 1620, 1635, and 1639. The last of these, to Sir William D'Avenant, is interesting as showing what is apparently a new feature in government regulation, — a restriction on the prices of admission. The patentee is au- thorized to charge only "such sum or sums as is or hereafter from time to time shall be accustomed to be given or taken in other playhouses and places for the like plays, scenes, present- ments, and entertainments." 2 1 See below, pp. 73-74. 2 See 1821 Variorum, III, 93-95. CHAPTER II The Master of the Revels The various functions of the Master of the Revels were as characteristic of the age in which he served as was his picturesque title. He is therefore not altogether easy to understand unless one conceives him against a background of the customs of his time. His duties were of two sorts. The first and the more ancient, his original function as an officer of the King's house- hold, was the devising and managing of court masques, dis- guisings, plays, and other entertainments for the amusement of the Sovereign and the celebration of festivals and great occa- sions. The second duty, that with which we are especially concerned, was the licensing and regulating of the drama outside the Court, throughout the kingdom, and was of much later growth. It is not possible to understand his exercise of this second function unless one bears in mind that it was of a twofold nature. The Master was a government official, whose duty it was to execute the laws and to regulate the stage in accordance with the best interests of the state. But his position was also frankly a money-making business. He sold licenses as profitably as he could ; he devised new extensions of his power and new forms of commissions which would increase his income. By virtue £> of his royal patent he even exercised the right to sell permis- sion to break certain laws, — as in the case of his dispensations for performances in Lent. Sometimes he purchased his office for a considerable sum, and then it was obviously necessary for him to recoup his outlay by the sale of all possible sorts of licenses and the securing of various payments from the players. Though such an administration of a government office is not considered quite the proper thing to-day, it was usual enough and not especially frowned upon under Elizabeth and the 44 , 45 Stuarts. It is perhaps easier to understand the Master's exercise of the powers granted by his patents, when one compares other "dispensing patents " of a somewhat similar sort, common enough among the many grants of monopoly made during the period, which we touched on in considering the royal patents to players. These licensing or dispensing patents were awarded as favors or sold by the Crown. They authorized the patentees either to license others to do something, or to issue, upon receipt of com- position, pardons for infractions of some penal law, or to grant dispensations from the penalties of a certain statute, in return for a fee. 1 This virtually enabled offenders to bargain, either peri- odically or once for all, for the right to break the law. Exam- ples are numerous. An ordinary licensing patent was granted to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1588-1589, authorizing him "to make licenses for keeping of taverns and retailing of wines throughout England." 2 A striking case of a dispensing patent is that to Thomas Cornwallis in 1 596-1 597, empowering him "to make grants and licenses for keeping of gaming-houses, and using of unlawful games, contrary to the statute of 33 Henry VIII." 3 Laws were apparently sometimes passed in order to make possible profitable grants of the right to break them. Regulations were made, for example, concerning the tanning of leather, which could not possibly be followed ; and then Sir Edward Dyer was authorized to pardon and dispense with penalties for the viola- tion of this statute. In exercising this right he and his deputies gained an evil reputation for extortion. 4 It was very natural that a similar practice should gradually grow up in the dramatic world, as the Master of the Revels strove to extend profitably the vague powers granted by his patents. As we have seen, the Statute 1 James I, cap. 7, finally took away from all other personages the right to license traveling players and the other wanderers on the highways who were engaged in legitimate business, and left only the license by the Crown. 5 By virtue of the royal patent delegating authority to him, the Master naturally granted licenses to traveling players, — "dis- 1 Price, English Patents of Monopoly, 12. 7 Ibid., 146. * Ibid., 147. * Ibid., 13-14. 8 See above, p. 28. 46 pensations" from the penalties of this statute. Similar power to license others of the wanderers was granted. There is a men- tion of a patent under James I for " the licensing of pedlars and petty chapmen," ' and a much closer analogy to the Master's powers is found in the case of the royal patents to the " Master of the King's Games of Bears, Bulls and Dogs," which were apparently interpreted as granting power to license bear-baitings and bull-baitings in Paris Garden and by traveling showmen. 2 It is scarcely probable that the original grant of authority outside the Court to the Master of the Revels was a conscious inauguration of a dispensing patent of this sort, or even that he himself, in extending his jurisdiction, consciously endeavored to make it such. The analogous cases which I have cited merely go to show how natural, how consistent with the customs of the time, was the growth of the Master's licensing power, — uncon- stitutional as it may appear at first sight. With them in mind it will perhaps be easier to understand the history of the develop- ment of his authority. The loss of many important documents makes the tracing of this history a difficult task. Had we, for instance, the vanished office books of Tilney and Buc, the earlier Masters, we might find that their activity was as great as that of the busy Herbert, whose intermeddling in dramatic affairs shines out so vividly from the pages of his Register. If the Patent Rolls, moreover, and additional town records, are ever accessible in complete and orderly form, it will be possible to trace the Masters more clearly. As it is, much of their history must be conjectural. In the Court of the early kings an important duty was that of managing the royal pastimes. The Lord Chamberlain, as head of the great branch of the royal household known as the Chamber, had charge of the Sovereign's amusements, — of his hunting by day and his revels and shows by night. As the Court grew more splendid and more complex, various subordinate offi- cials gradually developed, to take charge of branches of this ser- ./ vice. The Master of the Revels first appeared under Henry VII. 1 Price, op. cit., 167. 'Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 70 ft., 99 ft.; Alleyn Papers, 26; Henslowe's Diary, 212; Hcnslowe Papers, 1, 4, 12, 97 ft. 47 Originally he seems to have been appointed temporarily, from among the officials already in attendance at Court, to devise and superintend the disguisings, masques, or other entertain- ments on special occasions. This practice continued in the reign of Henry VIII, until finally, as the office grew in importance under that splendor-loving king, a permanent Master was appointed in 1545, in the person of Sir Thomas Cawarden. The depart- ment continued, of course, to be under the general authority of the Lord Chamberlain. 1 Sir Thomas Cawarden's patent is of importance and interest as the model on which the patents of appointment of all subse- quent Masters were based. The date is March 11, 1545, but the appointment is to run from March 16 of the preceding year. Cawarden is named "Magister Jocorum, Revelorum et Masco- rum omnium et singulorum nostrorum, vulgariter nuncupatorum Revells and Masks." The appointment is for life. Cawarden is granted all houses, mansions, rights, liberties, and advantages appertaining to the office, and a salary of £10 per year. 2 The phrasing of this patent was followed almost exactly in those of later Masters. The powers conferred are, it will be noticed, somewhat ill denned and capable of various interpretations. By extraordinary stretching of the phrase, Herbert later held that his very wide claims to licensing power over all sorts of shows throughout the kingdom were justified by the words " Jocorum, Revelorum et Mascorum." 3 During the lifetime of Sir Thomas Cawarden, however, it occurred to no one to extend the Master's jurisdiction over plays outside the Court. He was busied only with the devising and presentation of masques and shows for the entertainment of the Sovereign. 4 He lived to superintend Elizabeth's coronation festivities, and died on August 29, 1559. 5 His successor, Sir 1 On the origin of the Office of the Revels see Chalmers, Apology, 471-472; Chambers, Mediaval Stage, I, 404-405, and Tudor Revels, 1-5, 52. 3 The patent is printed in Rymer, Feedera, XV, 62-63, an< ^ noted in Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, XX, 213. 3 Halliwell-Phillipps, Dramatic Records, 60. * On the Office under Cawarden see Chambers, Tudor Revels, 9 ff. s Ibid., 18. Fleay's incorrect date for Cawarden's death leads him into serious error. {London Stage, 43.) He is followed by Schelling. (Elizabethan Drama, I, 1 01-102.) 48 Thomas Benger, was formally appointed by a patent of January 18, 1560, similar to Cawarden's, with the additional provision that it was to hold in the reigns of her Majesty's successors. 1 Benger was apparently a very inefficient Master. No patent appointing a successor was issued until after his death, which occurred in 1577; but, as we learn from the Revels Accounts, he gave up all active exercise of his functions by the summer of 1572. After this date he no longer signed the accounts. His duties were performed by the subordinate officers, especially by Thomas Blagrave, the Clerk of the Revels, who served as Acting Master from November, 1573, until Christmas, 1579, by special appointment of the Lord Chamberlain. 2 Under Benger's in- efficient management the Office had apparently become disor- ganized, and in 1573 Lord Burghley took up the question of its reorganization. To this end, he seems to have called for reports or suggestions from the three officers then in charge, — the Clerk Comptroller, the Clerk, and the Yeoman. Their three reports survive in the Lansdowne MSS. and throw an interesting light on the organization and business of the Office at this time. 3 From our point of view they are especially noteworthy as show- ing that in 1573 it was busied solely with the preparation of court entertainments : the care of costumes, the purchasing of proper- ties and supplies, — such were the chief concerns of the Revels. In the suggestion made by the three officers for the reformation of the department, there is no proposal that they should have jurisdiction or censorship over the drama in the outer world. Buggin, the Clerk Comptroller, suggests, it is true, that the power of the officers should be strengthened by a commission authoriz- ing them to enforce service from the Queen's subjects/ — that is, to compel workmen to serve the Office in emergencies. This was apparently to be somewhat similar in nature to the com- missions authorizing the Master of the Chapel to "take up" singing boys, and those empowering other departments of the 1 Printed in Rymer, Fcedera, XV, 565. 2 Cunningham, Revels Accounts, 48, 77; Chambers, Tudor Revels, 51-52. ' All three are printed at length in Chambers, op. cit., 31 ff. The first is given in Halliwell-Phillipps, Dramatic Records, 68 ff. Mr. Chambers dates them all — rightly, I think — 1573. * Chambers, op. cit., 41-42. 49 household to command provisions and cartage. 1 Perhaps the Revels had already enjoyed such authority on special occasions. The suggestion bore fruit, as we shall see, in Tilney's commis- sion of 1 5S1, which granted him wide powers of this sort. Though no proposal was yet made for the bestowal of the cen- sorship on the Revels Office, the germ that was to develop into its extensive jurisdiction was already visible. The Master fre- quently called outside companies of actors before him, and had them rehearse plays which might be suitable for court presenta- tion, in order that he might select the best. 2 He also looked over numerous plays in manuscript, to judge of their merits. Many needed alteration of some sort, in length or substance, before they were quite suitable for the Court. The responsibility of seeing that no offensive word reached her Majesty's ear rested, of course, on the Master, and he made many changes in the dramas to be produced. In 1571 we find in the Revels Accounts a list of six plays given at Court, "all whiche vi playes being chosen owte of many, and founde to be the best that were to be had, the same also being often perused and necessarely corrected and amended by all thafforeseide officers." 3 In subsequent years "perusing and reforming of plays" appears frequently in the Accounts. 4 In such summoning of outside companies before him to act plays for his approval, and in the expurgation of the manuscripts submitted, lay the germ of the Master's censoring and licensing power. His jurisdiction over performances outside the Court was formally begun in the patent granted by Queen Elizabeth to the Earl of Leicester's players in 1574. 5 These fortunate actors, servants of the Queen's favorite, were, as we have seen, given by patent under the Great Seal of England the right to perform in all cities and towns of the realm, even within London itself, without molestation from the authorities, any act, statute, proc- lamation or commandment to the contrary notwithstanding. Such an extraordinary favor had never been granted to any 1 See above, pp. 32-33; and Chambers, Tudor Revels, 51. 2 Cunningham, Revels Accounts, 39, 159. Plays were sometimes rehearsed before the Lord Chamberlain, for his approval. Ibid., 120, 136. 'Ibid., 13. *See, for example, ibid., 87, 92, 198. * See above, pp. 33-34- E V 50 actors before, and it was but natural that the Crown should wish to have these players bound in some way not to abuse their privilege. If the local officials were not to have jurisdiction over them, it was necessary that some Crown officer should see that they performed nothing harmful to the good order of the state. Obviously the Master of the Revels, already used to such super- vision of plays, and already the director of these very players in their frequent appearances at Court, was the natural person to be intrusted with this function. The actors were therefore permitted to perform only on condition that all their plays "be by the Mas- ter of our Revels, for the time being, before seen and allowed." At the date of the granting of this first portion of licensing power, the Revels Office was, as we have seen, in a somewhat unsettled state. Benger was not performing his duties, the Clerk, Blagrave, was serving as Acting Master, and the reor- ganization of the Office was under consideration. In these cir- cumstances it is not probable that any considerable effort was made to develop and extend this profitable jurisdiction. But within a few years the situation was radically changed. In 1577 Benger died; in December, 1578, the name of Edmund Tilney first appears as signing the Revels Accounts ; ' and on July 24, 1579, a patent was issued formally appointing Tilney Master, and providing that his service was to date from the preceding Christmas. The terms of his patent are precisely like Cawarden's, except for a few slight verbal changes and the additional provision, as in Benger's, that it is to hold in succeed- ing reigns; no mention is made of the new censoring power conferred on the Master by the patent to Leicester's company five years before. 2 The new Master, Edmund Tilney, was of good family, a con- nection of Lord Howard of Effingham, and with some literary achievement to his credit, — The Flower of Friendship, a dia- logue on matrimony which he had dedicated to Elizabeth in 1568. Under his energetic hand the reorganization of the Revels Office seems to have proceeded rapidly. He evidently saw the 1 Cunningham, Revels Accounts, 124. 2 Tilney's patent is printed at length in Halliwell-Phillipps, Dramatic Rec- ords, 2-3. 51 necessity for a commission granting him power to enforce service from workmen, such as the Clerk Comptroller had recom- mended in 1573; and he must have perceived some of the great possibilities in the extension of his jurisdiction over performances outside the Court. The fruit of his efforts appeared in the very favorable patent granted him on December 24, 1581. 1 This is entitled "Commissio specialis pro Edo. Tylney, Ar. Magistro Revellorum." It differs from the patents of appoint- ment in various ways. In the first place it is in English instead of Latin ; it is a grant of special powers to Tilney personally from the Queen, and is not mentioned as holding in the reigns of her Majesty's successors. Apparently it had to be renewed in the case of succeeding Masters, and we shall find in later years that such declarations of the powers of the Revels Office were made from time to time by the Crown and the Lord Chamberlain. This commission resembles in nature, as we have suggested, the grants issued at intervals to the Masters of the Chapel Children, authorizing them to "take up" singing boys for the Queen's service. The patent first empowers Tilney to take and retain at compe- tent wages for the royal service, in all parts of England, all such painters, embroiderers, tailors, and other workmen as may be needed in the Revels Office ; and to take all necessary materials and carriage at a reasonable price. If any persons refuse to serve, or withdraw from the work, Tilney is authorized to imprison them as long as he may think fit. The workmen of the Revels are to be under the special protection of the Queen during their time of service, and are to be freed from prison by the Master's authority, should they be arrested at the suit of any other persons. They are also to be released from the obligation of completing any other contract or work which they may have undertaken, until they shall have ended their service in the Revels. Then follows the clause already quoted, 2 giving the Master power, in all places in England, to summon all players, with their playmakers, that they may recite any of their plays before him 1 First printed from the Patent Rolls by T. E. Tomlins, in the Shakspere Society Papers, III, i tT. It is also in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 247-249, note; and in Halliwell-Phillipps, Illustrations, pt. i. 2 pp. 16-17. 52 or his Deputy, "whom wee ordeyne, appointe and authorise by these presentesof all suche Showes, Plaies, Plaiersand Playmakers, together with their playinge places, to order and reforme, auc- torise and put downe, as shalbe thought meete or unmeete unto himselfe or his said Deputie in that behalfe." The power granted him of imprisoning all recalcitrant actors or playwrights is also notable. "And also likewise we have by these presentes au- thorised and com'aunded the said Edmunde Tvlnev, that in case any of them, whatsoever they be, will obstinatelie refuse, upon warninge unto them given by the said Edmunde, or his sufficient Deputie, to accomplishe and obey our comaundement in this behalfe, then it shalbe lawful to the said Edmunde, or his suffi- cient Deputie, to attache the partie or parties so offendinge and him or them to com'ytt to Warde, to remaine without bayle or mayneprise, untill suche tyme as the same Edmunde Tylney or his sufficient Deputie shall thinke the tyme of his or theire ym- prisonment to be punishment sufficient for his or their said offence in that behalfe ; and that done to inlarge him or them so beinge imprisoned at their plaine libertie without any losse, penaltie, forfeiture or other damages in this behalfe to be sus- teyned or borne by the said Edmunde Tylney, or his Deputie; any Acte, Statute, Ordinance or P'vision heretofore had or made to the contrarie hereof in any wise not withstandinge." Finally, all officials are commanded to aid the Master in the execution of his duties. It is difficult to discover just how far and how rapidly Tilney succeeded in extending and defining the vague and general powers conferred on him by this patent, — in having his authority to license plays, players, and playhouses recognized throughout the kingdom. In the face of the opposition of the powerful Corpo- ration of London, the growth of his authority within that city was necessarily slow. In the spring of 1582, a few months after the issue of his special commission, the Privy Council apparently did not recognize him as having any jurisdiction over plays in London, for, as we have seen, they requested the Lord Mayor to appoint some proper person to overlook and license plays to be performed in the city. 1 In fact, during all the agitation of the 1 See above, p. 17. 53 years 1582- 1584, concerning the admission of actors into Lon- don, the Master of the Revels is never mentioned in the volumi- nous correspondence between the Privy Council and the city ! authorities. 1 But Tilney was already claiming authority over plays and players throughout the kingdom almost as extensive as that asserted by his successors. He was certainly licensing players to travel, for, as we found, a company appeared at Leicester in 1583, bearing a commission signed by him and dated Febru- ary 6 of that year. From the abstract of parts of this document given in the Leicester records, confused though it is, one can see that he was claiming the exclusive right to license players and allow plays. "In w ch Indenture there ys one article that all Justices, Maiors, Sherifs, Bayllyfs, Constables, and all other her Officers, Ministers & suhiects whatsoev' to be aydinge & assistinge unto the said Edmund Tilneye, his Deputies & Assignes, 2 attendinge & havinge due regard unto suche parsons as shall disorderly intrude themselves into any the doings & acc'ons before menc'oned, not beinge reformed quali- fyed & bound to the orders p'scribed by the said Edmund Tyllneye. These shalbee therefore not only to signifye & geve notice unto all & ev'y her said Justices &c that non of there owne p'tensed auc- thoritye intrude themselves & presume to showe forth any suche playes, enterludes, tragedies, comedies, or shewes in any place w th in this Realm, w th oute the ord'lye allowance thereof under the hand of the sayd Edmund. " Nota. No play is to be played, but such as is allowed by the sayd Edmund, & by his hand at the latter end of the said booke they doe play." 3 The players who carried this license became involved in a dis- pute at Leicester with the Earl of Worcester's company, who attacked the validity of their commission. The objection was not, however, against the authority of the Master to issue such licenses, but was based, apparently, on the fact that Haysell, the chief player, to whom the commission had been granted, 1 On March 10, 1583, Tilney was summoned to Court to select the players for the Queen's new company (Cunningham, Revels Accounts, 186); but this was naturally a part of his duty as manager of court entertainments. 2 Tilney's license evidently quoted the portion of his commission of 1581 calling on all officials to assist him in the exercise of his authority. s Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 211-212. THE VERSITY s£4L!FOF 54 was not present, and the actors bearing it were not really entitled to its protection. 1 So chaotic, however, are the pronouns of the Leicester scribe, that it is hard to discover just what the ground of the quarrel was. No other company appeared at Leicester under the Master's authorization until 1623. Were the records of other towns accessible, it might be possible to ascertain how extensively he exercised such authority during the intervening period. In London we have no sign of Tilney's activity until 1589. Mr. Chambers thinks that by 1587 the Privy Council had al- ready begun to regard him as primarily responsible to them for the regulation of the theaters, and cites the order for the tempo- rary suspension of performances in and about London issued by the Council on May 7, 1587, copies of which were sent, according to Mr. Dasent's edition of the Council Register, to the Lord Mayor, the Justices of the Peace of Surrey, and the Master of the Rolls. 2 Mr. Chambers states that " Rolls " must be an error for " Revels," and suggests that this is the Master's first appearance as regulator of the London drama. 3 But the Master of the Rolls was really the official meant, for it appears from the Council Register that he exercised the authority of a Justice of the Peace in Middlesex. In 1577 similar orders for the suppression of plays in that county were sent to him and to the Lieutenant of the Tower, who also had jurisdiction in parts of Middlesex, — those adjacent to the Tower. 4 There are several other examples of the exercise of similar functions by the Master of the Rolls. 5 Though in the surviving documents the Master of the Revels does not appear in this r61e as early as 1587, it is probable that he was already exercising some supervision over the London drama. 1 Kelly, Drama in Leicester, 212. ' Acts, XV, 70. s Tudor Revels, 76. * Acts, IX, 388. 6 On March 2, 1591, the Privy Council, desiring stricter enforcement of the regulations against killing and eating flesh without license in Lent, sent orders to this effect to the Lord Mayor, to the Justices of the Peace in Surrey who had jurisdiction over parts of Southwark, and to " the Master of the Rolls and Thomas Barnes, esquire, Justices of Peace for the county of Middlesex." (Acts, XX, 322-323.) Similarly, on June 23, 1592, when the Council desired to take pre- cautions against riots in and about London, it sent orders to the Master of the Rolls, among many other Justices of the Peace and various officials. (Acts, XXII, 549-55 * •) 55 In 1589, when the Martin Marprelatc controversy was treated on the stage, Tilncy certainly had something to say about the drama in the city, for he appears to have reported to the Privy Council that improper plays were being performed ; whereupon the Lords ordered the suppression of all plays in London. "Where by a l're of your Lordships, directed to Mr. Yongc, it appered unto me," wrote the Lord Mayor to Lord Burghley, "that it was your ho: pleasure that I sholde geve order for the staie of all playes within the cittie, in that Mr. Tilney did utterly mislike the same." l This Martin Marprelatc trouble and the consequent appoint- ment of the censorship commission, of which Tilncy was a mem- ber, apparently gave the Master a favorable start on his career ' ' as licenser of plays in and about London. Realizing the neces- sity of some stricter censorship of the drama, and feeling, ap- - parently, that the old system of supervision by the city authori- ties was inadequate, the Privy Council established, as we have seen, 2 a commission of three persons — the Master of the Revels, 1 & with comments, and a smaller map, in his Old Southwark, xxii-xxiii and 200. See also Ordish, Early London Theatres; and Wheatley and Cun- ningham, London Past and Present, III, 29-30. 143 or Liberty of the Clink (so called from the Clink prison), a manor of the Bishop of Winchester, under whose seigniorial protection disorderly houses nourished. Within this Liberty were three theaters, — the Globe, the Rose, and the Hope or Bear Garden. Adjoining this on the west was the Manor or Liberty of Paris Garden, where the Swan was situated. 1 West of Paris Garden lay Lambert Marsh. The parish of St. Saviour's, of which we often hear in connection with theatrical affairs, included much of the Borough of Southwark and the Liberties of the Clink and Paris Garden. 2 Southwest of Southwark, beyond the open space of St. George's Fields, lay Newington. The boundaries of Southwark extended almost to the parish church of this town, 3 and just outside the borough limits was the Newington theater, 4 — also, of course, be- yond the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction. On the Middlesex side of the Thames, north of the wall, beyond the bars which marked the limits of BishopsgateWard, were several Liberties, especially the Liberty of Holywell, the precinct of the former priory of St. John the Baptist. Here, near Finsbury Field and Shoreditch, were the Theater and the Curtain. 5 Farther to the west, north of Cripplegate, near Golding Lane, and just outside the bars bounding the portion of Cripplegate Ward without the walls, was the Fortune theater, in the Liberty of Finsbury. 6 These theaters "in the fields," on the Surrey and the Middle- sex sides of the Thames, were under the jurisdiction of the Jus- tices of the Peace for these counties, to whom the Privy Council sent its orders concerning the players and upon whom it relied for their enforcement. Most puzzling of all to the modern American mind are various Liberties which were scattered through the City proper, sur- 1 Some confusion is caused by the fact that the term "Paris Garden" was sometimes used loosely to mean all this locality of the Bankside. 1 Rendle, Old Southwark, no, 1 21-122. s Stow, Survey, 150. 4 Concerning this theater see Ordish, Early London Theatres, 142 ff. s Stow, Survey, 158; Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 335 ff- •Stow, Survey, 109; contract for erection of the Fortune, Halliwell-Phil- lipps, Outlines, 462; Ilenslowe Papers, 50. 144 rounded by the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction but exempt therefrom, holding special privileges from the Crown by reason of their being the precincts of dissolved monasteries, which in their day had, of course, been exempt from civic authority. 1 The most important of these districts, from the theatrical point of view, were Whitefriars, on the north bank of the Thames, just east of the Temple, the site of the Whitefriars and other later theaters; and especially Blackfriars, also bordering on the river, a little farther east, where Burbage had his famous private theater. The exemption of these districts within the City was naturally a thorn in the side of the municipal authorities. Shortly after the dissolution of Blackfriars monastery and its surrender to the Crown in 1538, the Lord Mayor endeavored to obtain from the King the abolition of the district's privileges; but Henry replied that he was as well able to maintain the liberties of the precinct as ever the friars were. 2 Other attempts to invade the Liberty were made by the municipal authorities. In 1574, for example, we find that the City of London had "pretended interest" in Blackfriars, and that the Privy Council commanded the Mayor "not to intermeddle to the impeachment of such liberties and franchises until further orders." 3 In 1596, therefore, when Burbage established his Blackfriars playhouse, that precinct was outside the Lord Mayor's jurisdic- tion, and the inhabitants of the Liberty, when they wished the theater prohibited, appealed for protection to the Privy Council. Since the Liberties of Blackfriars and Whitefriars were appar- ently not under the jurisdiction of the Middlesex Justices of the Peace, who were expected to enforce order at the Holywell and Finsbury theaters, one is puzzled at first to decide under whose jurisdiction they actually were. Of course the authority of the Crown and of the Privy Council was supreme over them, after the precincts passed from the possession of the Church. But what officials were actually in charge, with a jurisdiction 1 Some idea of the ecclesiastical foundations in London which later became Liberties may be obtained from a map of the City in the 13th century, in Loftie, History of London, I, 120. 2 Wheatley and Cunningham, London Past and Present, I, 193-194; Stow, Survey, 127. 3 Ads, VIII, 240, 257. 145 corresponding to that of the Lord Mayor and the Justices of the Peace in the neighboring districts? An order issued by the Privy Council in 1597 seems to answer this question definitely enough. No officials whatsoever were in charge. Some dispute had arisen concerning payments for repairs in Blackfriars, and this was referred by the Privy Council, on January 26, 1597, to a commission consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Huns- don and others, who were to report to the Lords their opinion on this question, and also, according to the Council order, "con- cerninge an other point in the peticion for the government of the said libertic of the Black and White Fryers, which being grown more populus than heretofore and without any certaine and knowen officer to keepe good orders there, needeth to be reformed in that bchalfe, and herein we shall be glad to have your Lordships advise and opinion." * There was, of course, a parish organization which served for some purposes of local government ; but in the time of dangerous disorders or other emergencies the situation of Blackfriars and Whitefriars was an awkward one. The Lords seem to have been in the habit of meeting the difficulty on such occasions by appointing, in each of the precincts, some prominent man of rank to take temporary charge. In June, 1592, when serious riots were feared on Midsummer Night, and the Privy Council desired to take stringent measures against disorder, they com- manded that an armed watch of householders should be organ- ized in and about London. 2 A list of the persons to whom these orders were sent may be found in the Council Register. It is an illuminating example of the divided jurisdiction exercised over the metropolitan district, and the complicated difficulty of getting such a general command enforced. Orders w r ere sent to the Lord Mavor of London ; to the Master of the Rolls 3 and four other Justices of the Peace of the County of Middlesex, for Holborn, St. Giles in the Fields, Clerkenwell, and neighboring places ; to three Justices of the Peace of the County of Surrey, for the precincts of Newington, Kentish Street, Barmondsey Street, the Clink, Paris Garden, and the Bankside ; to the Lieu- 1 Acts, XXVI, 448-449- 2 See below, pp. 179 fT. s See above, p. 54- L 146 tenant of the Tower and the Master of St. Catherine's for the precincts of St. Catherine's and East Smithfield; to Lord Wentworth for Ratcliffe, Shoreditch, and Whitechapel ; to Lord Cobham for the Blackfriars; to Sir Thomas Shirley for the Whitefriars ; and to the Bailiff of Westminster for Westminster, St. Martin's, and the Strand. 1 It will be noticed that Lord Cobham was called on to organize the watch and preserve order in Blackfriars. His residence was in that precinct, 2 and he was a nobleman of distinction, — Lord Warden of the Cinq Ports, Lord Lieutenant of Kent, a member of the Privy Council, and later Lord Chamberlain. He seems therefore to have been chosen for this duty as the most prominent and powerful resi- dent of the Liberty. The duty in Whitefriars was similarly assigned to Sir Thomas Shirley, then Treasurer at War for the Low Countries. In spite of the investigation intrusted to the commission in January, 1597, no action seems to have been taken. Black- friars and Whitefriars apparently remained in the same uncer- tain jurisdiction until after James' accession; though we find that in March, 1599, in the case of certain taxes the Lord Mayor was intrusted with the assessment of Blackfriars. 3 But in 1608 a decisive step was finally taken to remedy this anomalous state of affairs ; and the two famous Liberties came at last under the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor. On Sep- tember 20 of that year James granted a new charter to the City of London, confirming all former charters and customs and ex- tending the city liberties through various districts, including "the several circuits, bounds, limits, franchises and jurisdic- tions of . . . the late dissolved house or priory of Preaching Friars within and at Ludgate, London, commonly called Black- friars ; and also the late dissolved house or priory of Friars of the Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, called Whitefriars." These places shall be for all time to come " within the circuits, precincts, liberties, franchises and jurisdictions of the same our City of London. . . . And all and singular the 1 Acts, XXII, 549, 5S i. 2 See the deed quoted in Fleay, London Stage, 153. s Acts, XXX, 149-150. 147 inhabitants and dwellers within the same, or any of them, shall be, and every of them is and for all time to come shall be and remain under the rule, government, jurisdiction, oversight, search, correction, punishment, precepts and arrests of the said Mayor and commonaltv and citizens . . . and the Sheriffs of London . . . any liberties, franchises, privileges, exemption or authority whatsoever to the contrary thereof notwithstanding." It is provided, however, that the inhabitants of Black friars and Whitefriars (though not those of the other districts concerned) shall be exempt from certain taxes and from holding certain offices. 1 Some privileges of sanctuary also remained to portions of these districts. Before the breaking up of the monasteries, the priories of the Black and the White Friars had possessed these rights of sanctuary. Such privileges were, however, restricted by laws of Henry VIII to minor offenders, and not available for murderers, thieves, and like criminals. 2 After the dissolution of the monasteries the privileges clung irregularly to portions of the two precincts. Blackfriars became a respectable and in part aristocratic quarter, inhabited largely by Puritans, many of them feather-makers, and by noblemen. It therefore seems to have taken little if any advantage of the sanctuary privileges. But Whitefriars was a notoriously disreputable district, and the criminal classes who flocked there claimed all the privileges allowed by law and far more. Though the exemptions seem to have extended legally only to cases of debt, other refugees from justice fled thither, and Whitefriars, or "Alsatia," as it was called, became the resort of the outcasts of society, — a communitv so lawless that even the warrant of the Chief Justice of England could not be executed there without the help of a company of musketeers. 3 By the Statute 21 James I, cap. 28 (1623-1624), all rights of sanctuary in England were abol- ished absolutely. But Whitefriars continued to claim them in 1 Charter of James I, September 20, 1608. Printed in Birch, Historical Charters of London, 139 ff. 1 Stephen, Criminal Law 0/ England, I, 491. * See Whcatleyand Cunningham, London Past and Present, I, 41-42; III, 503. "Alsatia" is best known from Scott's Fortunes 0/ Nigel, but was treated earlier by Shad well in The Squire 0/ Alsatia. 148 defiance of the law, and, as the Sheriffs were afraid to enforce writs in the precinct, was long successful in maintaining some of its exemptions. The Statute 8 and 9 William III, cap. 27 (1697), shows the strange state of affairs which was still sur- viving, by making it penal in Sheriffs not to execute process in certain "pretended privileged places" such as Whitefriars and the Savoy. 1 Theoretically and legally it would seem that these fragmentary and anomalous privileges of sanctuary could have had no effect on the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction over the theaters in the pre- cincts of Blackfriars and Whitefriars. After 1608 his authority certainly extended over these districts. 2 In the peaceable pre- cinct of Blackfriars, it does not seem to have been questioned ; but the lawless community of Whitefriars no doubt made diffi- cult the enforcement of any sort of municipal order. I have treated the status of these two Liberties thus elabo- rately because disregard of the change made by the charter of 1608 has slightly confused some histories of the stage. As we shall see, the Lord Mayor endeavored later to exercise his author- ity over Blackfriars against Burbage's theater; but not until a date when royal authority was paramount, and the players had little to fear from the hostility of the municipality. In spite of the charters granted to the City, the right of the royal government to interfere in this district over which the Lord Mayor ruled was apparently limited only by motives of expediency. It has generally been underrated by historians of the stage. We must remember that the authority of the Crown, under the Tudor and Stuart despotism, was considered para- mount. Royal patents, as we have seen, were given a power superior even to the statutes, and were expressly granted "any act, statute, proclamation or commandment to the contrary notwithstanding." During the period, moreover, as we have observed in the case of the laws regulating the status of players and the censorship, there was a steady centralization of power, 1 Stephen, Criminal Law of England, I, 491-492. The Savoy was another Liberty to the west of the City. 2 See the recognition of this in the case of Blackfriars by the Lord Chief Justice in 1615, mentioned below, pp. 199-200. 149 a removal of administration from the hands of local officials to the royal government. This course of policy is evident in the dealings of the Crown with the Corporation of London in con- nection with theatrical affairs. Its interference became bolder and more arbitrary, passing from requests to commands. But there were some limits to such coercion of the municipal- it v. The powerful and wealthy Corporation of London was too important to be utterly antagonized. Before Elizabeth's day the capital had been the determining factor in the making and unmaking of kings ; and even when the great Queen feared no such extremity, she was in frequent need of the money and men which the loyal metropolis could supply. Hence, during most of her reign, the tone of royal despotism was softened at times; and the City, conscious of its power and its rights, occasionally assumed a bold attitude in asserting its privileges. But as the years passed and the Stuarts reigned, its manner grew more subservient. However much the Puritan spirit was in- creasing within, outwardly and officially the municipality as a rule submitted respectfully to the royal will. Such, at all events, is the course seen in dramatic affairs. The long conflict concerning the admission of plays into London, which is the most interesting feature in the history of local stage regulation, arose from the essentially differing atti- tudes held by the Crown and the Privy Council, on the one hand, and the city government, on the other, towards the performance of plays in London. The Privy Council, representing, of course, the views of the Queen, held the traditional English attitude toward the stage, — that plays are not in themselves evil, but, on the contrary, entirely justifiable, — "for honest recreation sake," as the Lords once put it. The Queen, as is well known, w r ent even further than this in her extreme fondness for dramatic performances, and many of the Councillors were also warm friends of the drama and patrons of companies. The position of the royal government was therefore on the whole one of generous and sympathetic patronage of the stage. The chief reason advanced by the Privy Council for the admission of the players into London — a reason reiterated on all occasions and respectfully received by the City — was that the actors must 150 have practice in order to perfect themselves for their perform- ances before the Queen. This was the root of all the difficulty, and the ground of the granting to the favored players of those special and exclusive privileges which developed into the mo- nopolistic system of patented companies. Under certain circumstances, of course, the Privy Council believed that no plays should be allowed in and about London ; and they frequently ordered their suppression : — in times of plague or danger of plague; because of the representation of unfit matters, seditious or personal, upon the stage; because of disorders at the theaters, or, when riots were expected, fear that such assemblages might foment disorder. They sometimes restricted the number of performances, because frequent rep- resentations led people to wasteful and riotous living. They forbade them on Sunday, in Lent, and sometimes on Thursday, because on that day they interfered with the Queen's bear baiters. But under proper restrictions they saw nothing wrong in them. The city authorities agreed with the Lords in desiring plays stopped for these reasons. They too, and even more acutely, feared the danger of infection. They dreaded, much more deeply, the disorder growing from such assemblages of the baser elements of the population. Far more important, — they feared the effect of the drama upon the morals of the people. Not only did plays lead the citizens to wasteful expenditure, and interfere with their industry, but, to the minds of the London authorities, they corrupted the morals of the city and led astray its youth. Finally, apart from all matters of expediency, in the opinion of many of the municipal officials and citizens, all plays were essen- tially sinful and irreligious, — an abomination in the sight of God. This was the new, the Puritan attitude. Though no doubt many of the London officials opposed the stage on the other grounds, independent of any Puritan principles, it was this deep religious conviction on the part of most of the city which made the opposition of the municipal government to plays especially bitter. The Lord Mayor felt himself the guardian of the moral and spiritual welfare of the citizens. Roger Ascham, in his Scholemaster, written shortly before his death in 1568, recog- nizes in an interesting passage this moral zeal in the chief officer 151 of the municipality. "Yea, the Lord Maior of London, being but a Ciuill officer, is commonlie, for his tyme, more diligent in punishing sinne, the bent enemie against God and good order, than all the bloodie Inquisitors in Italie be in seaven yeare." l These were the attitudes held, in general, by the Crown and the City during the controversy of the last quarter or more of the sixteenth century. But we must not expect to find them pre- served with entire consistency. A new Lord Mayor was elected each year ; the Lords upon the Privy Council frequently changed ; and as different individuals and different influences came into play, the policy of the authorities varied. Sometimes the Privy Council seems strongly opposed to plays; sometimes the City seems lax in suppressing them. Though the real controversy does not begin until about 1573, some facts have come down to us which show that thirty years before this the Lord Mayor was already appealing to the Privy Council against actors. On March 31, 1543, he complained to the Lords of the "licentious manner of players." 2 A few days later, on April 10, two companies, we learn from the Council Register, had to be suppressed. One, a nobleman's company, — four players "belonging to my Lord Warden," — "for playing contrary to an order taken by the Mayor on that behalf, were committed to the Countours." 3 On the same day a craftsman company was in trouble. " Certain joyners to the number of xx having made a disguising upon the Sonday morning without respect either of the day or the order which was known openly the Kings Highness intended to take for the repressing of plays, were therefore committed to warde." 4 Most of the joiners, "after a good lesson," were restored to liberty four days later; 5 but three of them, who had been committed to the Tower, were not released until more than two weeks had passed. 6 Just why the Council punished these players is not entirely clear. Prob- ably the Mayor's complaint of March 31 had resulted in some royal order against plays, and it was for breach of this that the actors were imprisoned. But the reference to their lack of re- 1 Arber's edition, 84. * Acts, I, 103-104. * Ibid., 109. *Ibid. ' Ibid., no. 9 Ibid., 122. 152 spect for Sunday seems to show that there was already some feeling against performances of certain sorts on that day. In an earlier chapter we have considered the most significant points in the regulation of the London drama during the reigns of Edward VI and Mary : the suppression of occasional seditious plays, and the delegation of censoring power to the Bishop of Lon- don. 1 Elizabeth's proclamation of May 16, 1559, as we have seen, 2 gave to the municipal authorities the power to censor and license plays in cities ; and under such a system London lived for some years. The great importance and power of the London Corpo- ration enabled it to take towards traveling companies a firmer atti- tude than was possible for the smaller towns of England. But the prescriptive right to play possessed by a properly authorized com- pany seems to have had some effect even at the capital. The municipal authorities were sometimes chary of refusing a noble- man's request that his company be allowed to perform within the City. The royal authorization they rarely dared to oppose. The first definite expression in London of the Puritan attitude towards the drama occurs in 1563, in the voice of Grindal, later Archbishop of Canterbury, but at this time Bishop of London, known for his Puritan leanings. In 1563 a great plague was raging in the city, and Grindal appealed to the Privy Council to stop all plays. The assemblages which they caused, he urged, were the most dangerous means of spreading the infection. More- over, the players, he said, were "an idle sort of people, which hact been infamous ihliTl good commonweliTfhV'; and""" God's woid— was profaned by their impure mouths, and turned into scoffs." He therefore ad v ised "That a proclamatrorrbe issued inhibiting • all plays within the City~or three miles thereof for the space^of a year — "and if it vveie fur_ eyer, it were not amiss." " What actiorrthe government took as a result of this appeal does not appear. In 1572, however, we have record that "plays were banished for a time out of London, lest the resort unto them should engender a plague, or rather disperse it, being already begonne." 4 'See above, pp. 8 ff. 2 p. 14. s Strype, Life of Grindal, 121-122. * Extracts from MSS. of Harrison's Chronologic, in Harrison's Description of England, edited by Furnivall in the New Shakspere Society Publications, Pt. I, liv. 153 The opposition to plays in the City had apparently by this time risen high, and the success of tins temporary prohibition of them perhaps encouraged the municipal authorities, who now began their long and bitter war against the London stage. The first campaign may be said to have lasted from 1573 to 1576, and to have resulted in the building of the regular theaters in the Liberties. The first gun seems to have been fired in July, 1573, when the Privy Council apparently began its practice of securing special privileges within the City for favored performers. On July 14, we learn from the Council Register, the Lords requested the Mayor "to permit liberty to certain Italian players to make show of an instrument of strange motions within the City." ! But the municipal authorities were apparently already showing the comparative boldness and independence which characterized their attitude during all this first campaign. Five days later the Coun- cil had to write to the Lord Mayor again, reiterating their de- mand and "marveling that he did it not at their first request." 2 The sequel does not appear, but one fears that the Mayor had to acquiesce. The demand for license to play in the inn-yards within the City was now so considerable, and the difficulty of securing such permission from the municipality so great, that it apparently occurred to some one to devise a sort of "licensing patent," something like those which we have already considered, 3 granting to the patentee the right to license playing places within the City. The privilege would probably have been a profitable one, as the Master of the Revels proved in later years. The scheme had evidently been suggested several times. We have our first definite knowledge of it, however, in March, 1574, when the Lord Chamberlain proposed to grant such a privilege to one Holmes. But before carrying out the plan, the Chamberlain, with due regard, in this instance, for the rights and feelings of the city authorities, requested their assent. Our knowledge of the affair is derived wholly from the letter in which the Mayor and the Corporation replied to this request. It is particularly interesting 1 Acts, VIII, 131. 2 Ibid., 132. s See above, p. 45. 154 as showing the bold and jealous guardianship of their liberties and privileges which the municipality dared at this time to assert against the encroachment of the royal officials. One should note, however, that the request had apparently not been made in the Queen's name, but solely by the authority of the Lord Cham- berlain. "Our dutie to your good L. humbly done. Whereas your Lord, hath made request in favour of one Holmes for our assent that he might have the appointment of places for playes and enterludes within this citie, it may please your L. to reteine undoubted assurance of our redinesse to gratifie, in any thing that we reasonably may, any per- sone whom your L. shall favor and recommend. Howbeit this case is such, and so nere touching the governance of this citie in one of the greatest matters thereof, namely the assemblies of multitudes of the Queenes people, and regard to be had to sundry inconveniences, whereof the peril is continually, upon everie occasion, to be foreseen by the rulers of this citie, that we cannot, with our duties, byside the precident farre extending to the hart of our liberties, well assent that the sayd apointement of places be committed to any private persone. For which, and other reasonable considerations, it hath long since pleased your good L. among the rest of her Majesties most honourable counsell, to rest satisfied with our not granting to such persone as, by their most honourable letters, was heretofore in like case com- mended to us. Byside that, if it might with reasonable convenience be granted, great offres have been, and be made for the same to the relefe of the poore in the hospitalles, which we hold as assured, that your L. will well allow that we prefer before the benefit of any private person. And so we commit your L. to the tuition of Almighty God. At London, this second of March, 1573." l The opposition to plays on the part of the city officials was now very decided, and the players evidently appealed against it to their patrons and to the Privy Council. On March 22, a few days after the letter just quoted, the Council wrote to the Lord Mayor, asking him "to advertise their Lordships what causes he hath to restrain plays, to thintent their Lordships may the better answer such as desire to have liberty for the same." 2 The Mayor's presentation of the causes of restraint was appar- 1 Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 23-24. Hazlitt, however, does not understand its significance, and gives it an inaccurate and misleading title. 2 Acts, VIII, 215. 155 cntly not entirely convincing to the royal government; or at all events one company, so fortunate as to have for its patron the Queen's favorite, and also to be able to give her Majesty "solace and pleasure" by its court performances, had powerful enough iniluence to override the opposition of the City. The Earl of Leicester's players obtained from the Crown, in May, 1574, less than two months after the Council's request for the Mayor's rea- sons, the patent under the Great Seal of England which I have already quoted. 1 This, according to the text of the Privy Seal directing the issue of the Great Seal, explicitly authorized per- formances "within our City of London," except in "time of com- mon prayer, or in the time of great and common plague in our said City of London," — any act, statute, proclamation, or com- mandment to the contrary notwithstanding. The copy of the instrument preserved among Rymer's unpublished papers, 2 however, does not contain the important clause respecting per- formances in London; and it has been suggested that this was omitted from the Great Seal. 3 This theory seems improbable. Rymer's copy contains at the end the telltale "plague in our said City of London," showing that the previous clause had once been in. Why it was dropped out from this copy we cannot tell. But surely it is not likely that it was omitted from the patent actually issued, since the authorization to play within the City must have been the chief thing desired by the players and the chief point of the granting of the patent. That the authority of a patent under the Great Seal should be used to override the municipal government is not at all surprising, in view of what we have seen of such grants, some of which were issued expressly to supersede even Statutes of the Realm. 4 It does not appear, however, that the Lord Mayor acquiesced promptly and completely in the newly authorized performances. He seems to have needed a further reminder. On July 22 fol- lowing the Privy Council wrote, requiring him to "admit the 1 PP- 33~34- 2 Printed in 1821 Variorum, III, 47, note. 3 See Collier, Introduction to Northbrooke's Treatise, Shakspere Society Publications, XIV, xiii. No justification is apparent for Collier's statement that the right granted by this clause was certainly never exercised. 4 See above, p. 45. 156 comedy players to play within the City of London, and to be otherwise favorably used," l — a request which probably refers to the recently patented company. But performances could not have continued long during this summer, for the plague in- creased and grew so virulent that on October 24 the Lords of the Council refused to go to the proposed feast of the new Lord Mayor, because of the danger of infection. They even suggested that the feast ought not to be given, but that the money intended therefor should be devoted to the poor. 2 One wonders whether they took any ironical pleasure in adminis- tering this pious reproof to the puritanical city government. In anticipation of the renewal of plays after the plague should cease, the City Council, on December 6, 1574, passed a long and interesting ordinance carefully and rigorously regulating dra- matic performances in London. 3 If they were to be forced to have plays in the City, they evidently determined that the produc- tions should be thoroughly supervised. Though the general tone of the phrasing of the act is decidedly Puritan, as is also its concern for decency and morality, it does not show the abso- lute condemnation of all plays as sinful which the extreme Puri- tans, and later the city officials themselves, vehemently urged. It even admits that there may be a "lawful, honest and comely use of plays." Its preamble gives us an interesting picture of some of the conditions surrounding the inn-yard performances of the period, and a summary of the chief arguments of the city fathers against plays. "Whereas heartofore sondrye greate disorders and inconvenyences have beene found to ensewe to this Cittie by the inordynate hauntynge of greate multitudes of people, speciallye youthe, to plaves, enterludes and shewes; namelye occasyon of frayes and quarrelles, eavell prac- tizes of incontinencye in greate Innes, havinge chambers and secrete places adjoyninge to their open stagies and gallyries, inveyglynge and alleurynge of maides, speciallye orphanes, and good cityzens children under age, to previe and unmete contractes, the publishinge of un- chaste, uncomelye, and unshamefaste speeches and doynges, with- 1 Acts, VIII, 273. 2 Ibid., 303. 3 Printed at length in Hazlitt, English Drama, 27-31; and in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 208-211, note. 157 drawinge of the Qucnes Majesties subjectes from dyvyne service on Soundaiea & hollydayes, al which tymes such playes weare chefelye used, unthriftye waste of the moneye of the poore & fond persons, sondrye robberies by pyckinge and cuttinge of purses, utteringe of popular, busye and sedycious matters, and manic other corruptions of vouthe, and other enormyties; besydes that allso soundrye slaugh- ters and mayhemminges of the Quenes Subjectes have happened by ruines of Skaffoldes, Frames and Stagies, and by engynes, weapons and powder used in plaics. And whear in tyme of Goddes visitacion by the plaigue suche assemblies of the people in thronge and presse have benne verye daungerous for spreadinge of Infection." The act also cites the restraint of plays by the Privy Council in times of plague, and further states that the city officials fear lest " vppon Goddes mercyfull w th drawinge his hand of syckenes from vs (\v cU God graunte) the people, speciallye the meaner and moste vnrewlye sorte, should w th sodayne forgettinge of his visytacion, \v' h owte feare of goddes wrathe, and w th owte deowe respecte of the good and politique meanes, that he hathe ordeyned for the preservacion of commen weales and peoples in healthe and good order, retourne to the vndewe vse of suche enormyties, to the greate offence of God, the Queenes ma ties commaundements and good governance." In order that all these perils may be avoided, and " the lawfull, honest, and comelye vse of plaies, pastymes, and recreacions in good sorte onelye permitted, and good provision hadd for the saiftie and well orderynge of the people thear assemblydd," the Lord Mayor and "his bretheren th' aldermen, together w th the grave and discrete Citizens in the Comen Councell assemblyd," enact that "from henceforthe no playe, comodye, tragidie, en- terlude, nor publycke shewe shalbe openlye played or shewed \v u 'in the liberties of the Cittie, whearin shalbe vttered anie wourdes, examples, or doynges of anie vnchastitie, sedicion, nor suche lyke vnfytt, and vncomelye matter, vppon paine of im- prisonment by the space of xiiij ten daies of all persons offendinge in anie suche open playinge, or shewinges, and v 11 . for evrie suche offence." The following explicit provisions for licensing are then laid down. No innkeeper or a ny other person shall _a l]pw any play to be given in his houseyard or other place unless\ (i) the play_ 158 has been perused and allowed by the persons appointed for that purpose by the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen; (2) the players have been authorized by the Mayor and Aldermen ; (3) the place has been approved by them ; and (4) the house owner has given security for the keeping of good order. Moreover, no perform- ances whatsoever shall be given at any times — such as those of sickness — forbidden by the city authorities ; or during the hours of Divine Service upon Sundays and Holy Days; upon pain of a fine of £5 for every offense. I All duly licensed housekeepers shall contribute to the poor and the sick of the City; and all fines and forfeitures shall be devoted to the same purpose. Per- formances in private houses, at weddings or other festivities, where no money is collected from the audience, are exempted from the provisions of this act, except those "touchinge the publishinge of unchaste, sedycious and vnmete matters," — an offense which is under no circumstances to be tolerated. Though perhaps somewhat stringent, the regulations laid down by this act seem on the whole very sensible, showing a due regard for the safety and well-being of the citizens. But the law, as enforced, was apparently very irksome to the players. The expense of the required contributions to the poor, the fines, and the bonds, must have been considerable ; and the growing Puri- tan feeling among the citizens probably made the enforcement of the licensing regulations unduly restrictive and oppressive, and the suppression of performances too frequent to suit the taste of the actors. It was apparently these hardships which drove Burbage and others to seek refuge in the Liberties, beyond the reach of the city officials, and caused the erection, in 1576, of the first permanent playhouse, the Theater, where Leicester's com- pany performed, and almost immediately afterward of its neigh- bor, the Curtain. It has been customary for stage historians to attribute the building of these theaters in the Liberties to an undated order of the municipal government wholly prohibiting all plays in the City, which has generally been placed in the year 1575. 1 But, as Mr. Chambers has shown, 2 this date was carelessly and in- 1 It is so dated by Collier, Fleay, and Ordish. 2 Academy, August 24, 1895. 159 accurately indorsed on the documents in Lansdowne MS. 20 which relate to this edict and were apparently written soon after its issue. They refer to it as having been separated by a con- siderable interval of time from the city ordinance of December, 1 574. Moreover, they themselves, as will be shown later, cannot have been written earlier than 1584, and they seem to have followed rather soon after this order of expulsion. In view of these facts it seems probable that the latter edict was not promulgated until some years after 1575. I have tentatively placed it in 1582, and shall consider it at that point in this narrative. 1 Indeed, one would not expect, in the very next year, such a sudden change of policy and reversal of the careful ordinance of December, 1574; nor is the absolute prohibition of plays in the City necessary to explain the actors' resort to the Liberties. It is certain that, contrary to the impression given by some histo- rians, plays in the inn yards within London continued for many j years after 1575. This will appear as w r e follow the subsequent history of the controversy over the city stage. The theaters were not yet sufficient to accommodate all the companies per- forming ; nor were they desirable in the winter months, when the players still wished to act in the more accessible and convenient inn yards. During the years immediately following this first stage of the contest, the Puritan disapproval of the drama was finding ex- pression in violently denunciatory sermons and pamphlets, such , as Northbrooke's Treatise, in 1577, and Gossan* sSchoole of Abuse, ' «. in 1579. But the City seems to have made, for the present, no further definite move against the players, except, presumably, the more or less rigid enforcement of the regulation of 1574. The Privy Council, however, several times took action affecting the London stage. On August 1, 1577, they ordered the sup- pression of all plays in and about the City until Michaelmas — September 29 — because of the danger of infection in hot weather. 2 In the following January they again sought special privileges in London for certain players, requesting the Lord Mayor to permit Drousiano, the Italian comedian, and his com- pany, to play within the City. 3 In the next December (1578), 'See below, pp. 163 ff. 2 Acts, IX, 388. 3 Ibid., X, 144. 160 apparently after another outbreak of the plague, they ordered the resumption of performances in and about London, with proper precautions against infection; and wrote to the Lord Mayor, requiring him 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 company else, to exercise playing within the City." l These companies are to be allowed, the Lords state, because "they are appointed to play this Christmas before her Majesty." The granting of these exclusive privileges is an early example of the monopoly allowed favored players. But the large number of companies here named is in contrast to the practice of the later years of Elizabeth's reign. On March 13, 1579, we find the first explicit statement of a law against performances in Lent. The Privy Council on that day bade the Lord Mayor and the Justices of Middlesex — i.e. those with authority over the Theater and the Curtain — sup- press all plays during Lent and until after Easter week; and commanded also that this order should be observed thereafter yearly in the Lenten season. 2 Urged on by the Puritan denunciations of the drama in general, and of the Theater and the Curtain in particular, as sinks of abomination and iniquity, the city authorities now resumed, more energetically, their war against plays. The second and the most bitter stage of this contest lasted from 1580 to 1584, — years filled with appeals, arguments, and orders from Common Council and Privy Council, resulting in temporary victory for the City, but ultimate defeat. Early in 1580 the campaign opened with an attack on the Theater. The Lord Mayor seems to have appealed to the Mid- dlesex Justices and brought about the indictment of John Braynes and James Burbage for causing unlawful assemblages of people at that playhouse, and thus provoking great affrays, assaults, tumults, and other breaches of the Queen's peace. 3 Probably this indictment followed a particularly great disorder which 1 Acts, IX, 435, 436. 2 Ibid., XI, 73-74; and see below, pp. 210-21 1. 3 See the indictment, quoted from the Middlesex County Records, in the Athenaum, February 12, 1887. 161 occurred at the Theater on a Sunday in April of that year, and concerning which the Lord Mayor wrote to the Privy Council on April 12. 1 Though the playhouse was outside his jurisdic- tion, the Mayor, moved by the fact that ""those players do make assemblies of citizens and their families of whom I have charge," had started, he reported, to investigate the matter. He had consulted with the Under-Sheriff of Middlesex and had sum- moned some of the actors before him. Upon learning that the Privy Council had taken up the affair, however, he ceased to act. But he begged the Lords to consider "that the players of plays which are used at the Theater and other such places, and tumblers and such like, are a very superfluous sort of men and of such faculty as the laws have disallowed, and their exercise of those plays is not only a great hindrance to the service of God, who hath with His mighty hand so lately admonished us of our earnest repentance, 2 but also a great corruption of youth, with unchaste and wicked matters, the occasion of much incontinence, practices of many frays, quarrels and other disorders within the City." He therefore begged that order might be taken to pre- vent such plays, not only within the City, but also in the Liberties. 3 It does not appear that the Theater was much troubled as a result of this agitation. Within a month after the Mayor's appeal, however, the opponents of plays had obtained an ally in the shape of the plague, which caused the Privy Council in May to forbid performances. 4 This order was apparently not rigorously enforced in the Liberties, for in June the Lord Mayor again appealed to the Lords, reporting the steps taken in the City to stop the spread of the disease, and requesting the aid of the Coun- cil "for the redress of such things as were found dangerous in spreading the infection and otherwise drawing God's wrath and plague upon the City, such as the erecting and frequenting of infamous houses out of the liberties and jurisdictions of the 1 The indictment is for causing an unlawful assemblage on February 21 and other days before and after that date. It might have been drawn as late as April. ' This apparently refers to the recent earthquake of April 6. s Remembrancia, 350; Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 348-349. * Acts, XII, 15. M 162 City, the drawing of the people from the service of God and honest exercises, to unchaste plays." 1 Whether the Lords attempted to remedy these bitter grievances by more rigorous suppression of the theaters, we do not know. In the following summer the plague again caused the prohibition of performances. On July 10, 1581, the Privy Council commanded the Mayor and the Justices of the Peace, in order to prevent the spread of the disease, to permit no more plays until the end of September. 2 The general measures for the avoidance of infec- tion, apart from the closing of the playing places, the city authori- ties did not carry out to the satisfaction of the Privy Council. In September and again in October the Lords administered to the Mayor and the Aldermen a severe scolding for their negli- gence, and reproached them because the disease had spread so that the Queen had had to remove to a greater distance from London. 3 With these reproofs fresh in their minds it must have been exasperating to the city officials to receive in November a request for the allowance of what they considered the most dangerous cause of infection, — the assemblages at plays. The demand of the Privy Council on November 18, 1581, was couched in the usual terms. " As the sickness was almost ceased, and not likely to increase at this time of year, in order to relieve the poor players, and to encourage their being in readiness with convenient matters for her highness's solace this next Christmas," the Lords required the Mayor forthwith to "suffer the players to practise such plays, in such sort, and in the usual places, as they had been accustomed, having careful regard for the continuance of such quiet order as had been before observed." * The Mayor ap- parently did not accede promptly to this request, and because of his opposition the players petitioned the Privy Council for further aid. The Lords therefore wrote again on December 3, ordering the Mayor to permit the petitioning companies — who are not named — to perform in and about the City, as they had been accustomed to do, in order that they might support their families and because they were to perform before the Queen at Christmas. But, perhaps as a concession to the municipal 1 Remembrancia, 330. ' Ibid., 331. 3 Ibid.; Acts, XIII, 234. * Remembrancia, 350. 163 authorities, the players are to be allowed to act only on week days, and never on the Sabbath, cither in the forenoon or in the afternoon. 1 In this same December, 1581, the patent was issued which gave to the Master of the Revels such wide authority over the stage. Possibly some inkling of the trouble which his licensing power was to cause reached the city officials, and combined with their indignation at the abuses of the theaters to urge them to the extreme measure they seem to have taken about this time. This was the passage of the act totally prohibiting all plays within the City, which has generally been dated 1575, but which, as Mr. Chambers has pointed out and as I have stated above, 2 almost certainly belongs in these years of agitation between 1580 and 1583, and perhaps early in 1582. The order of expulsion is re- ferred to in a letter from the municipal officials in 1584 3 as being contained in Article 62 of an Act of the Common Council for the Relief of the Poor. This is clearly identical with Article 62 of an undated pamphlet printed by Hugh Singleton and entitled "Orders appointed to be executed in the Cittie of London for setting roges and idle persons to worke, and for the releefe of the poore." 4 The municipal letter of 1584 states that this edict preceded the Paris Garden disaster, and it must therefore be of a date somewhat earlier than January 13, 1583. It was appar- ently as late as 1580, and probably a year or two after that; for the city officials speak of it as having been separated from the act of December, 1574, by a considerable period of time, during which the abuses of the stage grew flagrant, and there was much agitation and many denunciatory sermons. 5 Moreover, Raw- lidge's Monster Lately Found Out, published in 1628, in an ac- count of this controversy states that it was soon after 1580 that the citizens expelled the players and "quite pulled down and sup- pressed" the playhouses in the City. 6 During the years 1580- 1582 the agitation against the stage was bitter and continuous, 1 Acts, XIII, 269. Possibly this is the same letter as that just mentioned, dated November 18 in the city archives. : pp. 158-159. 3 See below, p. 172. 4 Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 212; Chambers, in Acade my, August 24, 1895. The order is sometimes relerred to as the "Singleton order." 6 See below, pp. 172-173. ' Chambers, in Academy, August 24, 1895. 164 and the edict would fit appropriately into almost any part of that period. The early spring of 1582 is perhaps the most probable date, for at that time the City was suffering from the plague, as the order implies, the Mayor was begging the Lords to continue the restraint of plays, as the last clause of the edict suggests, and all the other requirements seem to be met by this date. The order is characteristically Puritan in its phrasing and sentiment, more extreme than the ordinance of December, 1574. "For as much as the playing of enterludes, and the resort to the same, are very daungerous for the infection of the plague, wherby infinite burdens and losses to the Citty may increase, and are very hurtfull in corruption of youth with incontinence and lewdness, and also great wasting both of the time and thrift of many poore people, and great provoking of the wrath of God, the ground of all plagues, great withdrawing of the people from publique prayer, and from the service of God, and daily cried out against by the preachers of the word of God; therefore it is ordered, that all such enterludes in publique places, and the resort to the same, shall wholy be prohibited as un- godly, and humble sute made to the Lords, that lyke prohibition be in places neere unto the Cittie." l Whether or no this edict was actually promulgated in the spring of 1582, there was evidently some opposition to plays on the part of the City at this time; for the Privy Council again came to the aid of the actors. They wrote to the Mayor, re- questing him to allow performances in London, since the city was free from infection. As usual, they advanced as a reason the Queen's delight in plays and the necessity of the actors' having practice in order that they might the better gratify her Majesty. Perhaps somewhat impressed by the municipal argu- ments, they forbade plays not only on the Sabbath, but also on the ordinary Holy Days until after evening prayer ; and they sug- gested that the City should appoint a censor, in order that those dramas which contained "matter that might breed corruption of manners and conversation among the people" might be for- bidden. 2 Such a direct request from the Privy Council the Mayor 1 From the text given by Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 211-212, quoting the Singleton pamphlet. 7 Remcmbrattcia, 351; Ads, XIII, 404. The first gives the date as April n, the second as May 20. 165 of course dared not refuse; but in his reply he again rehearsed the inconveniences and perils of theatrical performances, and begged that the Lords would continue their restraint of them. The suggestion as to a censor he gladly adopted. The plan of restraining plays on Holy Days until after evening prayer, how- ever, he respectfully condemned, since this would delay the action of the performances to a very inconvenient time of night, espe- cially for servants and children. 1 Not only did the Mayor and the Aldermen have to submit to the interference of the Privy Council, but they had also to deal with the demands of individual noblemen that their servants might have the privilege of performing within the inn yards of the City. An example of this occurred in the following July, when the Earl of Warwick requested of the Mayor a license for his servant, John David, to play "his provost prize in his science and pro- fession of defence" at the Bull in Bishopsgate Street. 2 Appar- ently the Mayor was obdurate, for three weeks later the Earl again addressed him, expressing surprise at the prohibition of playing prizes by his servant, and desiring that more favor might be shown him. 3 To this the Mayor replied at some length, standing by his first prohibition, but endeavoring to pacify the offended nobleman by some concession. If the Earl's ser- vant will arrange to perform at the Theater or some other open place outside London, the Mayor will permit him, "with his company, drums, and show, to pass openly through the City, being not upon the Sunday, which is as much as I may justify in this season." 4 In the following winter an accident occurred which vindicated some of the assertions of the city authorities concerning the dan- ger of assemblages at shows, and, by arousing feeling against theaters, temporarily gave the municipality great help in its warfare upon them. On Sunday, January 13, 1583, a scaffold fell during a performance at Paris Garden, killing some of the spectators and injuring many. The Mayor reported the affair to Lord Treasurer Burghley on January 18, attributing the disaster to the hand of God, on account of the abuse of the Sab- 1 Remembrancia, 351. 2 Ibid.; Athencrum, January 23, 1869. 3 Ibid. * Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 376. 166 bath Day, and requesting Burghley to give order for the redress of such contempt of God's service. 1 The Lord Treasurer appears to have been moved by the Mayor's report. He replied that he would bring the matter before the Council, and get some general order passed prohibiting such exhibitions. In the mean- time he recommended the Lord Mayor, with the advice of the Aldermen, to issue a command to every ward for the prevention of such profane assemblies on the Sabbath Day. 2 Supported by this pronouncement of the Lord Treasurer, and justified further by another outbreak of the plague, the city authorities now seem to have proceeded to rigorous measures. It appears probable that in this spring of 1583 they actually suppressed, for a time, all the city inn yards used for performances. 3 They certainly took vigorous steps against them, as we shall presently see. Had it not been for the royal favor, the state of the players would now have been lamentable. But just at this time a step was taken which added considerably to their prestige and influ- ence. This was the formation of a company directly in the Queen's service, to be known as Her Majesty's Players. On March 10, 1583, Sir Francis Walsingham summoned Tilney to Court, to select these actors. 4 As a result, twelve of the best were chosen from the noblemen's companies, and, according to Howes' account, written about 1615, "were sworn the Queen's servants and were allowed wages and liveries as grooms of the chamber." 5 Save that they were apparently more distinguished actors, their status seems to have resembled that of the household players kept by the Queen's predecessors and by Elizabeth herself during the first decade or so of her reign. 6 The new company, as we shall shortly see, appears to have had no formal patent or warrant. Its position in London did not differ very essentially from that of the noblemen's companies which served the Queen at times, when they were backed, as they often were, 1 Remembrancia, 336. 2 Ibid. s See Fleay, London Stage, 54; and the passage from Rawlidge's Monster Lately Found Out (1628), quoted in the 1821 Variorum, III, 46. 4 Cunningham, Revels Accounts, 186. * See the passage from Howes' additions to Stow's Chronicle, edition of 1615, quoted in the 1821 Variorum, III, 49, note. 8 See above, pp. 23, 26-27. 1G7 by letters of the royal Council requiring that they be allowed to perform. But on its travels the very name of her Majesty's servants must have brought it consideration and profit, since the treatment accorded to players was so generally dependent upon the rank and influence of their patron. Even in London the Queen's name must often have overawed the city officials and protected the actors from trouble. Moreover, the Privy Council was even more energetic and urgent in securing for Her Majesty's Players the privilege of performing than it had been on behalf of the favored noblemen's companies. It does not, however, seem to me certain that, as most historians assume, the new company was formed for the express purpose of overcoming the opposition of the city officials. Such a course was not necessary. The Privy Council had at any time the power to get any players admitted to the City, and they had, as we have seen, frequently exercised it. The formation of the company may have been due to some desire to limit the number of performers necessary at Court ; to a willingness to favor certain players; and, most likely, to some plan for the better organization of court performances. Besides such motives as these, the royal officials may have felt that they could better supervise and control the Queen's own servants, when the Lords secured for them, for their necessary practice, playing privileges in London. The favored noblemen's companies were less directly responsible to the authorities, and perhaps less easy to keep in order. It seems probable that, supported by the power of the Queen's name, her players performed in London in the spring of 1583, in spite of the growing plague and the opposition of the City. 1 But they could not have played long, for the infection soon became serious, and all performances in the City must have been stopped. 2 Writing to Sir Francis Walsingham on May 3, in reference to the plague, the Mayor points out that the restraints in London are useless, unless like orders are carried out in the 1 This may perhaps be inferred from the Council's request to the Mayor, in the following autumn, that this company be allowed to play as heretofore. Re- membrancia, 352. 2 See the Mayor's letter to a Middlesex Justice on April 27, 1583. Athenaeum, January 23, 1869. 168 adjoining Liberties, and he requests the Privy Council to take steps to redress this danger. 1 He again forcibly urges the evils and demoralization caused by such performances, and the disreputable classes who frequent them. "Among other we finde one very great and dangerous inconvenience, the assemblie of people to playes, bearebayting, fencers and prophane spec- tacles at the Theatre and Curtaine and other like places, to which doe resorte great multitudes of the basist sort of people . . . and which be otherwise perilous for contagion, biside the withdrawing from Gods service, the peril of ruines of so weake byldinges and the avancement of incontinencie and most un- godly confederacies." 2 The severity of the plague seems to have prevented perform- ances in the summer of 1583; but as the winter drew on the Privy Council wrote, on November 26, to the Lord Mayor on behalf of the new company. As the infection within the city had ceased, they desired that "Her Majesty's players might be suffered to play as heretofore, more especially as they were shortly to present some of their doings before her." 3 However much the municipality might resent this action, the officials dared not refuse such a direct command from the Crown. They relaxed their prohibition and allowed the players within the City; but with certain restrictions which caused dissatis- faction. A few days later — on December 1 — Sir Francis Walsingham wrote to the Mayor in the name of the Privy Council, reiterating the request of November 26. "With re- gard to the letter of the Council on behalf of her Majesty's players, which the Lord Mayor had interpreted to extend only to holidays, and not to other week-days, the Council, con- sidering that without frequent exercise of such plays as were to be presented before her Majesty her servants could not con- veniently satisfy her recreation and their own duty, desired that they should be licensed to perform upon week-days and work- days, at convenient times, between this and Shrovetide, Sundays only excepted." 4 Reluctant though the City was, it appar- ently had to submit. In spite of the municipal prohibition 1 Remembrancia, 337. 3 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 352. 3 Remembrancia, 352. * Ibid. 169 of plays the Queen's company performed within the Mayor's jurisdiction in the winter of 1583, and, fortified with this prac- tice, appeared at Court during the Christmas festivities of that year. 1 In the following summer, however, the tables were turned, and the City gained a . temporary victory. Fleetwood, the Recorder of London, was in the habit of writing to Lord Burgh- ley concerning events in the city, and our knowledge of this affair comes from one of these letters, written in June, 1584. According to his account, the Lord Mayor sent to the Court two Aldermen, with a request for the suppressing and pulling down of the Theater and the Curtain. Presumably the municipal officials had already stopped all performances within London. The royal government was at this time apparently anxious to conciliate the City, for all the Lords acceded to the request, except the Lord Chamberlain and the Vice-Chamberlain, — the natural friends and protectors of the players. "But," says Fleetwood, "we obtained a letter to suppress them all." On the same night the Recorder summoned before him the Queen's company and Lord Arundel's, who were then performing; and they all obeyed the Lords' letters. But when he sought to "bind" the "owner of the Theater" to obedience, the latter proved more obdurate. Fleetwood's account illustrates in an amusing manner the difficulty experienced by the city officials in disciplining noblemen's players, who, relying upon the pro- tection of their patron, were apt to prove insolent and disobedient. "He sent me word," writes the Recorder, "that he was my Lord of Hunsdens man and that he wold not comme at me, but he wold in the mornyng ride to my Lord. Then I sent the under-shereff for hym, and he browght hym to me, and, at his commyng, he showtted me owt very justice; and in the end I shewed hym my Lord his masters hand, and then he was more quiet; but, to die for it, he wold not be bound. And then I mynding to send hym to prison, he made sute that he might be bounde to appere at the oier and determiner, the which is to- morowe, where he said that he was suer the court wold not bynd hym, being a counselers man; and so I have graunted his 1 See Chambers, in Modern Language Review, II, 1 (October, 1906). 170 request, where he shal be sure to be bounde, or els lyke to do worse." 1 The reasons for this action of the Lords in suppressing the theaters, and the results of it, are not clear. Apparently all per- formances in the City and the Liberties were stopped for a time ; but the Theater and the Curtain survived unscathed this order for their destruction — if such it was — as they did sub- sequent similar edicts. During this summer the players seem to have submitted to exclusion from London. But as the season for traveling and for performances in the outer suburbs ended and winter drew on, the Queen's company made another attempt to get admission into the City. With this object, they petitioned the Privy Council as follows, adducing the usual arguments to support their request : "In most humble manner beseche yo r Lis. yo r dutifull and daylie Orators the Queenes Ma tie8 poore Players. Whereas the tyme of our service draweth verie neere, so that of necessitie wee must needes have exercise to enable us the better for the same, and also for our better helpe and relief in our poore lyvinge, the ceason of the yere beynge past to playe att anye of the houses w th out the Cittye of Lon- don as in our articles annexed to this our Supplicacion maye more att large appeere unto yo r Lis. Our most humble peticion ys, thatt yt maye please yo r Lis. to vowchsaffe the readinge of these few Ar- ticles, and in tender considerasion of the matters therein mentioned, contayninge the verie staye and good state of our lyvinge, to graunt vnto us the confirmacion of the same, or of as many, or as much of them as shalbe to yo r honors good lykinge. And therw th all yo r Lis. favorable letters unto the L. Mayor of London to p'mitt us to exercise w th in the Cittye, accordinge to the Articles; and also thatt the said l'res maye contayne some order to the Justices of Midd'x, as in the same ys mentioned, wherebie as wee shall cease the continewall troublinge of yo r Lis. for yo r often l'res in the p' misses, so shall wee daylie be bownden to praye for the prosperous preservation of yo r Lis. in honor, helth, and happines long to continew. " Yo r LI" most humblie bownden and daylie Orators, her Ma ties poor Players." 2 1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 377-378. This letter is in part hard to under- stand. The text given by Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 252-253, differs materially from that here quoted. a From the text printed by Hazlitt, English Drama, 31-32, from Lansdowne MS. 20. It is also printed by Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 212-213. 171 This petition, with the subsequent correspondence, has usually been dated 1575, on account of the careless indorse- ment of that date upon the manuscripts.- But, as Mr. Chambers has suggested, 1 it must be at least as late as 1583. In the first place, the reply of the City to it contains a reference to the Paris Garden disaster of January 13, 1583. Most striking of all, the petitioners sign themselves the Queen's Majesty's Players, and the city authorities also refer to them by this title. No actors are thus designated in the other documents of this period except the Queen's company organized in March, 1583. The use of the title somewhat puzzled the historians who dated this corre- spondence in 1575. Collier suggested rather doubtfully that it referred to the Earl of Leicester's company ; 2 but these players are nowhere so designated. The petition must, then, be later than March, 1583. In their report on the request the municipal officials refer to this company as having performed in the city "last year." 3 Therefore the petition and the ensuing correspondence must be as late as 1584. The petition is obviously written in the autumn or the beginning of winter, and the players desire to prepare for their service at Court, — probably at the Christmas festivities, as in the winter of 1583. In view of all these facts, the most probable date for the occurrence is the latter part of November, 1584. 4 The appeal of the Queen's players was evidently for permis- sion to act again in the inn yards of the City, and also, as appears by their request for letters to the Middlesex Justices, at the Theater or the Curtain. The "Articles" which they say they have annexed to their petition have disappeared ; but they evi- dently dealt with the regulations under which the players thought their performances should be allowed, — concerning hours, 1 Academy, August 24, 1895. 1 English Dramatic Poetry, I, 220. s See below, pp. 173-174. * Additional evidence in favor of the later date, as against 1575, may be adduced from the Council Register. No record of this petition, — though others are noted, — nor of any action on the request, appears in 1575. The Register is missing from June 26, 1582, to February 19, 1586. {Acts, XIII, xxxvi.) The affair therefore probably occurred within this period. Strype, in his edition of Stow's Survey, rightly dates the petition after the Paris Garden disaster. See the passage quoted in 1821 Variorum, III, 49-50, note. 172 days, plague time, etc., — and discussed the municipal ordi- nances affecting the stage. In harmony with the consideration shown to the City the preceding summer, the Privy Council, before granting the players' request, seems to have sent the petition and the articles to the London authorities, and to have asked for their opinion on the matter. In the same manuscript in the Lansdowne collection which contains the petition there are two documents which are evidently the reply of the City. The first is a letter disputing the players' assertions concerning the muni- cipal ordinances regulating the drama, and stating that the writer is sending, for the better information of the Lords, copies of the two acts in question, — that of December, 1574, 1 and the order of expulsion which we have conjecturally dated 1582. 2 The letter also rehearses briefly the history of this legislation. "It may please your good Lp. " The orders in London whereunto the players referr them are mis- conceaued, as may appeare by the two actes of com'on Counsell which I send yow w'th note (ft^* directing to the place. "The first of these actes of Comon counsell was made in the mar- altie of Hawes XVII° Regine, and sheweth a maner how plaies were to be tollerated and vsed, although it were rather wished that they were wholly discontinued for the causes appearing in the preamble; w'ch is for that reason somewhat the longer. " Where the players reporte the order to be that they shold not playe till after seruice time: the boke is otherwise; for it is that they shal not onely not play in seruice time; but also shal not receue any in seruice time to se the same: for thoughe they did forbeare begining to play till seruice were done, yet all the time of seruice they did take in people, w'ch was the great mischef in withdrawing the people from seruice. "Afterward when these orders were not obserued, and the lewd maters of playes encreasced and in the haunt vnto them were found many dangers, bothe for religion, state, honestie of manners, onthrifti- nesse of the poore, and danger of infection &c. and the preachers dayly cryeng against the L. Maior and his bretheren, in an Act of Com'on Counsel for releafe of the poore w'ch I send yow printed, in the Article 62 the last leafe; is enacted as there appeareth, by w'ch there are no enterludes allowed in London in open spectacle but in priuate howses onely at marriages or such like, w'ch may suffise, and sute is apointed to be made that they may be likewise banished in places adioyning. 1 See above, p. 156. 'See above, p. 164. 173 "Since that time and namely vpon the mine at Parise garden, sute was made to my S'rs to banishe playes wholly in the places ncre London, according to the said lawe, letters were obtained from my S'rs to banishe them on the sabbat daies."- 1 The other document on the city side is a vigorous and inter- est ing report which takes up point by point all the contentions and proposals made by the players in their petition and articles. 2 To the argument of the necessity of practice for the performances before the Queen, the municipal authorities retort that it is not fitting to present before her Majesty such plays as have been "commonly played in open stages before all the basest assem- blies in London and Middlesex"; but that the players ought to " exercise " only in private houses. As for the actors' conten- tion that they must play in order to earn their living, the City replies by asserting that no one should practise such a profession, but that plays should be presented by way of recreation by men with other means of subsistence, — an apparent reference to the custom of guild plays. The report of the municipal authori- ties on the regulations proposed by the actors is summed up in the "Remedies" quoted below. A few extracts, however, are interesting enough to be cited at length. The players had evidently suggested that performances should be allowed when- ever the deaths from the plague were under fifty a week. To this the City retorts first, rather epigrammatically, that "to play in plagetime is to increase the plage by infection : to play out of plagetime is to draw the plage by offendinge of God vpon occasion of such playes." But if performances must be toler- rated in seasons of infection, the City thinks some better rule could be found than that proposed by the actors. "It is an vncharitable demaund against the safetie of the Quenes subiects, and per consequens of her person, for the gaine of a few, whoe if they were not her Ma tie8 servaunts should by their profession be rogues, to esteme fefty a weke so small a number as to be cause of tolerating the adventure of infection." 3 The granting 1 From a transcript of Lansdowne MS. 20, no. 11. The letter is not signed. 2 Printed in full in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 214 ff. There is a summary in Fleay, London Stage, 46-47. 3 Collier, op. cit., 215. For a further account of the plague rule proposed by the City see below, p. 212. 174 of permission to the Queen's company only, they finally assert, is "lesse evil than to graunt moe"; but they earnestly request the Lords to specify, in their letters or warrants, the number and the names of the Queen's players, since "last year, when such toleration was of the Quenes players only, all the places of playeng were filled with men calling themselves the Queenes players." The company had evidently had no regular patent or license. As the players had proposed certain regulations, so the city authorities, in their turn, apparently drew up the rules which they thought should govern performances, — if plays must be tolerated at all. These are entitled "The Remedies," and are included in the same Lansdowne MS. with the other documents just cited. "That they hold them content with playeng in private houses at weddings, &c. without publike assemblies. "If more be thought good to be tolerated, that then they be re- strained to the orders in the act of common Counsel, tempore Hawes. 1 "That they play not openly till the whole death in London haue ben by xx daies vnder 50 a weke, nor longer than it shal so continue. 2 "That no playes be on the Sabbat. "That no playeng be on holydaies, but after evening prayer, nor any received into the auditorie till after evening prayer. "That no playeng be in the dark, nor continue any such time but as any of the auditorie may returne to their dwellings in London before Sonne set, or at least before it be dark. "That the Quenes players only be tolerated, and of them their num- ber, and certaine names, to be notified in your Ll p * lettres to the L. Maior and to the Justices of Midd'x and Surrey. And those her players not to divide themselves into several companies. "That for breaking any of these orders their toleration cease." 3 With this communication from the city authorities, our knowl- edge of the 1 580-1 584 controversy comes to an end. What action the Privy Council took upon these "Remedies" does not appear. But it is probable that some compromise measure 1 That is, the act of December, 1574, considered above, pp. 156 ft. 2 That is, the deaths from all causes, not from the plague alone, as the players had apparently suggested. 3 From the text given by Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 217. 175 was adopted, including some of the municipal rules. Evi- dently the long struggle of the City did not avail to keep plays, entirely out of London. Performances continued in the Lib- erties, and even — at least by the Queen's company, and later by others as well — in the inn yards of the City. The result must therefore have been bitterly unsatisfactory to the Puritans, who had pleaded so vigorously for the complete banishment of actors from all the neighborhood of London. But the earnest arguments of the municipal officials no doubt caused the enact- ment of restrictive measures more rigid than the Privy Council would otherwise have required. The most bitter stage of the City's warfare on the drama was now over. Between 1584 and 1592 there seems to have been at least a partial cessation of the struggle. During the five years immediately following the dispute that we have just been tracing, there is little of importance to note in the regulation of the London stage, except a few orders issued by the Privy Coun- cil. These indicate that performances were continuing in and about London. In May, 1586, the danger from the plague grew serious enough to warrant the Lord Mayor in requesting the suppression of plays. The Lords accordingly prohibited per- formances in London, at the Theater, and at places about Newington. 1 A year later there seems to have been again danger of infection in the hot season. Because of this, and also of some "outrages and disorders" lately committed at playing places in London and the suburbs, the Privy Council, on May 7, 1587, ordered the Mayor, the Justices of Surrey, and the Master of the Rolls 2 to permit no more plays until after Bartholomew tide. 3 There had been for some time — at least since the Paris Garden disaster — a general rule against performances on Sun- day; but it was irregularly enforced. On October 29, 1587, some inhabitants of Southwark complained to the Privy Coun- cil of the breach of this law, especially in the Liberty of the Clink, and the Lords ordered the Justices of the Peace to be more strict in preventing such offenses. 4 For the next two years nothing of especial interest seems to 1 Acts, XIV, 99, 102. 2 See above, p. 54. 3 Acts, XV, 70. 4 Ibid., 271. 176 have occurred in our department of stage history. Possibly the nation was too much absorbed in the conflict with the Armada to devote much attention to warfare over the theaters. In 1589 came the Martin Marprelate controversy, the trouble with the censorship and the temporary suppression of plays, which we have already discussed. 1 From the point of view of the London administration there are a few points to add to the history of this affair. It is noteworthy that the order for the suppression of plays was not sent to the Lord Mayor, as usual. In his letter to Lord Burghley, already quoted, he states, "Where by a Pre of your Lordships, directed to Mr. Yonge, it appered unto me that it was your ho: pleasure that I sholde geve order for the staie of all playes within the cittie, in that Mr. Tilney did utterly mislike the same." 2 The Mr. Yonge here mentioned seems to have been the Richard Yonge who was one of the Middlesex Justices having authority over the Theater, the Curtain, and adjoining districts. 3 Why the Privy Council did not, as usual, communicate directly with the Mayor is not apparent. Per- haps they merely wished to stop the plays at the two theaters, and the Mayor, hearing of this, seized the opportunity to sup- press all performances in the City as well. The Mayor's account of the difficulty he had in stopping the plays in London is another illustration of the mutinous and dis- respectful attitude towards the municipal authorities some- times shown by the players, confident, as they seem to have been, of the powerful influence and protection of their patrons. Two companies were apparently performing in the inn yards of the City at the time, — the Lord Admiral's and Lord Strange's, — whom the Mayor summoned before him and, as he says, "to whome I speciallie gave in charge, and required them in her Majestys name, to forbere playinge untill further order might be geven for theire allowance in that respect : Whereupon the Lord Admeralls players very dutifullie obeyed ; but the others, in very contemptuous manner departing from me, wente to the Crosse Keys, and played that afternoone to the greate offence 1 See above, pp. 91-92. J Hazlitt, English Drama, 34. 8 See the order of June 23, 1592, addressed to him and to other Middlesex Justices. Acts, XXII, 549. 177 of the better sortc, that knew they were prohibited by order from your Lordship. Which as I might not suffer, so I sent for the said contemptuous persons, who havcing no reason to al- leadgc for theire contempte, I could do no less but this eveninge committ tow of them to one of the Compters." ' The agitation of the Martinist controversy resulted, as we have seen, in the appointment of a censorship commission on which the City was represented; but really marked the end of municipal licensing and the rise of the Master of the Revels to censoring power. A rather quaint order was issued by the Lords on July 25, 1591, showing them as apparently for once more zealous against Sabbath breaking than the Lord Mayor himself, and coupling two somewhat incongruous requests. They have noticed, they inform the Mayor, some neglect of the order against playing on the Sabbath Day; and have also observed that performances on Thursdays are a "greate hurte and destruction of the game of beare baytinge and lyke pastymes, which are mayntayned for her Majestys pleasure yf occacion require." On these two days, therefore, they direct that no plays be allowed, for the greater reverence of God and the encouragement of the Queen's bear baiters. 2 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 34-35. 3 Acts, XXI, 324-325. CHAPTER V Local Regulations in London 1592-1642 The last decade of the sixteenth century, the years during which Shakspere was rising to preeminence, is of much interest in the history of stage regulations. As viewed through the official documents, it presents a course of events somewhat different from the decade of the eighties. One is impressed particularly by the great disorders at the theaters. London dur- ing these years was apparently especially overrun by tramps and riotous persons. In 1595 and again in 1598, because of the large number of rogues and vagabonds in the City and the suburbs, the Privy Council found it necessary to appoint a Provost Mar- shal with power over London and the adjoining counties. 1 During the period the theaters seem to have been undoubtedly one of the chief gathering points for these vagabonds, for various sorts of cutpurses and rascals, and for the reckless apprentices who were thus lured from their work into evil ways. The city authorities realized vividly all these troubles. It is notable that throughout the decade this is the argument against plays which the municipality chiefly emphasizes, — that they serve as the rendezvous for rascals, nests of crime, and places of demoraliza- tion for the apprentices. The Puritan contention that theatrical performances are in themselves sinful, and draw down the wrath of God, is scarcely brought forward, — in contrast to the course of the argument during the years 1 580-1 584. The Privy Coun- cil, on its side, seems at times to have acquired something of the Puritan attitude. In 1593, for instance, it forbids plays at the 1 Acts, XXIX, 132-133, 140, 206. 178 179 universities, because they may corrupt the students and allure them to "lewdness and vicious manners." ' The danger of fo- menting crime and disorder that arose from the London theaters, the Lords frankly recognized and tried to guard against. Though they continued to grant privileges to the few favored companies needed for the Queen's amusement, they passed at times ex- tremely severe orders against the other theaters, — measures severe in their conception, at least, but never rigorously carried out. As we have seen in a preceding chapter, by the year 1592 the Master of the Revels had to a considerable extent established his licensing power, and had authorized playing places in and about the City. In despair of securing; from the Privy Council pro- tection against this crown officer,Jtne Aldermen appealed for aid to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, though Whitgift was by no means of Puritan leanings, were successful in obtaining his intercession. 2 Their appeal, written on February 25, 1592, contains a vigorous recital of the dangers of the theaters, — inform- ing the Archbishop of "the daily disorderly exercise of a number of players and playing houses erected within the City, whereby the youths of the City were greatly corrupted, and their manners infected with many evils and ungodly qualities, by reasonof the wanton and profane devices represented on the stages^ The apprentices and servants were withdrawn from their work, to the great hindrance of the trades and traders of the City, and the propagation of religion. Besides, to these places resorted the light and lewd disposed persons, as harlots, cutpurses, cozeners, pilferers, etc., who, under colour of hearing plays, devised divers evil and ungodly matches, confederacies and conspiracies, which could not be prevented." 3 In the following summer danger of serious riots drove the Privy Council to recognize the justice of some of the Aldermen's accusations against the theaters. On May 30, 1592, the Lord Mayor reported to the Lord Treasurer a serious tumult and dis- order in Southwark. 4 Fearing similar and graver rioting on Midsummer Night, the Lords issued, on June 23, an edict pro- 1 Acts, XXIV, 427-428. : See above, p. 55-56. 3 Heme ■mbrancia, 352. * Athenaum, January 23, 1869. 180 viding for rigid precautions against disorder in and about Lon- don on that occasion. The glimpse of armed householders on watch against mutinous apprentices which this affords, is an interesting illustration of the rather primitive methods of keeping order practised in Elizabethan London; and the command for the closing of the playing places shows a clear recognition by the Privy Council of the danger to which these resorts gave rise. The following extract is from the form of order sent to the Middlesex Justices. "Whereas her Majestie is informed that certaine apprentyces and other idle people theire adherentes that were authors and partakers of the late mutynous and foule disorder in Southwarke in moste out- rageous and tumultuous sorte, have a further purpose and meaninge on Midsommer eveninge or Midsommer nighte or about that tyme to renewe theire lewd assemblye togeather by cullour of the tyme for some bad and mischeivous intencion, to the disturbance and breache of her Majesty's Peace, and comyttinge some outrage. To prevente in tyme theis wicked and mischeivous purposes wee have given straighte order to the Maiour of London for the cittye and the liberties thereunto belonginge and to all other places neere to the same to have regarde hereunto, and so likewyse wee are in her Majesty's name straightlie to chardge and comaunde you presentlye upon sighte hereof to sende for the constables and some of the cheifest and discreetest inhabitauntes in Holborne, Clerkenwell, St. Giles in the Fieldes, &c. and other places neere thereaboutes, and to chardge and comaunde them to take order that there maye be a stronge and substancyall watch kept bothe on Midsommer eveninge, Midsommer night and Sondaye at nighte of housholders and masters of families, to contynue from the beginninge of the eveninge untill the morninge, and that all masters of servantes and of apprentices be straightlie chardged, as they will answere to the contrarye at theire perilles, to keepe theire servauntes in theire houses for those two nightes, so as they maie be within the dores before the eveninge and not suffered to come forthe, nor to have anye weapons yf they shoulde be so lewdlie dis- posed to execute any evill purpose. And yf notwithstandinge this straighte chardge and comaundement any servantes, apprentyces or other suspected persons shalbe founde in the streetes, to see them presentlie commytted to pryson. Especiallie you shall take order that theis watches of housholders maye be of that strength with theire weapons as they maie be hable yf there be anie uprore, tumult or unlawful assemblye to suppresse the same. Moreover for avoidinge of theis unlawfull assemblies in those quarters, yt is thoughte meete you shall take order that there be noe playes used in anye place neere 181 thereaboutes, as the thcator, curtayne or other usuall places where the same are comonly used, nor no other sorte of unlawfull or forhi«l - den pastymes that draw togeather the baser sorte of people, from hence forth untill the feast of St. Michaell." 1- By the orders sent out on this occasion, all plays were forbidden in and about London between June 23 and September 29, 1592. It seems probable that it was during this summer, and as a re- sult of this restriction, that Lord Strange's company addressed to the Privy Council the undated petition preserved in the Dul- wich MSS. This may, however, have been presented in 1593, though the very severe plague which lasted all that summer and autumn makes it seem improbable that the Lords would have granted in that season the permission to open the Rose which apparently resulted from the petition. 2 About August, 1592, then, — if we accept that year as the more probable, — Lord Strange's players petitioned the Lords for permission to reopen their playhouse on the Bankside, — that is, the Rose. Their company is large, they plead, and the cost of traveling the coun- try intolerable. The opening of their theater will enable them to be ready to serve her Majesty, and it will also be a great help to the poor watermen, who earn their living largely by trans- porting the audiences to and from the Bankside. 3 This appeal was apparently seconded by a petition to the Lord High Admiral from the watermen, preserved among the same manuscripts. They beg for the opening of Henslowe's playhouse as a measure of relief for themselves and their families. 4 It was no doubt as a result of these appeals that the Lords issued the following un- dated order. "To the Justices, Bayliffes, Constables and others to whome yt shall apperteyne. Whereas, not longe since, upon some considera- 1 Acts, XXII, 540-551. And see above, pp. 145-146. 2 Fleay (London Stage, 85-86) dates the petition 1592, as does Greg (Henslowe Papers, 42). Collier says 1593. (Alleyn Memoirs, 2,2,.) There is no entry of the resulting Council Order in the Register for 1592. For the summer of 1593 the Register is lost. This perhaps points to the later date as the more probable one. 3 Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 33-34; Henslowe Papers, 42. 4 Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 34-35; Henslowe Papers, 42-43. Compare the suit of the watermen against the players' leaving the Bankside in 1613. 1821 Variorum, III, 149 ff., note. 182 tions, we did restraine the Lorde Straunge his servauntes from play- inge at the Rose on the Banckside, and enjoyned them to plaie three daies at Newington Butts. 1 Now, forasmuch as wee are satisfied that by reason of the tediousness of the waie, and that of longe tyme plaies have not there bene used on working daies, and for that a nom- ber of poore watermen are therby releeved, yow shall permitt and suffer them, or any other there, to exercise themselves in suche sorte as they have don heretofore, and that the Rose maie be at libertie, without any restrainte, so longe as yt shalbe free from infection of sicknes. Any commaundement from us heretofore to the contrye notwithstandinge." 2 By January 28, 1593, the severe plague which raged during that year had already become so serious that the Privy Council ordered the prohibition of all plays, bear-baitings, and other like assemblages within the City or seven miles thereof. 3 To assist the favored players during this hard season, the Lords issued, in the spring, to the companies of the Earl of Sussex and Lord Strange, traveling licenses authorizing them to perform anywhere outside the prohibited area. 4 Another case illustrative of the interference of individual noble- men to secure for their players privileges within the City, such as we have already seen, is found on October 8, 1594, when the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Hunsdon, requested of the Lord Mayor permission for his company to perform at the inn yard of the Cross Keys. As the document throws some interesting light on the conditions of the performances, it is worth quoting at length. "Where my nowe company of players have byn accustomed for the better exercise of their qualitie and for the service of her Majestie if need soe requier, to plaie this winter time within the Citye at the Crosse Kayes in Gratious Street, these are to require and praye your Lordship to permitt and suffer them soe to doe, the which I praie you the rather to doe for that they have undertaken to me that where heretofore they began not their playes till towardes fower a clock, they will now begin at two and have don betwene fower and five, and will nott use anie drumes or trumpettes att all for the callinge of peopell 1 This order to play at Newington is apparently not preserved, and its date and purpose are hard to establish. The dating of all this series of documents is, in fact, decidedly unsatisfactory. 2 Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 36; Henslowe Papers, 43-44. 8 Acts, XXIV, 31-32. * See above, p. 34. 183 together, and shal be contributories to the poore of the parishe where they plaie accordinge to their liabilities." * Much as the London authorities disliked performances in the inn yards within the City, the Lord Mayor would hardly have dared to refuse the direct request of so powerful a nobleman and official ; and we may probably assume that the Lord Chamber- lain's company performed at the Cross Keys that winter, as they had been accustomed to do. 2 But the new Mayor who took office on October 28 seems to have renewxd with zeal the attack on the stage. ( On November 3, 1594, he wrote to the Lord Treasurer informing him of the intended erection of a new stage or theater on the Bankside — the Swan, no doubt — and praying that this might be prevented, on account of the evils arising therefrom. 3 This appeal seems to have been of no avail in stopping the building of the Swan; but the Mayor, not yet discouraged, made a far more sweeping demand in the following autumn, on September 13, 1595, — nothing less than the complete suppression of all plays about the City. \ Again he urges the disorder and crime hatched within the theaters. "Among other inconvenyences it is not the least that the refuse sort of evill disposed and ungodly people about this Cytie have opor- tunitie hearby to assemble together and to make their matches for all their lewd and ungodly practizes, being also the ordinary places for all maisterles men and vagabond persons that haunt the high waies to meet together and to recreate themselfes, whearof wee begin to have experienc again within these fiew daies since it pleased her highnes to revoke her comission graunted forthe to the Provost Mar- shall, for fear of home they retired themselfes for the time into other partes out of his precinct, but ar now retorned to their old haunt, and frequent the plaies, as their manner is, that ar daily shewed at the Theator and Bankside, whearof will follow the same inconveniences, whearof wee have had to much experienc heartofore, for preventing 1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Illustrations, 31-32; Maas, Englischc Theatertruppen, 82. 7 Fleay conjectures that the request was refused, but offers no proof. (London Stage, 134.) He is apt to underestimate the frequency of these inn-yard per- formances, falling into occasional errors in his stage history of this period because of his attempt to assign companies to fixed playhouses and not to inns. ' Remembrancia, 353. 184 whearof wee ar humble suters to your good LI. and the rest to direct your lettres to the Justics of Peac of Surrey and Middlesex for the present stay and finall suppressing of the said plaies, as well at the Theator and Bankside as in all other places about the Citie." ' But the Council apparently took no action. It would seem that at this time the Mayor had succeeded, temporarily at least, in stopping plays in the city inn yards. On July 22, 1596, the plague again came to the aid of the Puritans, and the Lords ordered the Justices of Middlesex and Surrey to suppress per- formances. 2 Another ally now seems to have helped the muni- cipal authorities. Lord Hunsdon, the Lord Chamberlain, long a warm friend to the players, died; and on August 8, 1596, Lord Cobham was appointed in his place. Cobham apparently had Puritan leanings, and the rigorous orders passed against the players during the next couple of years have generally been attributed to his influence. But as his short administration was ended by his death on March 5, 1597, four months before the order for the demolition of the theaters, it is difficult to be sure how far he was responsible for the severity. There is evidence, however, that in the summer of 1596 the players felt the hardship of having a puritanical nobleman in the position of Lord Chamberlain, — hitherto generally one of the chief protectors of the drama. In a letter written by Nash to William Cotton some time between June 29 and October 10 — and apparently after August 8, when Cobham became Chamber- lain — the dramatist complains that "the players are piteously persecuted by the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen ; and, however in their old Lord's time they thought their state settled, it is now so uncertain they cannot build upon it." The "old Lord" seems to refer to Hunsdon, the late Chamberlain and friend to the actors. 3 The attack on the theaters was now continued vigorously. In November, 1596, the inhabitants of Blackfriars petitioned the Privy Council against the "common playhouse" which, they 1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 340-350. There is a brief summary in Re- memoranda, 354. 8 Acts, XXVI, 38. 8 See Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 292; Fleay, London Stage, 157. 185 informed the Lords, Burbagc was about to construct in that Liberty./ In this appeal they emphasize the annoyance and danger that the playhouse will cause to the noblemen and other residents of the precinct jn>oth by reason of the great resort and gathering togeathcr of all manner of vagrant and lewde persons that, under cullor of resorting to the playes, will come thither and worke all manner of mischeefc, and also the greate pestring and rilling up of the same precinct, yf it should please God to send any visitation of sicknesse as heretofore hath been, for that the same precinct is allready growne very populous, and besides that the same playhouse is so neere the Church that the noyse of the drummes and trumpetts will greatly disturbe and hinder both the ministers and parishioners in tyme of devine service and sermons." For these reasons, and also because "there hath not at any tyme heretofore been used any comon playhouse within the same precinct, but that now all players being ban- ished by the Lord Mayor from playing within the Cittie by reason of the great inconveniences and ill rule that followeth them, they now thincke to plant them selves in liberties," the petitioners beg the Lords to forbid the use of this building as a playhouse. The name of Lord Cobham, the Lord Chamberlain, a resident of the precinct, does not appear among the signers of the petition, but we find there that of George, Lord Hunsdon, son of the former Chamberlain, and about to succeed Cobham in that office. This seems to reverse the attitude towards players usually attrib- uted to these two noblemen. 1 The question of the Blackfriars theater presents many puz- zling features. It is now well known that the petition purport- ing to come from Burbage, Shakspere and others, immediately after the appeal from the Blackfriars residents, and stating that the playhouse has already been in use for years, is a forgery. 2 Though Burbage's theater did not come into existence until 1596, there had been, however, plays in Blackfriars for many years before this; and the statement of the inhabitants that there had never been any "common playhouse" in the precinct is 1 The petition is printed at length in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 461-462. 'See its condemnation in Stale Papers, Dom., 1595-1597, 310. Hazlitt printed the document in good faith in English Drama, 35-37. 186 therefore at first a trifle puzzling. We must infer that they did not apply this term to the inn yard, priory hall, Revels Office building, or wherever the performances had hitherto taken place. 1 But they do call Burbage's proposed theater a "com- mon playhouse," as does the order of the city authorities sup- pressing it in 1619. The players, however, and their patrons, seem to have been careful to call it a "private house," and this is the term applied to it in the royal patents of 1619 and 1625. By representing it as a "private house," the players apparently expected to escape the laws directed against "common play- houses," — a result that they seem to have achieved in part. It is difficult to see on what grounds they based their contention. Though the construction of this theater within doors was very different from that of the "common playhouses," the price of admission higher, and the audience apparently of a better class, the mere fact that money was charged for admission would seem to have stamped it as a public theater and subjected it to the usual laws. Such, at least, would have been the case under the regulations laid down by the London ordinance of 1574. 2 As a matter of fact, the status of the theater seems to have remained ill defined. What action the Privy Council took on the petition from the inhabitants of Blackfriars does not clearly appear. According to the municipal order of 1619, which recites the history of this theater, after the appeal the Lords "then forbad the use of the said howse for playes, and in June, 1600, made certaine orders by which, for many weightie reasons therein expressed, it is limitted there should be only two playhowses tolerated, whereof the one to be on the Banckside, and the other in or neare Golding Lane, exempting thereby the Blackfryers." But in defiance of this law the owner of the theater " under the name of a private howse hath converted the same to a publique playhowse." 3 It seems at least fairly clear that, whether or no the Lords did ac- cede to the request of the residents of the precinct, and whether or no they intended the order of 1600 to suppress the Blackfriars theater, — as the city authorities always insist they did, — that 1 See Bond's Lyly, I, 24-25, note; Chambers, Tudor Revels, 18. 2 See above, p. 158. 3 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 474-475. 187 playhouse, as a matter of fact, was completed according to Bur- bage's plan, and flourished practically undisturbed until 1619. It is possible that its apparent immunity during the earlier part of the period was partially due to the fact that it was occupied by the Chapel Children, — a company which, as we shall pres- ently see, was probably exempt from many of the restrictions applying to common players. A playhouse of uncertain status, in a precinct of uncertain status, occupied by actors of uncertain status, its legal position is indeed hard to define. In the following summer, the Lord Mayor made another attack on the theaters, — a move which seemed at first trium- phantly successful. On July 28, 1597, in a letter to the Privy Council, he presented the following appeal : — "Wee havefownd by th' examination of divers apprentices and other servantes, whoe have confessed unto us that the saide staige playes were the very places of theire randevous appoynted by them to meete with such otheir as wear to joigne with them in theire designes and mutinus attemptes, beeinge allso the ordinarye places for maisterles men to come together to recreate themselves, for avoydinge wheareof wee are nowe againe most humble and earnest suitors to your honors to dirrect your lettres as well to ourselves as to the Justices of Peace of Surrey and Midlesex for the present staie and fynall suppressinge of the saide stage playes as well at the Theatre, Curten and Banckside, as in all other places in and abowt the Citie." * On the same day, in prompt response to this appeal, the Lords issued an order in the name of the Queen, for the prohibition of all plays within three miles of the City during the summer, until after November 1, and also for the demolition of all theaters within the same area. "Her Majestie being informed," they wrote to the Middlesex Justices, "that there are verie greate disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that are handled on the stages, and by resorte and con- fluence of bad people," she has given order that there be no more plays during the summer, and also that "those playhouses that are erected and built only for suche purposes shalbe plucked downe, namelie the Curtayne and the Theatre nere to Shorditch, or any other within that county." The Justices are directed 1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlims, 351. V 188 to send for the owners of the playhouses and order them to "plucke downe quite the stages, gallories and roomes that are made for people to stand in, and so to deface the same as they maie not be ymploied agayne to suche use." If they do not speedily do this, the magistrates must inform the Council, which will take order to enforce this command. A similar com- munication, we find from the Council Register, was sent to the Justices of Surrey, '* requiring them to take the like order for the playhouses in the Banckside, in Southwarke or elswhere in the said county within iij e miles of London." l As the new Blackfriars theater was not under the jurisdiction of either the Middlesex or the Surrey magistrates, it seems to have been ex- cluded from these orders for demolition. Assuredly the Mayor could hardly have desired a more sweep- ing and rigorous edict. Even now, as one reads its stern com- mands, it is difficult to realize that it had scarcely the slightest effect upon the theaters. Probably plays ceased for a time, but the order for the destruction of the playhouses apparently no one even tried to enforce. 2 Again we appreciate what powerful influence the players must have been able to command, what friendship on the part of their patrons or of the Queen must have been brought into play, to cause this nullification of the Council's orders at this time. Just what it was that caused even a temporary desire, on the part of the Lords, to take such severe measures against the thea- ters, does not appear. Mr. Fleay suggests that the suppression of plays was due to the trouble over the representation of Sir John Oldcastle in Henry IV ; z but there seems to be no evidence for this, and one would certainly not expect such a severe pun- ishment for a comparatively slight offense, — one which was, moreover, apparently so promptly atoned for. 4 As I have al- 1 Acts, XXVII, 313-314. Printed in part in Halliwcll-Phillipps, Outlines, 3SO-35I- 2 The Theater, it is true, was torn down in the winter of 1 598-1 599, and its materials used in the construction of the Globe, on the Bankside. This, however, was not in consequence of the Council Order, but chiefly because of the expira- tion of Burbage's lease of the Holywell land. See Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 354 ff. 5 London Stage, 158. * See above, pp. 96-97. 189 ready mentioned, William Brooke, Lord Cobham, the puritan- ical Lord Chamberlain to whose influence the order is often attributed, had died four months before, and George, Lord Hunsdon, admittedly the friend of the players, had been Cham- berlain for about three months. In spite of the stern attitude towards the drama taken tempora- rily by the Privy Council, we find, a few monthslater, that the Lords had granted special privileges to the two companies accustomed to perform before the Queen. On February 19, 1598, as we have already seen, the Council mentioned the special license, the mo- nopoly of playing, which they had given to the Lord Admiral's and the Lord Chamberlain's companies; and ordered Tilney to suppress the intruding third company, and any others who might presume to play. 1 That the Bankside theaters, at least, were flourishing in the following summer, appears from an entry in the Parish Register of St. Saviour's, on July 19, 1598. The vestry deter- mined to appeal to the Privy Council for the suppression of the playhouses in that vicinity, and to show "the enormities that come thereby to the parish." 2 That the suffering of the resi- dents from the gathering of disorderly persons at the theaters may well have been exceptionally great during this summer, is shown by the appointment of a Provost Marshal by the Privy Council on September 6, to deal with the unusual number of rogues and vagabonds in and about London. 3 Though the parish did not succeed in getting the Bankside theaters sup- pressed, its feelings were doubtless somewhat mollified by the arrangements later made, in March, 1600, for the players' con- tributions of money for the poor. 4 The final notable stage in the history of theatrical regulations under Elizabeth opens with the erection of the Fortune theater about January, 1600, and includes the order for the restriction of playhouses which followed upon this event and gave rise to considerable governmental correspondence during the next few years. The Middlesex Justices apparently opposed in some 1 See above, p. 58. 2 Chalmers, Apology, 404; 1821 Variorum, III, 452, note. 3 See above, p. 178. ' See above, p. 60. 190 way the erection of Alleyn and Henslowe's new theater. On January 12, 1600, the Earl of Nottingham, Lord Admiral, came to the aid of his company by sending to the Middlesex magis- trates a letter "praying and requiring" them to permit his ser- vant, Edward Alleyn, to proceed in " theffectinge and finisheing" of the new playhouse. The site is very convenient, he urges, and the house the actors have hitherto occupied, the Rose, in so dangerous a state of decay that it is no longer fit for use. These players, moreover, have acted before the Queen and are favored by her. 1 In spite of this urgent appeal there seems to have been further opposition to the theater. But the company now suc- ceeded in getting support from the residents of the locality where they wished to settle. "The Inhabitants of the Lordship of Finsbury" sent to the Privy Council a "Certificate of their Consent to the Tolleration of the Erection of the new Playhouse there." As reasons for their approval, they stated that the place chosen for the theater was a remote one, and that the erectors of the house were to contribute a liberal sum weekly towards the relief of the poor, — a duty which the parish itself was not wealthy enough to perform adequately. 2 Perhaps impressed by the unusual welcome accorded by the neighbors of the pro- posed playhouse, but more probably at the instigation of the Lord Admiral, the Queen now seems to have intervened. On April 8, 1600, the Privy Council sent to the Middlesex Justices a warrant requiring them, by order of the Queen, to permit Edward Alleyn to complete his theater in the "verie remote and exempt place neare Gouldinge Lane." This new house, the Lords write, is to take the place of the Rose, which is to be pulled down, 3 — an arrangement later altered, as we shall see. The erection of the new theater, coupled, apparently, with continued disorders at the other playhouses, aroused renewed opposition to theatrical performances. Impressed by the pro- tests, the Privy Council, on June 22, 1600, issued an order "for the restrainte of the imoderate use and Companye of Playe- howses and Players." "Whereas divers complaintes," the act 1 Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 55-56; Henslowe Papers, 49~5°- 2 Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 58; Henslowe Papers, 50-51. 3 Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 57; Henslowe Papers, 51-52. 191 recites, "have bin heretofore made unto the Lordes and others of her Majesties Privye Counsell of the manyfolde abuses and disorders that have growen and do contynue by occasion of many houses erected and employed in and about the cittie of London for common stage-playes, and now verie latelie by reason of some complainte exhibited by sundry persons againste the buyld- inge of the like house in or near Golding-lane by one Edward Allen, a servant of the right honorable the Lord Admyrall," the whole question of theaters has again been taken up by the Lords. The purpose of the act and the attitude of the Council towards plays arc now clearly expressed. " Forasmuch as it is manifestly knowen and graunted that the multi- tude of the saide houses and the mys-government of them hath bin and is dayly occasion of the ydle, ryotous and dissolute living of great nombers of people, that, leavinge all such honest and painefull course of life as they should follow, doe meete and assemble there, and of many particular abuses and disorders that doe thereupon ensue; and yet, nevertheless, it is considered that the use and exercise of such playes, not beinge evill in ytself, may with a good order and modera- ( cion be suffered in a well-governed state, and that her Majestie, beinge pleased at somtymes to take delight and recreation in the sight and * hearinge of them, some order is fitt to be taken for the allowance and mayntenaunce of such persons as are thought meetest in that kinde to yealde her Majestie recreation and delighte, and consequently of the houses that must serve for publike playinge to keepe them in exercise. To the ende, therefore, that both the greate abuses of the playes and playinge-houses may be redressed, and yet the aforesaide use and moderation of them retayned, the Lordes and the rest of her Majesties Privie Counsell, with one and full consent, have ordered j in manner and forme as followeth." The rules laid down are very definite. First, as to the num- ber of playhouses, — there shall be only two "to serve for the use of the common stage-playes," one to be on the Bankside, the other in Middlesex. Since the Fortune, as Tilney has in- formed the Lords, is to take the place of the Curtain — not of the ■ Rose, as was first announced — Alleyn's new theater is the one authorized in Middlesex, and is to be occupied by the Lord Admiral's company. The Curtain is to be destroyed. On the Surrey side, the Council has permitted the Lord Chamberlain's company to choose a playhouse, and it has selected the Globe. J 192 Apart from these two no theaters are to be allowed ; nor shall there be any more performances in "any common inne for pub- y lique assembly in or neare aboute the Cittie." /* Secondly, "forasmuch as these stage-plaies, by the multitude of houses and the company of players, have bin so frequent, not servinge for recreation but invitinge and callinge the people dayly from their trade and worke to myspend their tyme," it is ordered that these two privileged companies shall perform only twice each week, never on the Sabbath, or in Lent, or in time of "extraordinary sickness" in or about the city. Thirdly, to secure the strict enforcement of these rules, it is ordered that copies be sent to the Lord Mayor and to the Jus- tices of the Peace of Middlesex and Surrey, together with letters urging them to carry out the laws, imprison any who violate them, and report their proceedings to the Privy Council from time to time. 1 A copy of this urgent request follows in the Council Register. 2 It seems almost useless to rehearse these orders here at such length, for their enforcement was evidently lax and irregular in the extreme, — if indeed they were ever enforced at all. The Lords themselves seem to have had little desire for the rigor- ous carrying out of these commands. Indeed, they apparently soon forgot all about them; for when, in May, 1601, complaints were made of the offensive play at the Curtain, and the Privy Council ordered the Middlesex Justices to censor it, the exis- tence and activity of this theater seems not to have disturbed them in the least, and they made no allusion to the fact that some ten months before they had directed that it be demol- ished. 3 But the existence of the regulations was soon recalled to their minds. The municipal and shire officials had apparently been as forgetful as the Lords, and the continued abuses gave rise to fresh complaints. In December, 1601, the Lord Mayor again protested to the Privy Council against the playhouses. 1 The order is printed at length in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 466-468, and in Acts, XXX, 395-398. 2 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 468-469; Acts, XXX, 411. * See above, p. 100. 193 Thus reminded that the fault was not theirs, the Lords, in a burst of righteous indignation, replied sternly to the Mayor. The sarcasm of the opening sentence suggests that the writer felt satisfaction in being able to retort in such wise to the Puritan City. "Wee have receaved a letter from you renewing a complaint of the great abuse and disorder within and about the cittie of London by reason of the multitude of play-howses and the inordinate resort and concourse of dissolute and idle people daielie unto publique stage plaies, for the which information as wee do commende your Lordship because it betokeneth your care and desire to reforme the disorders of the cittie, so wee must lett you know that wee did muche rather ex- pect to understand that our order (sett downe and prescribed about a yeare and a half since for the reformation of the said disorders upon the like complaint at that tyme) had bin duelie executed, then to finde the same disorders and abuses so muche encreased as they are, the blame whereof, as we cannot but impute in great part to the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex and Surrey ... so wee do wishe that it might appeare unto us that anythinge hath bin endeavoured by the predecessours of you, the Lord Maiour, and by you, the Aldermen, for the redresse of the said enormities and for observation and execu- tion of our said order within the cittie." The enforcement of the rule is again urged. Violators are to be put on bond or imprisoned. "And so praying yow," con- clude the Lords, "as yourself do make the complaint and finde the enormitie, so to applie your best endeavour to the remedie of the abuse." * On the same day, December 31, 1601, the Council sent a letter to the Justices of Middlesex and Surrey, severely censuring them for their negligence. "It is in vaine for us to take knowl- edg of great abuses and disorders complayncd of and to give order for redresse, if our directions finde no better execution and observation than it seemeth they do, and wee must needes im- pute the fault and blame thereof to you or some of you, the Jus- tices of the Peace." They summarize their order of a year and a half since, and vigorously describe the lack of enforcement. "Wee do now understande that our said order hath bin so farr from takinge dew effect, as, in steede of restrainte and redresse l Ads, XXXII, 468-469; Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 469-47°- o 194 of the former disorders, the multitude of play howses is much encreased, and that no daie passeth over without many stage plaies in one place or other within and about the cittie publiquelie made." The Justices, the Lords assert, have not reported on this matter, as they were ordered to do. They are now com- manded to mend their ways. 1 Apparently the exhortations of the Lords had little or no effect. That the Privy Council itself felt by no means bound to observe its own rules, and soon relapsed from its stern attitude, is shown — if proof be needed — by a letter which it sent to the Lord Mayor a few months later. On March 31, 1602, in violation of its own rule against performances in inn yards, the Council bade the Mayor allow the servants of the Earl of Worcester and the Earl of Oxford to play at the Boar's Head in Eastcheap. 2 According to Mr. Fleay's estimate, in spite of the restrictive measures eight playing places were open in and about London in 1602. 3 The almost absurd laxness in carrying out these restrictions > of 1600 is puzzling in part. From the Council's letter it would V/dppear that even the city authorities had not endeavored to sup- press unlawful plays. Why the Puritan opposition was thus relaxed — if it was — is not clear. Mr. Fleav's comment on the affair is that the ruling motive was not Puritan on the city side, but an "obstinate determination to assert their privileges," — leading the municipal authorities to suppress playing places whenever the Court wanted them open, and to allow freedom to them all when the Court wished to give a "monopoly to the favored companies. 4 This is not convincing. Of course, the opposition on the city side was, as we have observed, not exr clusively and merely Puritan in motive; but an "obstinate determination to assert their privileges" does not seem to de- scribe their attitude. By this time they must have been pretty well hardened to the interference and encroachments of the royal government, which, as we have seen, had been almost continual for a quarter of a century. Their communications to the Privy Council seem to admit freely the right of the Lords to regulate 1 Acts, XXXII, 466-468; Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 470-471. 2 Rcmembrancia, 355. 3 London Stage, 161. * Ibid. 195 the drama in and about London, and to entreat merely that these regulations may be restrictive enough to protect the City from the abuses of the theaters. The laxness of the municipality at this particular time — if indeed it was lenient to the playing places within London — may have been due to a variety of causes. Perhaps the Lord Mayor in office for the year 1600- 1601 was not of Puritan inclinations, but personally in favor of the stage. Or he may have been merely lax and careless. Or the players may have brought all sorts of powerful influences to bear. Probably the immense public demand for plays at this time, forcibly described in the Council Order of 1600, was so intense that the general public opinion tended to prevent the enforcement of the restrictions. Moreover and finally, there seems to have been at this period, one might almost say, a presumption in favor of the non-enforcement of any given regulation. There is another puzzling question in connection with the restrictive order of 1600. Was it intended to apply to the chil- dren's companies, or were they, as well as the two privileged men's companies, expected to perform? Were their playing places not considered as serving "for the use of the common stage-playes"? The Paul's Boys in their singing-school, and the Children of the Chapel in the new Blackfriars theater, seem to have acted undisturbed during this period of agitation; but whether this was due to their special exemption, or merely to the general non-enforcement of the law, is not clear. They are not mentioned in the orders and complaints which we have been considering. On March 11, 1601, however, when the Privy Council wrote to the Lord Mayor requiring him not to fail in suppressing plays during Lent within the City and the liberties thereof, they added "especyally at Powles and in the Blackfriars." 1 This indicates that the children's companies were performing as usual, and that the regulation of them was attended to at times. We know, indeed, from other sources, that they were especially successful during these years. The whole question of the status of these companies, which this brings up, is decidedly puzzling, and there seems to be, as yet, 1 Acts, XXXI, 218. 196 very little available material throwing light on it. I would conjecture that these two companies were, in the eyes of the law, on a footing considerably different from that of the other players. Probably they were not technically regarded as professional actors, since their real profession was supposed to be choral singing. By virtue of their connection with the church, as choristers of St. Paul's and of the Royal Chapel; or because of their inclusion in the royal service ; or on the strength of the royal patents authorizing the Masters to take up boys for choral purposes ; or for all these reasons, — they were probably tacitly allowed special privileges and a status peculiarly their own. The laws restricting the number of "common players" and common playing places would therefore probably not apply to them. But the Lenten and Sunday regulations would be es- pecially appropriate in their case, and the plague restriction, so essential for the welfare of the community, was probably also expected to be obeyed by them. Under James, as we have seen, the children were given regular patents for playing, and seem to have been placed on much the same footing as the other actors. Finally, in 1626, the patent to Giles forbade the use of the Chapel Children for dramatic purposes. 1 On March 19, 1603, five days before the death of Elizabeth, the Privy Council ordered the Mayor and the Justices of Middle- sex and Surrey to suppress all plays until further notice. 2 Whether this was because of Lent, of the plague, or of the Queen's illness does not appear. But plays evidently began again within less than six weeks after Elizabeth's death. We learn from Henslowe's Diary that the performances were stopped on May 5, "at the King's coming," two days before James' arrival in London, and resumed "by the King's license" on May g. 3 With the end of Elizabeth's reign we have reached the prac- tical conclusion of the struggle between the municipal and the royal governments over plays. On the whole, the City met defeat. Though performances in the inn yards within the municipal jurisdiction seem now to have ceased, the obnoxious theaters in the Liberties continued to flourish undisturbed. All 1 See above, pp. 37-38. 2 Acts, XXXII, 492. ' Henslowe's Diary, 174, 190. 197 regulation of the drama was now organized under the system of royal patents and the administration of the Master of the Revels, — both of which we have already considered. The monopoly of playing in and about London granted by the royal patents had grown naturally out of the exclusive privileges awarded to the favored companies under Elizabeth. But whereas, during the later years of the Queen's reign, there had been some attempt to restrict the number of the men's companies to two, under James and Charles at least four or five were generally privileged to perform. The playing places authorized for the favored actors were specified in the patents; the Master of the Revels was intrusted with the regulation of performances; and there resulted at least the appearance, and to a considerable extent the practice, of greater regularity and consistency in the enforce- ment of the rules. In the face of this system of royal regulation and authoriza- tion, the city government subsided. 1 It was, indeed, practically helpless. The fixed theaters were, until 1608, all outside the Mayor's jurisdiction, 2 and for the most part specially licensed by the Crown. Even when Blackfriars and Whitefriars came under the municipal authority, the players were effectually shel- tered by the royal protection. But, on the whole, the state of the City was not so bad as it might have been. The obnoxious per- formances in inn yards were apparently now given up, and, with the improvement which seems to have taken place in the class of spectators who attended the theaters, disorders resulted much less frequently. There are, indeed, indications that the hostility towards plays hitherto felt by the municipal officials and the upper classes of the citizens had now somewhat dimin- ished, and that the city government was no longer so intensely eager to banish all actors. But the Puritan antipathy to the drama, though it found for the time no expression in municipal 1 In December, 1625, there was a slight recurrence of the old dispute. The Mayor and the Aldermen imputed the recent plague to the assemblages at the theaters, and requested the entire suppression of such performances, — appar- ently without result. See Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 438. 2 The later playhouses, the Cockpit, in Drury Lane, and the Red Bull, in Clerkenwell, were also beyond reach of the city officials. 198 legislation, remained deep and bitter, spreading through many classes of society and awaiting its chance for a decisive blow. Though the victory of the City in the long controversy that we have been tracing would have seriously hindered the develop- ment of the drama, it is impossible to follow the dispute in detail without sympathizing with the municipality. There seems to have been much justification for their complaints against the theaters, which certainly in many cases fomented disorder and crime. And the invasion by the Crown of their rights of local self-government must sometimes have been exasperating in the extreme. That they should have been forced, merely in order to give the court players a chance to practise for the better diversion of the Queen, to tolerate performances which they sincerely regarded as highly dangerous in spreading the plague and gravely injurious to the morals and good order of the com- munity, seems an act of tyranny which might well arouse a spirit of rebellion. But we must be careful not to read into their age the feelings of our own. With rare exceptions, at the mention of the Queen's name they seem to have bowed in loyal submission. The chapters on the Master of the Revels and the censorship have covered most of the history of theatrical regulation in London during the years 1 603-1642, when the crown officials were in charge. There remain to be considered only a few cases of royal and municipal legislation affecting the London stage. Most of these center about the famous precinct of Black- friars, which, as we have seen, came under the municipal juris- diction in 1608. The City made no move, for the present, against the King's company, which now began to occupy Bur- bagc's playhouse; but in 1615, when the construction of a sec- ond theater in that precinct was begun, the municipality protested. The case is a puzzling one. On May 31, 161 5, a Privy Seal was apparently issued, directing a patent under the Great Seal to Philip Rosseter and others. This recites the grant of Rosse- ter's patent of January 4, 1610, for the Children of the Queen's Revels, who have been performing in Whitefriars, and it au- thorizes him to construct a new playhouse in Blackfriars, on land which he has leased for that purpose, — " all w cb premisses 199 are scittuat and being w"'in the precinct of the Blackfryers neere Puddlewharfe, in the Subburbes of London, called by the name of the Ladie Saunders house, or otherwise Porters Hall, and nowe in the occupac'on of the said Robert Jones." The Revels Children, the Prince's company, and the Lady Elizabeth's are authorized to perform in this theater. 1 Upon the grant of this patent Rosseter began to construct his playhouse. Whereupon the Mayor and the Aldermen, as we learn from an order of the Privy Council, complained to the Lords that he had pulled down "Lady Sanders" house, at Puddle-wharf, in the precinct of Blackfriars, and was building a theater there, to the great prejudice and inconvenience of the government of the City. The Privy Council sent for Rosseter, and had his letters patent inspected by the Lord Chief Justice. As a result of their deliberations, because of the inconveniences urged by the Mayor, and especially the fact that the nearness of the proposed playhouse to a church would cause interruption of Divine Service on week-days, "and that the Lord Chief Jus- tice did deliver to their Lordships that the license granted to the said Rosseter, did extend to the building of a playhouse without the liberties of London and not within the City," the Council ordered, on September 26, 1615, that there should be no theater constructed in that place. They bade the Mayor stop Rosseter and his workmen, and imprison them should they prove disobedient. 2 Since Rosseter's patent, as we have it, expressly authorizes him, in the passage that I have quoted, to construct the theater on the very plot where he was building, the decision of the Chief Justice and of the Council is puzzling. Mr. Fleay suggests that the existing patent is a Collier forgery. 3 This may possibly be the case, though no motive for a forgery is here evident. But the apparent contradiction can, I think, be explained in another way. The Lord Chief Justice who rendered the decision was the famous Coke, removed from office about a year afterwards 1 The patent is printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 46-48, and in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 381-382. 2 The order is printed in full in 1821 Variorum, III, 493-494, note. 5 London Stage, 263-264. 200 for opposing the royal and ecclesiastical prerogatives, and later a leader of the popular party in Parliament, where he vigorously fought against monopolies and other royal tyrannies. It may be that on this occasion he sympathized with the protest of the City against the invasion of their jurisdiction, and took advan- tage of a technical flaw in the phrasing of the patent, to decide against Rosseter. The authorization, as I have quoted it, speci- fies Lady Saunder's house in Blackfriars, but mentions it as situated "in the Subburbes of London" whereas Blackfriars was now actually within the City. This irregularity might justify Coke in saying that the license authorized a playhouse "without the liberties of London and not within the City." It will be noticed that the patent granted four years later to the King's company is careful to specify Blackfriars as "within our City of London." Moreover, there is evidence that the King himself regretted the issue of the patent, and was not unwilling to have the Privy Council declare it void. For when Rosseter obstinately per- sisted in completing the theater, the Lords, on January 26, 1616 or 161 7/ sent the following order to the Mayor. "Whereas his Majesty is informed that notwithstanding divers commandments and prohibitions to the contrary, there be certain persons that go about to set up a playhouse in the Blackfryars, near unto his Majesty's Wardrobe, and for that purpose have lately erected and made fit a building which is almost if not fully finished: You shall understand that his Majesty hath this day expressly signified his pleasure, that the same shall be pulled down; so as it be made unfit for any such use. Whereof we require your Lordship to take notice, and to cause it to be performed with all speed, and thereupon to certify us of your proceedings." 3 This seems to refer to Rosseter's house. Perhaps it had been decided that a theater so "near unto his Majesty's Wardrobe" would be inconvenient. Or influence of some other kind may have been brought to bear upon the King to make him practically annul his grant. 1 Chalmers dates it 1616-1617. {1821 Variorum, III, 494, note.) Fleay thinks it was probably 1616. {London Stage, 264.) The later date certainly makes a very long interval elapse. 2 1S21 Variorum, III, 494, note. 201 In spite of all the opposition, Rosseter's theater seems to have been open for a few performances at least. The title-page of Field's Amends for Ladies, printed in 1618, states that it was "acted at the Blacke-Fryers, both by the Princes Servants, and the Lady Elizabeths." 1 As these were two of the companies for which the new playhouse was intended, it seems likely that the comedy was performed there. A few years later the inhabitants of Blackfriars, perhaps en- couraged by the fate of Rosseter's theater, determined to make an effort to free themselves from the inconveniences caused by Burbage's playhouse, long established in their precinct and now occupied by the King's company. The royal patent held by these players specified only the Globe as their authorized theater and gave them no explicit right to perform in Blackfriars. Their position therefore seemed open to attack. As the precinct was now within the jurisdiction of the City, the residents appealed, not to the Privy Council, as in 1596, but to the Mayor and the Aldermen. About January, 1619, the minister, the church- wardens, the sidesmen, the constables, the collectors, and the scavengers of the precinct addressed a petition to the municipal authorities, begging for the suppression of Burbage's playhouse and rehearsing the inconveniences caused thereby. 2 A letter supporting this petition was also submitted to the Mayor and the Aldermen signed by "divers honorable persons, inhabiting the precinct of Blackfriars." 3 As a result, the city authorities issued, on January 21, 1619, an order for the suppression of the theater. This recites part of the history of the playhouse, as I have quoted above, and en- deavors to make it appear that the performances there are in defiance of the orders of the Privy Council. 4 It also summarizes the complaints of the petitioners. This passage gives an inter- esting glimpse of conditions surrounding performances in the famous theater. It should be compared with the petition of 1596, setting forth the evils which the residents feared would result from the establishment of the playhouse, — especially the 1 Hazlitt's Dodsley, XI, 88. * Remembrancia, 355. 3 Ibid., 356. * See above, p. 186. 202 influx of tramps and rascals. 1 In contrast to this, it is now the great press of coaches from which they suffer. Apparently the Blackfriars theater was attracting an audience greatly superior in social status to what the precinct had anticipated. "There is daily," the order recites, "so great resort of people, and soe great multitude of coaches, whereof many are hackney coaches bringing people of all sortes that sometimes all their streetes cannot conteyne them, that they endanger one the other, breake downe stalles, throw downe mens goodes from their shopps, hinder the passage of the in- habitantes there to and from their howses, lett the bringing in of their necessary provisions, that the tradesmen and shoppkeepers cannot utter their wares, nor the passengers goe to the common water staires without danger of their lives and lyms, whereby manye times quar- rells and effusion of blood hath followed, and the minister and people disturbed at the administracion of the Sacrament of Baptimse and publique prayers in the afternoones." The Corporation of London therefore orders that the theater shall be suppressed and "the players shall from henceforth for- bear and desist from playing in that house." 2 But the King's company was too powerful to be in danger from the municipal authorities. Some effort to enforce the order of suppression was probably made ; and the King came to the rescue of his servants. On March 27, about two months after the passage of the ordinance, a new royal patent was issued to these players, expressly authorizing them to perform, not only at the Globe, but also — without any flaw in the phrasing — in "their private House scituate in the precincts of the Black- friers within our Citty of London." 3 In the face of such royal authorization the precinct and the municipal government were helpless. The opposition to the playhouse subsided for a time. In later years there were revivals of the Blackfriars agitation, interesting chiefly as showing the necessity, even at this early day, of traffic regulations in London. During 163 1 the church- wardens and the constables of the precinct petitioned Laud, 1 See above, p. 185. 2 The order is printed at length in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 474-475. 1 See above, p. 38, and Appendix. 203 then Bishop of London, for a revival of previous orders made for the removal of the playhouse. 1 They repeat the same com- plaints about the great numbers of coaches which were advanced in 1619. This appeal through ecclesiastical channels was apparently unsuccessful. Bishop Laud indorsed the petition "To the Council Table"; but the Privy Council seems to have taken no action on it. The agitation was resumed two years later with slightly more effect. The Lords appointed a Commis- sion, including some of the Justices of Middlesex and the Alder- man of the Ward, to investigate the question of the removal of the Blackfriars theater and decide on what recompense should be made to the players. 2 On November 20, 1633, the Com- mission reported that no agreement could be reached on the amount of the indemnity. The players demanded £21,000, the Commissioners valued it at near £3000, and the parishioners offered towards the removal of the theater £ioo. 3 Apparently giving up this plan in despair, and endeavoring to remedy the evil in another way, the Privy Council, two days later, issued orders stringently regulating traffic to and from the Blackfriars playhouse. No coaches were to be allowed to come nearer the theater than "the farther side of St. Paul's Churchyard on the one side, and Fleet Conduit on the other." The Mayor was directed to enforce this regulation. 4 Apparently the new rule was distasteful to the players and their audiences, and at a council meeting on December 29 it was materially modified. "As many coaches as may stand within the Black- friars gate" were now to be allowed to enter and stay there, or return thither at the end of the play. 5 As the King was present at this council meeting, it has been conjectured that he interceded on behalf of his players. 6 A letter from Garrard to Lord Deputy Went worth, written on January 9, 1634, remarks on the new regulation and the audience's having to "trot afoot to find their 1 The petition is printed at length in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 455—457. There is an abstract in State Papers, Dom., 1631-1633, 219-221. 2 Collier, op. cit., I, 476-477, note; State Papers, Dom., 1633-1634, 266. 3 Stale Papers, Dom., 1633-1634, 293. * Collier, op. cit., I, 478-479; Remembrancia, 356, 357; Slate Papers, Dom., ^33-1634, 293. s Collier, op. cit., I, 479. ■ Ibid. 204 coaches." "'Twas kept very strictly for two or three weeks," he writes, "but now I think it is disordered again." ' All audiences were not of such dignity as those that attended the Blackfriars theater, and at times the authorities still had to be on their guard against disorder. On May 25, 1626, for exam- ple, the Privy Council directed the Justices of Surrey to take precautions against riot at the Globe. "We are informed," write the Lords, "that on Thursday next divers loose and idle persons, some sailors and others, have appointed to meete at the Play-house called the Globe, to see a play (as is pretended), but their end is thereby to disguise some routous and riotous action." The Justices are therefore commanded to permit no performance on that day, and also to "have that strength about you as you shall think sufficient for the suppressing of any in- solencies, or other mutinous intentions." 2 In the stage history of the period there are a few other cases to be considered, connected with the authorization, or proposed authorization, of playhouses about London. There were several ineffectual attempts to secure permission for a theater in Lin- coln's Inn Fields. Some time in James' reign the Prince's company sought a license for such a playhouse ; but eleven Justices of the Peace certified that the place was inconvenient. 3 In 1620 John Cotton, John Williams, and Thomas Dixon were slightly more successful. King James issued orders for a patent granting them permission to erect an amphitheater in Lincoln's Inn Fields ; but finding that some of the clauses seemed to give them greater liberty, "both in the point of building and using of exercises," than was intended, he stayed the grant at the Privy Seal, and ordered its terms modified. 4 Apparently in conse- quence of this difficulty, the writ was never issued. In Charles' reign Williams and Cotton again sought a patent. After some 'Strafford Letters, I, 175, quoted in Wheatley and Cunningham, London Past and Present, I, 200. 2 Extract from the Council Register, printed in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 445-446, note. 8 See the Lord Chancellor's letter of September 28, 1626, printed in Collier, op. cit., I, 444-445- 4 See James' letter to the Privy Council, September 29, 1620, printed in Collier, op. cit., I, 407-408, and Hazlitt, English Drama, 56-57. 205 consideration the Lord Chancellor, on September 28, 1626, reported against the proposed grant. It was, he declared, different from that suggested in 1620, which provided for a theater that was to be principally for martial exercises and "extraordinary shows and solemnities," whereas this proposed house would probably be devoted only to common plays and sports. Moreover, the monopoly awarded in the power to restrain all other shows on one day in the week was much more extensive than that formerly suggested. In view of these argu- ments and of the fact that there were already too many buildings in Lincoln's Inn Fields, the Lord Chancellor advised against the patent, which was evidently never issued. 1 The French comedians who visited London in 1635 were apparently more successful in carrying out plans for a theater. They performed for some time at the Cockpit, in Drury Lane, and then secured a royal warrant authorizing them to construct another theater in the same street, — or rather to adapt for that purpose an existing building. The following note in a manu- script book in the Lord Chamberlain's records informs us of this. "18 April 1635: His Majesty hath commanded me to signify his royal pleasure, that the French comedians (having agreed with Mon- sieur le Febure) may erect a stage, scaffolds, and seats, and all other accommodations, which shall be convenient, and act and present in- terludes and stage plays, at his house, in Drury Lane, during his Majesty's pleasure, without any disturbance, hindrance, or interrup- tion. And this shall be to them, and M. le Febure, and to all others, a sufficient discharge, &c." 2 Sir Henry Herbert's Office Book gives us further information on the subject. On May 5, 1635, he records the grant of the foregoing warrant to Josias d'Aunay, Hurfries de Lau, and others, to "builde a playhouse in the manage-house." This, says Her- bert, "was done accordinglye by my advise and allowance." One other authorization of a proposed theater remains to be noted. On March 26, 1639, D'Avenant obtained a patent under 1 See the Chancellor's letter, printed in Collier, op. cit., I, 444-445. 7 Chalmers, Apology, 506-507, note. ' 1S21 Variorum, III, 122, note. 206 the Great Seal, permitting him to construct a theater within the City of London, upon a plot of ground adjoining the Three Kings Ordinary in Fleet Street, already allotted to him, or upon any other which may be assigned by the Commissioners for Build- ing; and on certain conditions to give performances therein. 1 In an indenture dated October 2, 1639, D'Avenant declares that the site in Fleet Street has been found inconvenient and unfit, and pledges himself not to build on any other plot without further authorization. 2 Just why the plan for this theater was given up is not apparent. D'Avenant's appointment, on June 27, 1640, to take charge of the Cockpit, perhaps prevented his further search for a site for a new playhouse. 3 In concluding this account of governmental regulations deal- ing with the London stage, it seems useful to summarize some of the chief lines of legislation, — apart from the main system of licensing and censorship which we have considered in previous chapters. These minor features have been touched on from time to time in the course of the present section and the preceding one, but may now be assembled in clearer order. A notable custom prevailing to a considerable extent during Elizabeth's reign was the taxation of the players for the benefit of the sick and the poor. Probably such contributions were first offered by the actors, as an inducement to the local officials to permit them to perform. In the letter written by the London government to the Lord Chamberlain on March 2, 1574, disap- proving of the proposal of a licensing patent empowering the patentee to authorize playing places in the City, the municipal officials remark that similar requests have been made before, and that the petitioners have offered in return large contributions "for the relief of the poor in hospitals." 4 Probably the players had already made such payments; for in the city ordinance of December 6, 1574, provision is made that all owners of licensed playing places shall contribute regularly for the use of the poor in 1 1821 Variorum, III, 93-95. See above, p. 43. 2 Ibid., 520-522, note; Collier, op. cit., II, 28-29. 3 Chalmers, Apology, 519, note. * Hazlitt, English Drama, 23-24. See above, p. 154. 207 hospitals, or of the poor of the City visited with sickness, such sums as may be agreed upon by the Mayor and the Aldermen on the one part, and the licensed householder on the other. All fines and forfeitures collected for offenses against this act arc to be devoted to the same purpose. 1 The practice seems to have continued to some extent through- out the sixteenth century. In 1594 the Lord Chamberlain's company, seeking permission to play at the Cross Keys, offered to contribute to the parish poor. 2 In 1600 such payments from the Bankside theaters were ordered by the Archbishop of Can- terbury, the Bishop of London, and the Master of the Revels, as we learn from the entry in the Parish Register of St. Saviour's referring to the "tithes of the playhouses" to be paid by the players and "money for the poor." 3 Finally, in the same year, when seeking the approval of the residents of Finsbury for the erection of the new Fortune theater, the managers offered to con- tribute liberally to the parish poor. 4 I have found no further references to this practice in and about London. Probably when the players and the playing places were authorized by royal warrant, and there was no longer any necessity of placating the local officials and residents, the custom died out. 5 There is visible during this period only a slight germ of the modern building and fire laws which apply particularly to theaters. The municipal authorities frequently refer to the danger to the audience caused by weak buildings and scaffolds. In the city ordinance of December 6, 1574, there is a provision requiring that the playing places must be approved and licensed by the Mayor and the Aldermen, and the owner put on bond. 6 It was perhaps intended that the construction of the temporary scaffoldings and stages should be inspected and passed upon. But there is no indication that such supervision was regularly exercised. There was some attempt to regulate the hours of performances. 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 30. See above, p. 158. 2 See above, p. 182-183. 3 Chalmers, Apology, 405. See above, p. 60. * Henslowe Papers, 50-51. See above, p. 190. 1 The Long Parliament adopted a modification of it. See below, p. 226. 8 Hazlitt, English Drama, 29. See above, pp. 157-158. 208 In the earliest enactments of this kind the players were forbidden to act during the time of Divine Service on Sundays and Holy Days, — as in the royal patent to Leicester's company in 1574 and the municipal ordinance of December in the same year. 1 In 1582, when the Privy Council suggested that performances should be allowed after Evening Prayer on Holy Days, the Mayor objected to the rule, protesting that it would delay the action of the plays to a very inconvenient time of night, espe- cially for servants and children. 2 The regulation seems to have been established, nevertheless; but the dangers involved in the audience's returning to their homes after dark continued to dis- turb the municipal authorities. In the "Remedies" which they proposed in 1584, they included the rule, "That no playeng be on holydaies, but after evening prayer, nor any received into the auditorie till after evening prayer"; and they added, "That no playeng be in the dark, nor continue any such time but as any of the auditorie may returne to their dwellings in London before sonne set, or at least before it be dark." 3 To avoid the danger involved in such late performances, the Lord Chamberlain's company offered as an inducement to the City, in the autumn of 1594, that they would begin at two o'clock and finish between four and five, instead of commencing at four, as heretofore. 4 In the traveling license issued to Lord Strange's company in 1593, they are forbidden to act during the "accustomed times of Divine Prayers"; 5 but this provision was not included in the royal patents issued by the Stuarts. To what extent, if at all, the regulation continued, I have not been able to ascertain. There were certainly performances during Divine Service on some occasions. Among the objections against Rosseter's Blackfriars theater, in 16 15, is included the fact that it would disturb the congregation in the adjoining church during Divine Service upon week-days. 8 And in the order of 1619, suppress- ing Burbage's Blackfriars playhouse, mention is made of the disturbance caused by the coaches to the minister and people at 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 26, 29-30. See above, pp. 34, 158. ' Remembrancia, 351. See above, p. 165. 3 See above, p. 174. ♦See above, p. 182. 5 Acts, XXIV, 212. See above, p. 34- • 1S21 Variorum, III, 493-494, note. See above, p. 199. 209 public prayers in the afternoon. 1 The inhabitants of the pre- cinct, in their petition for relief, had complained that the crush of vehicles inconvenienced them almost daily in winter time, not excepting Lent, from one or two o'clock till five at night. 2 What further attempt, if any, was made to regulate the hours of performances does not appear. Throughout our period there was almost continual agitation about performances on Sunday. As early as 1543 we have observed an apparent objection to some sorts of shows on that day ; s but in general Sunday was, during the earlier part of Elizabeth's reign, the day especially selected for performances. The municipal ordinance of December, 1574, remarks that plays are "chiefly used" on Sundays and Holy Days, 4 and merely for- bids their presentation during the time of Divine Service. Gos- son, in his Schoole of Abuse, published in 1579, notes that the players, because they are allowed to act every Sunday, " make four or five Sundays, at least, every week"; 5 and the Puritan denunciations of the usual Sunday performances are frequent at this early period. 6 The rise of this strong disapproval soon pro- duced orders forbidding plays on Sunday. On December 3, 1 58 1, when the Privy Council asked the Mayor to admit certain companies to the City, they required that the players be not allowed to perform on the " Sabbath Day," — a term which shows the spread of Puritan ideas. 7 Sometime during this same year or earlier, the Lord Mayor had evidently issued orders against Sunday performances, as we find from a letter written by one Henry Berkley "respecting some of his men committed to prison for playing on the Sabbath Day, contrary to the Lord Mayor's orders, which were unknown to them." 8 In 1582, again, the Lords suggest that the privileged companies be restrained from playing on Sunday. 9 Of course the rule was not rigidly and 1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 475. See above, p. 202. J Remembrancia, 355. 3 See above, p. 151-152. 4 Hazlitt, English Drama, 27. See above, p. 157. 1 Published by the Shakspere Society, II, 31. •See, for example, the title-page of Northbrooke's Treatise (1577); Stock- wood's Sermon of 1578, cited in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 348; and the citations in 1821 Variorum, III, 145-146, note. 7 Acts, XIII, 269. 8 Abstract in Athenceum, January 23, 1869. • Acts, XIII, 404. See above, p. 164. 210 consistently enforced. The Paris Garden disaster, in January, 1583, occurred at a Sunday performance, and led to renewed edicts from Privy Council and Mayor against such profana- tion of the Sabbath. 1 Even the favored Queen's company, according to the Lords' order of December 1, 1583, was not to be allowed to perform on that day. 2 The "Remedies" pro- posed by the city in 1584 of course included a law against acting on Sunday. 3 Complaints of the non-enforcement of the rule are rather frequent. The inhabitants of Southwark protested in 1587 against the Sabbath performances in the Liberty of the Clink, and the Privy Council exhorted the Justices of Middlesex and Surrey to prevent such occurrences. 4 In 1 59 1 the Lords called the attention of the Mayor to the neglect of their order against "plays on the Sabbath Day." 5 Their restrictive regulations of 1600 included the same rule. 8 In reviewing the history of national regulation under the Stuarts, we have already considered the royal proclamations and the statutes which from 1603 on forbade Sunday plays. 7 The law was not rigidly enforced, any more than the others that we have investigated; and the Puritan complaints of its violation, from Pyrnne and others, are fairly frequent. 8 The royal patents apparently contain no provision about Sunday performances. It is notable that the "Letters of Assistance" granted in 1618 by the Privy Council to John Daniel for his provincial children's company provides that they may play, "the tymes of Devine Service on the Saboth daies only excepted," 9 — seeming to imply that they may perform at the other hours on Sunday. The rule against performances in Lent was apparently enacted rather early. It is not included in the London ordinance of 1574. But on March 13, 1579, the Privy Council ordered the Mayor and the Middlesex Justices to stop all plays "during this time of Lent," and to notify the Lords what players had been performing since the beginning of the Lenten season. This 1 See above, pp. 165-166. 2 See above, p. 168. 3 See above, p. 174. 4 Acts, XV, 271. See above, p. 175. 5 Acts, XXI, 324-325. See above, p. 177. 9 See above, p. 192. 7 See above, pp. 20-21. 8 See Thompson, Puritans and Stage, 188. 9 Hazlitt, English Drama, 50. 211 would seem to imply that the actors had been violating an already existing law. The Council commanded also that this order "be observed hereafter yearly in the Lent time." l The rule was supposed to be in force, I imagine, during all the rest of the period. It was included in the restrictive regulations of June 22, 1600. 2 Occasionally we find in the Council Register entries of orders to the magistrates to stop plays in the Lenten season, or to permit them, "Lent being past." 3 The players' breach of the law in 161 5 has already been noticed, and the practice inaugu- rated by the Master of the Revels, at least as early as 161 7, of selling dispensations for performances during the prohibited period. 4 The Lenten plays complained of by the inhabitants of Blackfriars in 1619, 5 were probably a result of the licenses pur- chased from Buc by the King's company. One of the most important series of regulations affecting the London stage dealt with performances in time of plague. The danger of infection caused by assemblages at plays was early recognized by the City and by the royal government. Bishop Grindal, in 1563, as we have seen, requested the suppression of the players for a year on this account. 6 In subsequent years we have observed frequent complaints of this danger and frequent prohibition of plays because of the great prevalence of the disease or the fear of its development in the hot season. There seems to have been at first no definite rule about the time of such sup- pression. When the plague increased to a considerable degree, or the summer promised to be a dangerous one, performances were sometimes ordered stopped entirely until autumn. Just when the first attempt was made to regulate this matter accord- ing to a definite system, to provide that plays should stop when the death-rate rose to a certain figure, does not clearly appear. The first suggestion of this sort that I have noted is the proposal apparently made by the Queen's company in 1584, — that plays in London should be allowed whenever the total number of deaths from the plague should fall as low as fifty a week. In their reply to this the city authorities discuss the "permission of plays 1 Acts, XI, 73-74. 2 See above, p. 192. 3 Acts, XXXI, 218; XXXII, s«. «See above, p. 75. 6 See above, p. 209. • See above, p. 152. 212 upon the fewness of those that die in any week" in a manner which seems to imply that the idea is a new one. On the whole they do not approve of it, and they point out that the report of deaths from the plague is not a reliable indication of the prevalence of the disease. If any such regulation must be adopted, they advocate a much more stringent one. The ordinary deaths in London, when there is no plague, amount weekly to "between forty and fifty and commonly under forty." Now the city officials pro- pose that when the total deaths in London from all diseases shall for two or three weeks together be under fifty per week, plays may be performed, and may continue so long as the mor- tality remains under that figure. 1 In the "Remedies" which they drew up at this time, they embodied this rule. 2 What specific regulation, if any, the Privy Council adopted as a result of this discussion, we do not know. Probably it was a compro- mise one. In 1593 a change was made in the plague reports. It had become apparent that the weekly certificate of the deaths from the disease within the City did not give sufficient information as to the progress of the infection, and it was therefore ordered, on August 4, that Westminster, St. Catherine's, St. Giles, Southwark, and Shoreditch should be included in the bills of mortality. 3 This increase of the area covered in the weekly certificate should be borne in mind when one compares the regulation later adopted with the very liberal one suggested by the players in 1584. The royal patent to the King's company in 1603 — one of the worst plague years — provides merely that they may perform "when the infection of the plague shall decrease." 4 But the Queen's company patent, probably granted in the same year, and the Privy Council order of April 9, 1604, 5 lay down an explicit rule, — that plays may be given except when the deaths from the plague amount to more than thirty weekly "within the City of London and the Liberties thereof." This may have been the law for some years before James' accession, and it was certainly 1 Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 215-216. See above, p. 173. 2 See above, p. 174. 3 Acts, XXIV, 442, 443. 4 See above, p. 37. » Printed in full in Hcnslowe Papers, 61-62. 213 the law for some time thereafter. Mr. Fleay's assumption that forty was the specified number invalidates his proof of the exact- ness with which the rule was enforced in 1593. 1 There is no provision concerning the plague in the royal patents of 1606, 1609, 1610, and 1613. The King's company patent of 1619 contains the first mention of forty as the legal number. The players may perform "when the infection of the plague shall not weekly exceed the number of forty by the certificate of the Lord Mayor of London." 2 The same provision is contained in the patent granted to this company in 1625. 3 Possibly this number remained the legal one throughout the period; or it may have been changed to fifty. Two entries in Herbert's Office Book for the years 1636-1637 point to the latter as the fixed figure. "At the increase of the plague to 4 within the citty and 54 in all. — This day the 12 May, 1636, I received a warrant from my lord Chamberlen for the suppressing of playes and shews." And he later notes that on February 23, 1637, "the bill of the plague made the number at forty foure, upon which decrease the king gave the players their liberty, and they began the 24 Feb." * On March 1, according to Collier's extracts from the Council Register, on the increase of the infection, plays were suppressed again, and were not permitted until October 2 following. 5 This does not harmonize with Mr. Fleay's theory of the number specified and the exactness with which the law was enforced, for his tables show that the plague deaths were over forty from the beginning of 1637 until August 17, when they fell below that number and remained there until the next summer. 6 Judging from the extreme laxness with which most laws seem to have been enforced, we should indeed be chary of believing that the plague rule was followed with precision. Probably the players often disobeyed it, as did the Cockpit company in May, 1 He has compared, he says, the dates of the performances in Henslowe's Diary with the plague tables for that year. There are no other tables extant for Elizabeth's reign. (London Stage, 162.) For a statement of Fleay's error, and references to mentions of the rule of thirty in the literature of the period, see Thorndike, Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere, i4 _I 5- 1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 51. 3 Ibid., 58. 4 1S31 Variorum, III, 239. 1 Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, II, 15-16. 8 Lmdon Stage, 162. 214 1637. 1 And apparently the Master of the Revels sometimes secured for them some relaxation of it. 2 That it was by no means a regulation operating with mechanical exactness, but was subject to variation according to different influences and personalities, and the will of various high officials, appears from an interesting account, given in a letter from Garrard to Wentworth, of a meet- ing of the Privy Council. It deals with the suppression of plays in the year we have just been considering, — 1637. And with this illustration of the conflict of jurisdictions and the way in which the enforcement of the laws was sometimes determined, we may conclude our account of the London regulations. "Upon a little abatement of the plague, even in the first week of Lent, the players set up their bills, and began to play in the Black- fryars and other houses. But my Lord of Canterbury quickly reduced them to a better order; for at the next meeting of the Council his Grace complained of it to the King, declared the solemnity of Lent, the unfitness of that liberty to be given, both in respect to the time and the sickness, which was not extinguished in the City, concluding that if his Majesty did not command him to the contrary he would lay them by the heels if they played again. My Lord Chamberlain [Pembroke and Montgomery] stood up and said that my Lord's Grace and he served one God and one King; that he hoped his Grace would not meddle in his place no more than he did in his; that the players were under his command. My Lord's Grace replied that what he had spoken in no way touched upon his place, etc., still concluding as he had done before, which he did with some solemnity reiterate once or twice. So the King put an end to the business by command- ing my Lord Chamberlain that they should play no more." 3 1 Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, II, 15-16. J See above, p. 76. 'Strafford Letters, II, 56; quoted in Wheatley and Cunningham, London Past and Present, I, 200-201. This letter is dated March 23, 1637. CHAPTER VI The Puritan Victory The day of triumph had now come for the party at whom the players had so long gibed and scoffed. The term " Puritan" is, of course, a very broad and vague one. Coined about 1564, the word was applied at first to the men who sought the purest form of worship — religlo purissima — by reform from within the Church of England, — at first chiefly in matters of form and ceremony, and later in some points of Calvinistic doctrine. As the extension of the term broadened, it acquired a political sig- nificance, denoting those who were 'contending for the principles of civil liberty and who, from the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, controlled the House of Commons, — the opponents of the court party. It was even loosely applied to all men who protested against the immorality and corruption in church and state, the "life of practical heathenism," as Gardiner calls it, which they saw around them, and who sought religious reform and the politi- cal rights of the people. It came, moreover, to denote the some- what ascetic type of mind, intensely concerned with things moral and religious, with which we now most often associate the word. 1 In the early years of its development Puritanism had among its representatives men of high rank in church and state, such as Archbishop Grindal and the Earl of Leicester. But as it intensified to a rather extreme type, and the line between the Court and the popular party became more sharply drawn, its adherents were found chiefly among the middle class and the poor, — the tradesmen in the towns and the small proprietors in the country. In these sections of society it spread with rapidity and strength, so that early in James' reign it was probably the temper of the majority of Englishmen. 'See Campbell, The Puritan, I, xxvii; II, 237 ff.; Gardiner, History of England, III, 241-242. 215 216 The great political party loosely called Puritan, or Parlia- mentary, or Roundhead, of course included "Puritans" of all degrees and types. Their attitude towards the drama, as tow- ards other questions, varied considerably; but on the whole they were opposed to it. Some were opposed merely to its abuses, as exemplified on the contemporary stage; some were opposed to it altogether and absolutely, as essentially sinful and irreligious ; all were inclined to discipline it with a strong hand, when opportunity should arise. The City of London was one of the great centers of Puritanism. The attitude towards plays taken by the municipal government during the last quarter of the sixteenth century was largely caused, as we have seen, by various economic and social consid- erations. But it also shows strongly at times the moral and reli- gious view of the stage characteristic of the extreme Puritan, and seems to indicate that the wealthier burgess class was during these years decidedly Puritan in its convictions. The new party must, of course, have increased pretty steadily through- out the period, for at the opening of the Civil War the capital was practically solid for the Parliamentary side. 1 But there are signs that Puritanism in respect to the drama did not spread with steady regularity or remain firm in the influential burgess class; that, on the contrary, the antipathy to plays grew less violent among the ruling citizens in London. As the playhouses became less disorderly resorts, and were frequented by a better class, the opposition of the municipal officials, we have seen, largely died out. Under James and Charles it is evident that the theaters appealed rather less to the populace and became to a greater extent the resort of fashionable court society. The wealthier citizens, and especially their wives, when inspired by any desire to ape the manners of the court set, would therefore acquire a taste for the drama. In the plays of the period there are fre- quent hits at the eagerness of the city dames to get admission to the court masques. Their desire to participate in the amuse- ments of the upper class could be more easily gratified at the theaters of the better sort. A striking indication that the relation between the City and 1 See Sharpe, London, II, 173. 217 the stage at this period was not always one of open warfare, and the attitude of the municipal officials not extremely Puritanic, may be found in the dramatic character of many of the Lord Mayor's shows, and the fact that prominent playwrights were hired to devise them. During the first half of the seventeenth century, Munday, Dekker, Middleton, Webster, and Hey wood were the composers of these pageants that ushered in the new chief magistrate of the City, 1 — until the austere Puritan regime put a stop to the shows for sixteen years. 2 Moreover, the dram- atist Middleton, in 1620, was even appointed Chronologer of London, 3 and was succeeded in that office by Jonson. 4 The decline in the puritanical zeal of the city officials was noted and lamented in Rawlidge's Monster Lately Found Out, published in 1628. The author named plays among other disgraces of London, and commended the earlier "pious magistrates" and "religious senators" for their zeal in urging Elizabeth and her Council to suppress the stage. Had their successors followed their worthy example, he believed sin would not have been so rampant in the city. 5 Though the more prominent and influential citizens became in many cases thus lenient towards the drama, there are indica- tions of the spread of Puritan ideas among the populace. An interesting event in 16 17 seems to show that even the appren- tices, formerly, as we have seen, among the chief frequenters of performances, were beginning to turn against the theater. The London prentices had long practised the curious custom of attacking and demolishing houses of ill fame on Shrove Tues- day, — a habit to which the drama of the period contains many allusions. On Shrove Tuesday of 161 7, during some especially active rioting, the apprentices extended the range of their moral crusading and attempted to pull down the Cockpit theater, which they succeeded in damaging to a considerable extent. 'See Fleay, London Stage, 422; and Fairholt, Lord Mayors' Pageants. At the end of the sixteenth century, also, from at least 1586 on, such pageants were devised at times by prominent playwrights. The incompleteness of the records of the shows for these years, however, makes it impossible to get much light on the relations between dramatists and officials at this time. 1 Fairholt, op. cit., 62. s Bullen's Middleton, I, 1-lii. 4 Castelain, Ben Jonson, 63, 65, 67. ' Thompson, Puritans and Stage, 144. 218 The disorder was evidently serious, for on the following day the Privy Council wrote urgently to the Lord Mayor, ordering rigorous measures against the offenders. 1 And a year later, learning of the apprentices' plan to renew their attack on the same occasion, and pull down the Red Bull as well as the Cockpit, the Lords commanded the Mayor and the Justices to set strong watches to keep the peace. 2 An odd ballad on the Cockpit attack of 1617, printed by Collier as contemporary with this affair, but perhaps of doubtful au- thenticity, praises the moral zeal of the apprentices. 3 One should certainly be cautious in attributing any such serious mo- tive to the rioting. It does seem to show, however, that it had now become usual, in some sections of the prentice body at least, to class theaters with the most disreputable resorts, as fit game for attack; and it perhaps indicates some spread of opposition to the playhouses among the populace. That such opposition must have been growing, as the city developed the adherence to the Puritan or Parliamentary party which it showed at the outbreak of the Civil War, seems fairly obvious. It remains to summarize very briefly the Puritan attack on the stage that culminated in the Ordinances of the Long Parlia- ment. Developing from the essentially moral tendency of the typical Puritan attitude of mind, — at the opposite pole from the typical tone of the drama of the period, — and based largely on the patristic writings, in which the Church Fathers violently denounced the degenerate Roman stage, the opposition to the Elizabethan drama early found definite expression. From 1576 on, and perhaps before, a succession of vigorous sermons by non-conforming clergymen, at Paul's Cross and elsewhere, bitterly assailed the evils of the London stage. 4 Formal liter- ary attacks also began early. The period during which these 1 The order is printed in Chalmers, Apology, 466, note; and in 182 1 Variorum, III, 495-496, note. ' The order is printed in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 394, note. s Collier, op. cit., I, 386 ff. See also Mackay, Songs and Ballads of the London Prentices, 94-97. 4 For example, White in 1576, Stockwood in 1578, Spark in 1579, Field in 1583, etc. See Thompson, Puritans and Stage, passim, and Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 368. 219 chiefly flourished was the decade from 1577 to 1587, — including those years in which the opposition of the city government to plays was especially intense. 1 Northbrooke's Treatise in 1577, Gosson's Schoolc of Abuse in 1579, .4 Second and Third Blast of Ret rait in 1580, Gosson's Playcs Confuted in 1582, Stubbes' Anatomic of Abuses in 1583, and Rankins' Mirrour of Monsters in 1587 — to name only the most prominent — reflect the bitter opposition to plays felt at this time. During the next quarter of a century the only notable contribution to the controversy was Rainolde's Overthrow of Stage-Playes, published in 1599. In the second decade of the seventeenth century, however, literary attacks again became frequent. Wither's Abuses Stript and Wkipt in 1613, the Refutation of Heywood's Apology for Actors in 161 5, the Shorte Treatise Against Stage-Playes in 1625, Raw- lidge's Monster Lately Found Out in 1628, — all these renewed the literary onslaught which culminated in Prynne's Histrio- Masiix, published in 1632, a summary and amplification of all previous attacks. The general line of argument followed is much the same in all ^these writings. The authors rely to a great extent on authority. They quote texts from the Bible which they interpret as con- demning plays. They bring to bear a perfect battery of quota- tions from the Church Fathers denouncing the stage. They cite the classics, — chiefly Plato's banishing of poets from his ideal commonwealth, and strangely distorted interpretations of Cicero and others. They bring forward the Roman laws against actors and the legislation of Church Councils^ They condefhn the sinfulness of appareling boys in women's clothes, and other features of the contemporary dramas/Most convincingly of all, they portray the evil associations of the theaters, the demoral- izing companions whom the London youth there meets, the inde- cency and immorality presented upon the stage, with examples of the dire effects they have wrought. Some of the writers — notably Northbrooke, the earliest — do not condemn plays alto- gether, but think that under certain circumstances some of them, such as academic plays, are permissible. But the general ten- dency is to forbid them utterly, as snares of the Devil, irreligious 1 See above, p. 160. 220 and sinful abominations, — in the words of the municipal edict of banishment, "great provoking of the wrath of God, the ground of all plagues." ^^^ A characteristic summary of the Puritan line of argument may be found on the very elaborate title-page of Prynne's His- trio-Mastix. 2 " Histrio-Mastix. The Players Scourge, or Actors Tragaedie, Divided into Two Parts. Wherein it is largely evi- denced, by divers Arguments, by the concurring Authorities and Resolutions of sundry texts of Scripture ; of the whole Primi- tive Church, both under the Law and Gospell; of 55 Synodes and Councels; of 71 Fathers and Christian Writers, before the yeare of our Lord 1200; of above 150 foraigne and domestique Protestant and Popish Authors, since ; of 40 Heathen Philoso- phers, Historians, Poets ; of many Heathen, many Christian Na- tions, Republiques, Emperors, Princes, Magistrates; of sundry Apostolicall, Canonicall, Imperiall Constitutions; and of our owne English Statutes, Magistrates, Universities, Writers, Preachers. That popular Stage-playes (the very Pompes of the Divell which we renounce in Baptisme, if we beleeve the Fathers) are sinfull, heathenish, lewde, ungodly Spectacles, and most pernicious Corruptions; condemned in all ages, as intolerable Mischiefes to Churches, to Republickes, to the manners, mindes and soules of men. And that the Profession of Play-poets, of Stage players ; together with the penning, acting and frequenting of Stage-playes, are unlawfull, infamous and misbeseeming Christians. All pretences to the contrary are here likewise fully answered; and the unlawfulness of acting, of beholding Academicall Enterludes, briefly discussed ; besides sundry other particulars concerning Dancing, Dicing, Health-drinking, &c. of which the Table will informe you. By William Prynne, an Vtter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne." The attitude taken by the Puritans towards the statutes regu- lating players is from our point of view especially important. Inspired by the Roman and the Canonical laws against actors, 3 1 See above, p. 164. 2 Dated 1633, but published 1632. For an account of the book, see Thomp- son, Puritans and Stage, chap. 15, and Ward, English Dramatic Literature, III, 240 ff. s See above, p. 21. 221 the Puritans from the first seem to have seized eagerly upon the mention of players in the statutory definition of rogues and vaga- ( bonds, and to have assumed that this branded them all as of that outcast status. Referring to the Qtfeen's company in 1584, the pick, of the "quality," the London officials, as we have seen, remarked that "if they were not her Majesty's servants," they would " by their profession be rogues." ! An excellent summary of this view may be found in Prynne. He cites the mention of players in the Statutes 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5, and 39 Elizabeth, cap. 4, and the provision for licensing them , 2 — "which li- cense," he asserts, "exempted them onely from the punishment, not from the infamy, or stile of Rogues and Vacabonds." Since these laws did not prove effectual in suppressing plays, Prynne goes on to say, the Statute 1 James I, cap. 7, enacted that no license from any baron or other honorable personage of greater degree should free wandering players from the penalties of vagabondage. 3 " So that now," writes Prynne, " by these several acts of Parliament ... all common Stage-playes are solemnely adiudged to be unlawfull and pernicious Exercises, not sufferable in our State: and all common Stage- players, by whomsoever licensed; to be but Vacabonds, Rogues, and Sturdy Beggars." * " So that all Magistrates," he continues, "may now justly punish them as Rogues and Vacabonds, where-ever they goe, (yea they ought both in law and conscience for to doe it, since these severall Statutes thus inforce them to it) notwithstanding any License which they can procure, since the expresse words of the Statute of /. Iacobi. cap. 7. hath made all Licenses unavaylable to free them from such punishments." 5 The system of royal patents for players which had grown up Prynne thus denounces, indirectly if not explicitly, as unconstitutional. The Master of the Revels he has less scruple in attacking openly. " Magistrates in sundry Citties and Counties of our Realme, have from time to time, pun- ished all wandring Stage-players as Rogues, notwithstanding the Master of the Revels, or other mens allowance, who have no legall authority to license vagrant Players' >>o 1 See above, p. 173. 2 See above, pp. 27 fT. 3 See above, p. 28. * Histrio-Maslix, 496; the italics are Prynne's. ' Ibid., 497. • Ibid., 492. *. 222 It is possible that the Puritan majority in Parliament, when passing the Statute i James I, cap. 7, had indeed intended, or at least desired, to abolish all licenses for wandering players, though they must have realized that the system of royal patents which had already developed would probably continue. 1 But, as we have seen, the government certainly adopted no such interpre- tation of the law. By the patents that the King granted to the royal companies, authorizing their performances and requesting that, as his servants, they might be shown favor for his sake, and by the elaborate licensing system developed under the crown official, the Master of the Revels, the government pro- vided adequately for the license of worthy players, and gave them a legal status amply sufficient to protect them from being classed as vagabonds. Not all Puritans, indeed, interpreted the statutes as rigor- ously as did Prynne. The Shorte Treatise against Stage-Playes, printed in 1625, evidently did not regard plays as already entirely forbidden by law, for it besought Parliament "by some few Words added to the former Statutes, to restreyne them for euer hereafter." 2 But throughout the period Puritan writers taunted the players with their classification as vagabonds, and the atti- tude of the whole party made sufficiently evident what policy they would pursue when the governmental authority should be in their hands. The actors realized the fate that was impend- ing. In the Stage-Players Complaint, printed in 1641, which laments the sad state of the prof ession caused by the serious plague in London, a player prophecies worse times to come. " Monopo- lers are downe, Projectors are downe, the High Commission Court is downe, the Starre-Chamber is down, & (some think) Bishops will downe, and why should we then that are farre inferior to any of those not justly feare, least we should be downe too?" 3 The misgivings of the players were soon proved only too well founded. The Long Parliament now took the reins of govern- ment, and on September 2, 1642, issued the following solemn Ordinance of the Lords and Commons. " Whereas the distressed estate of Ireland, steeped in her own blood, and the distracted estate of England, threatened with a cloud of blood 1 Sec above, pp. 35-38. 2 Hazlitt, English Drama, 232. 3 Ibid., 256. 223 by a civil war, call for all possible means to appease and avert the wrath of God appearing in these judgments: amongst which fasting and prayer, having been often tried to be very effectual, have been lately and are still enjoined: and whereas public sports do not well agree with public calamities, nor public stage-plays with the seasons of humiliation, this being an exercise of sad and pious solemnity, and the other being spectacles of pleasure, too commonly expressing las- civious mirth and levity: it is therefore thought fit and ordained by the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled, that while these sad causes and set-times of humiliation do continue, public stage-plays shall cease and be forborne. Instead of which are recom- mended to the people of this land the profitable and seasonable con- siderations of repentance, reconciliation and peace with God, which probably will produce outward peace and prosperity, and bring again times of joy and gladness to these nations." l This edict, it will be noticed, does not express the extreme Puritan view. It forbids only public performances, and these but temporarily. Besides religious antipathy to plays, motives of political caution probably caused the suppression, as in early Tudor days. The party in power must have realized the hos- tility felt towards them by the players, the adherents of the Court, and feared lest the performances should be used to foment rebellion against the Parliamentary rule. When the Puritans passed a law suppressing plays, plays were really suppressed. Though sporadic attempts to revive performances were made during the next decade, this edict practically closed the theaters, and certainly marked the end of the Elizabethan drama. Most of the actors seem to have accepted the pronouncement as final. Some addressed mock- ing petitions to Parliament via "the great god Phoebus Apollo and the nine Heliconian Sisters," begging for the relaxation of the law. 2 But the majority of the prominent players entered the King's army, and there, as the Historia Histrionka tells us, "like good men and true, served their old master, though in a different, yet more honourable capacity." Only one of any note, Swanston, sided with the Parliamentary party. 3 1 Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, II, 36; Hazlitt, English Drama, 63. See also Gardiner, Great Civil War, I, 14-15. 2 See Hazlitt, English Drama, 259 ff.; and Thompson, Puritans and Stage, 184. 3 Wright, Historia Histrionka, 409. 224 The suppression of plays was to last, according to the edict, only during the troubled times of conflict. In 1647 the war was considered practically at an end; but the opposition to the stage continued and even grew more extreme. Apparently some players ventured to perform, for on July 16, 1647, the House of Commons ordered that the Lord Mayor and the Justices of the Peace in and about London "be required to take effectual Care speedily to suppress all publick Plays and Play- houses, and all Dancings on the Ropes," and desired the con- currence of the Lords in this edict. 1 The Upper House assented, but amended the order by adding bear-baitings to the list of shows to be suppressed, and providing that the edict should continue until January 1, 1648. Against this time limit some of the Lords protested, on the ground that it was the desire of Parliament that stage-plays should be forbidden forever. But the Commons apparently did not feel that the mentioTTof a date for the expiration of this particular order implied that plays were to be allowed thereafter, and on July 17 they accepted without protest the bill as amended by the Lords. 2 About this time or earlier there seems to have been, according to Collier, an attempt to perform Beaumont and Fletcher's A King and No King, — a production promptly stopped by the Sheriffs. 3 Even after the new order against plays, some actors continued to be rebellious. Complaints were made to the Com- mons of the "bold Attempt of Stage-Players playing at Publick Houses in the City, contrary to Ordinance of Parliament," and on October 18, 1647, amore severe edict "for the better suppression of Stage-plays, Interludes and Common Players" was passed by the House. 4 With the approval of the Lords this was issued on October 22. 5 It directs and empowers the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs, and the Justices of the Peace to search all playing places in and about London, and arrest all persons who may be proved to have performed in plays. Definitely assuming the Puritan 1 Journals of the House of Commons, V, 246. 2 Ibid., 248; Journals 0/ the House of Lords, IX, 334-335. 3 See Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, II, 37, 40; Fleay, London Stage, 365. * Rushworth, Collections, pt. IV, vol. ii, 844. 6 Ibid., 847,848; Collier, op. cil., II, iio-m; Hazlitt, English Drama, 64-65. view, the ordinance declares that all such actors arc to be brought before the Qext General Sessions of the Peace, "there to be pun- ished as Rogues, according to law." Though Parliament evidently considered that the original edict of suppression passed in 1642 was still in force, and had no real intention of relaxing the prohibition, some of the players seized upon the time limit set for the expiration of the order of July 17, 1647, as an excuse for performing, and in January, 1648, ventured to open their theaters. The public seems to have responded with eagerness. On January 27 it was reckoned that no less than one hundred and twenty coaches set down spec- tators at one theater alone, — the Fortune. At the Red Bull Beaumont and Fletcher's Wit Without Money was performed. 1 The Puritan spirit of Parliament was now aroused to extreme measures. On January 22, 1648, the Commons were " informed that many Stage-Plays were acted in the several parts of the City and County of Middlesex, notwithstanding the Ordinance of Parliament to the contrary. /The House hereupon ordered, That an Ordinance should be drawn for suppressing all Stage- Plays, and taking down all their Boxes, Stages and Seats in the several Houses where the said Plays were usually Acted, and make it unserviceable for Acting any Plays in for the future; and for making a Penalty for such as shall disobey the said Ordi- nance : and this Ordinance to be brought in with all convenient speed. They further Ordered, That the Lord Mayor and Sher- iffs, andjustices of the Peace of the City of London, and the several Militia's of the Cities of London and Westminster, and likewise of the Hamlets, should take care for the sup- pressing T)f all Stage-Plays for the time to come." 2 Appar- ently no less eager than the Commons to put down such per- formances, the Lords, on January 31, sent to the House an Ordinance for Suppressing Stage-Plays. But the Commons pre- ferred the act that their own committee had drafted, which was accordingly passed by both Houses and issued on February n. 3 1 Gardiner, Great Civil War, IV, 69, quoting contemporary newspapers. 1 Rushworth, Collections, pt. IV, vol. ii, 972. ' Ibid., 980, 991-992; Scobell, Acts and Ordinances, 143-144; Hazlitt, Eng- lish Drama, 66 ft.; Collier, op. cit., II, 44 ft., note. 226 This rigorous ordinance takes the extreme Puritan stand. "Whereas the Acts of Stage-Playes, Interludes, and common Playes, condemned by ancient Heathens, and much lesse to be tolerated amongst Professors of the Christian Religion, is the occasion of many and sundry great vices and disorders, tending to the high provocation of Gods wrath and displeasure, which lies heavy upon this Kingdome, and to the disturbance of the peace thereof; in regard whereof the same hath beene prohibited by Ordinance of this present Parliament, and yet is presumed to be practised by divers in contempt thereof." For the better suppression of such performances the Lords and Commons therefore declare that "all stage-players and players of interludes and common plays" shall be considered rogues in the eyes of the law, within the statutes of Elizabeth and James, and liable to the pains and penalties therein provided. They shall be proceeded against according to these statutes "whether they be wanderers or no, and notwithstanding any License whatso- ever from the King or any person or persons to that purpose." The status of vagabond was thus imposed upon all players, — not merely unlicensed traveling ones, as in the laws here- tofore. And the system of royal patents and licenses by the Master of the Revels was utterly abolished, leaving the actors with no possibility of legal protection. The extreme Puritan view advocated by Prynne thus became the law of the land. The Ordinance further directs the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs, and the Justices of the Peace to "pull down and demolish . . . all Stage-Galleries, Seats, and Boxes, erected and used for the acting or playing, or seeing acted or plaid, such Stage-Playes" in and about London. Any player proved to have acted in such performances shall be publicly whipped and bound by sureties never to act again, or in default of such security com- mitted to jail. If he offend a second time, he shall be punished as an incorrigible rogue, according to the statutes. All money taken as admission fees shall be forfeited to the churchwardens of the parish, and devoted to the use of the poor. And every person present as a spectator shall be fined five shillings for each offense, — the money to be used for the same charitable purpose. All Mayors, bailiffs, constables, and other officers, soldiers, 227 and all persons were ordered to assist in the enforcement of this rigorous ordinance. And in September, 1648, when Captain Bethan was made Provost Marshal, he was directed to "seize upon all Ballad Singers, Sellers of Malignant Pamphlets, and to send them to the several Militias, and to suppress Stagc- playes." x In spite of all these severe measures some players still ven- tured to perform. According to the Historic, Histrionica, "they made up one company out of all the scattered members of sev- eral; and in the winter before the King's murder, 1648, they ventured to act some plays, with as much caution and privacy as could be, at the Cockpit. They continued undisturbed for ihree or four days; but at last, as they were presenting the tragedy of the 'Bloody Brother' ... a party of foot-soldiers "beset the house, surprised 'em about the middle of the play, and carried 'em away in their habits, not admitting them to shift, to Hatton House, then a prison, where, having detained them some time, they plundered them of their clothes, and let 'em loose again." 2 But even such mishaps could not discourage them. "Afterwards, in Oliver's time," the Historia continues, "they used to act privately, three or four miles, or more, out of town, now here, now there : sometimes in noblemen's houses, in particular, Holland House at Kensington. ... At Christ- mas and Bartholomew Fair, they used to bribe the officer who commanded the guard at Whitehall, and were thereupon con- nived at to act for a few days at the Red Bull, but were some- times, notwithstanding, disturbed by soldiers." 3 On one occasion at least the actors endeavored by humble submission and promises of good behavior to soften the rigor of the law. About 1650 "diverse poor and distressed men, heretofore the Actors of Black-Friers and the Cock-Pit," peti- tioned Parliament. They cannot support themselves and their families, they plead, and they beg that they may be allowed to play for a short time on trial, to demonstrate their inoffensiveness. They will produce "only moral and harmless representations." 1 Whitclocke, Memorials, 332. ■ Wright, Historia Histrionica, 409-410. 3 Ibid., 410-4 1 1. Concerning the "drolls" acted on these occasions, see the note, ibid., and Ward, English Dramatic Literature, III, 280. 228 To any one appointed to oversee them they promise implicit obedience, and they assure Parliament that they are willing to contribute "for the service of Ireland or as the State shall think fitting." x Their appeal evidently had no effect. Unable to secure any relaxation of the law, the players occa- sionally, as we have seen, dared to act in defiance of it. The troubles in which such venturesome performers involved them- selves appear at times in the records of these years. On De- cember 20, 1649, for example, some actors in St. John Street (where the Red Bull was situated) "were apprehended by Troupers, their Cloaths taken away, and themselves carried to prison." 2 Again, in December, 1654, at the same playhouse, the Red Bull, the players "being gotten into all their borrowed gallantry and ready to act, were by some of the souldiery de- spoiled of all their bravery, but the souldiery carried themselves very civilly towards the audience." 3 In September, 1655, the Red Bull players were once more in trouble and, as usual, lost some of their costumes. The soldiers, less civil on this occa- sion, put to rout the assemblage with many "broken crowns," seized some of the actors and confiscated their clothes, and made the spectators pay the fine of five shillings each or, in default of this, leave their cloaks behind them. 4 About January 1, 1656, seven players who dared to perform at Newcastle were arrested and publicly whipped as rogues and vagabonds. 5 And among the instructions issued to Major-General Desborow in this same month, he was ordered to suppress all horse-races, cock-fighting, bear-baiting, stage-plays, or other unlawful assemblies, by seizing the persons met on such occasions. 6 On the whole, in spite of the sporadic breaches of the law, it is evident that the ordinance of suppression was, especially with the aid of Crom- 1 Petition printed in Notes and Queries, June 16, 1894, by C. H. Firth, from a volume of pamphlets of the year 1650. 2 Whitelocke, Memorials, 419. 3 The Perfect Account, December 27-January 3, 1654-1655, quoted by C. H. Firth in Notes and Queries, August 18, 1888. * State Papers, Dont., 1655, 336; Weekly Intelligencer, September n-18, 1655, quoted by C. H. Firth in Notes and Queries, August 18, 1888. 'Whitelocke, Memorials, 619; Public Intelligencer, January 14-21, 1656, quoted by C. H. Firth in Notes and Queries, August 18, 1888. • State Papers, Dom., 1655-1656, 103. 229 well's soldiery, rather rigorously enforced, and that the English stage was during these years practically non-existent. In 1656 the ingenious D'Avenant devised a form of entertain- ment which would not come under the ban of the law. On May 21 of that year, by permission of the authorities, he presented, "at the back part of Rutland House, in Aldersgate Street," an entertainment of declamation and music "after the manner of the ancients." And later in the same year he produced at the same place his Siege of Rhodes, "made a Representation by the Art of Prospective in Scenes, and the Story sung in Recitative Musick." ' Emboldened by his success, in 1658 D'Avenant ventured to produce a similar entertainment, The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, at the old theater of the Cockpit in Drury Lane. The new Protector, Richard, seems to have had his attention drawn to this enterprise. On December 23, an in- vestigation was ordered into the nature of this "Opera," and by what authority it was produced. A general consideration of the acting of stage-plays was also directed, and a later report upon the question. 2 The attitude of the government now seems to have become lenient, and D'Avenant's venture continued suc- cessfully until the Restoration and beyond. But this work of his belongs to the new era. The Elizabethan drama had passed forever. ■—» It is customary in histories of the drama and the stage to express some judgment, generally severe, upon the Puritan sup- pression of the theaters. But fair decisions on such actions in the past are not easy. According to their own standards, the Puritan or Parliamentary party certainly did right in rigorously prohibiting the drama. And it is not impossible for modern English and American minds, still so deeply impregnated by the spirit of the Puritan movement, to appreciate their point of view. To men who had already developed something of the modern sensibility in matters of decency and morality, most of the later Elizabethan drama must indeed have seemed hopelessly ab- horrent. Motives of political prudence, moreover, also urged 1 See Ward, English Dramatic Literature, III, 281-282; Whitclocke, Memo- rials, 639. ' 1S21 Variorum, III, 93, note. 230 the dominant party to act against the stage. Their moral zeal, it is true, carried them to an extreme, — just as the lack of that quality had carried the playwrights to the opposite pole, whither again, in the perpetual swinging of the pendulum back and forth across and beyond the golden mean, the reaction against Puri- tanism was to carry the men of the Restoration. There was much to justify extreme measures at the time of the closing of the theaters. (Asone thinks of the stage of the period, no longer expressive ofthe best feelings of the nation, as one remembers" the preposterous horrors into which tragedy had degenerated, and the inexpressibly offensive indecency of much of the comedy of the time, and with this picture of the drama in mind, reads the grave and dignified phrases of the edict of 1642, one feels that, for the moment at least, the Puritans had the better part. APPENDIX ROYAL PATENTS TO COMPANIES OF PLAYERS For convenience of reference I have here tabulated all the royal patents to companies, so far as I know them, which have been pre- served or which are specifically mentioned in documents of the period. There were certainly others of which we have as yet no definite notice. Several of the companies named below are known to have existed for some time before the date of their first extant patent. 1574, May 7. The Earl of Leicester's company. Privy Seal directing a Great Seal. Printed above, pp. 33-34. See also pp. 49-50, 155. 1603, May 19. The King's company. Globe theater. Great Seal. Printed above, pp. 36-37. Transcripts of all the stages through which the warrant passed — the Docket, the Bill of Privy Signet, the Writ of Privy Seal, and the Patent under the Great Seal — are printed in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 595 ff. 1603, July (?). The Queen's company. Boar's Head and Curtain theater. This exists only in a rough, undated draft. In the Calendar of State Papers (Dom., Add., 1623-1625, 530), where a brief abstract is given, it is conjecturally dated July, 1603. Printed in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 336-337. Mr. Fleay doubts the authenticity of this document (London Stage, 190-191); but his reasons are not convincing. (1) He objects that it licenses the company's playing within London, whereas no men players were allowed at this date within the City. But it permits their performances there only on the cessation of the plague, and there is no proof that men players were not allowed in London at this time under such circumstances. (2) He objects that it provides that deaths from the plague shall be under 30 a week, "whereas 40 is well known to be the correct number." But the letter of the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor on April 9, 1604, specifies 30, and 40 is not mentioned until the King's company patent of 1619. (See above, pp. 212—213.) (3) He objects that it mentions the Boar's Head and the Curtain as the 231 232 usual playhouses of the company, whereas we know that Worcester's men — these same actors — played at the Rose in May, 1603, and at the Red Bull and Curtain in 1609, while of a Boar's Head playing house no other mention is found since Queen Mary's time. But a letter from the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor on March 31, 1602, grants permission to this same company to play "at the Boar's Head in Eastcheap." (Remembrancia, 355.) 1604, January 31. The Children of the Queen's Revels. Warrant to Edward Kirkham and others. Blackfriars theater. Privy Seal directing a Great Seal. Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 40-41 ; Collier, English Drama- tic Poetry, I, 340. See above, pp. 19, 61. 1606, April 30. The Prince's company. Fortune theater. Privy Seal. Printed in the Shakspere Society Papers, IV, 42-43. See above, pp. 37, 63. 1609, April 15. The Queen's company. Red Bull and Curtain theaters. Privy Seal. Printed in the Shakspere Society Papers, IV, 45-46. 16 10, January 4. The Children of the Queen's Revels. Warrant to Philip Rosseter and others. Whitefriars theater. Great Seal. Mentioned in Patent of May 31, 1615. See below. 16 10, March 30. The Duke of York's company. Authorization to perform in and about London, "in such usual houses as themselves shall provide." Privy Seal. Printed in the Shakspere Society Papers, IV, 47-48. 16 13, January 4. The Elector Palatine's company. Fortune theater. Privy Seal directing a Great Seal. Issued on the Elector's taking over the company of the deceased Prince of Wales. Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 44-46. Order for Privy Seal in Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 366-367. 1615, May 31. Patent to Philip Rosseter and others granting permission to erect a theater in Blackfriars. Privy Seal directing a Great Seal. Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 46-48; Collier, English Drama- tic Poetry, I, 380 ft. This is not itself a company patent, but it mentions that of Janu- 233 ary 4, 1610, and it authorizes performances in the proposed theater by the Children of the Queen's Revels, the Prince's company, and the Lady Elizabeth's company. See above, pp. 108 S. 1615, July 17. Her Majesty's Servants of her Royal Chamber at Bristol. A provincial traveling company. Great Seal. To John Daniel. Mentioned in the Letters of Assistance of April, 1618. See below. Apparently it was first intended to grant this patent to Samuel Daniel, the poet, John Daniel's brother. See Sir George Buc's letter of July 10, 161 5, consenting to its issue, in State Papers, Dom., 1611-1618, 294. And see above, p. 64. 16 18, April. Letters of Assistance from the Privy Council to John Daniel, con- firming the patent of July 17, 1615. Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 49-50; Collier, English Dra- matic Poetry, I, 395-396. 16 19, March 27. The King's company. Globe and Blackfriars theaters. Privy Seal (?). Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 50-52; Collier, English Dra- matic Poetry, I, 400-401. See above, pp. 201-202. This patent is often misdated 1620. Hazlitt labels it " March 27, 1619-1620"; but as the year began, according to the old style, on March 25, this is meaningless. The document is indorsed "vicesimo septimo die Martii Anno. R. Regis Jacobi decimo septimo," — i.e. March 27, 17 James I. Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603. March 27, 1 James I, was therefore in 1603, and March 27, 17 James I, in 1619. In the State Papers, Dom., 1619-1623, 28, the patent is properly dated March 27, 1619, new style. 1620, February 24. Patent to Robert Lea and others. Mentioned by Sir Henry Herbert after the Restoration. Halliwell- Phillipps, Dramatic Records, 93. See above, p. 64. 1622, July 8. The Children of the Revels. Warrant to Robert Lee, Richard Perkins, and others, "late come- dians of Queen Anne deceased." No theater named. Order for a Privy Seal. Printed in 1821 Variorum, III, 62, note. 234 1625, June 24. The King's company. Globe and Blackfriars theaters. Privy Seal. Printed in Hazlitt, English Drama, 57-59; Collier, English Dra- matic Poetry, I, 435 - 43^- Issued by Charles I on his taking over his father's company, and in the same form as the patent of March 27, 1619, to the same players. See above, p. 38. 1628, December 9. The Lady Elizabeth's company. Privy Seal. Abstract in State Papers, Dom., 1628-1629, 406. 1630-163 1. Patent to Andrew Cave and others. Mentioned by Sir Henry Herbert after the Restoration. Halliwell- Phillipps, Dramatic Records, 93. See above, p. 64. LIST OF BOOKS CITED The following list does not represent all the sources consulted in the preparation of this essay. Its purpose is merely to indicate the full title and the edition used in the case of each of the books cited in the foot-notes, in order to facilitate reference. Articles in journals, magazines, and such series of publications as those of the Shakspere Societies and the Modern Language Association are not included here, for in all such citations suffi- cient particulars are given in the foot-notes. Acts of the Privy Council of England. New series, 1542-1604. Ed. J. R. Dasent. 32 vols. London, 1890-1907. Agas, Radulph. Civitas Londinum : A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Southwark and Parts Adjacent, in tlte Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Ed. W. H. Overall. London, 1874. Alleyn Papers: A Collection of Original Documents Illustrative of the Life and Times of Edward Alleyn and of the Early English Stage and Drama. Ed. J. P. Collier. Shakspere Society Publications, vol. XVIII. London, 1843. Arber, Edward. An Introductory Sketch to the Martin Mar prelate Contro- versy. English Scholar's Library, no. 8. Arber, Edward. Transcript of the Registers of the Stationers' Company, 1554-1640. 5 vols. London, 1875-1894. Ascham, Roger. The Scholemaster . Ed. Edward Arber. Westminster, 1903. Baker, G. P. The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist. New York, 1907. Beaumont and Fletcher. Works. Ed. Henry Weber. 14 vols. Edin- burgh, 181 2. Beaumont and Fletcher. Works. Variorum Edition. 12 vols. London, 1904-. Benham, William, and Welch, Charles. Mediaeval London. London, 1 901. Besant, Sir Walter. London in the Time of the Stuarts. London, 1903. Birch, W. de G. Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of London. London, 1887. Brandl, Alois. Quellen des wcltlichen Dramas in England. Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte, no. 80. Strassburg, 1898. Brome, Richard. Dramatic Works. 3 vols. London, 1873. Bullen, A. H. Collection of Old English Plays. 4 vols. London, 1882- 1885. 235 236 Campbell, Douglas. The Puritan in Holland, England and America. 2 vols. New York, 1892. Castelain, Maurice. Ben Jonson: L' Homme et VCEuvre. Paris, 1907. Chalmers, George. An Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare-Papers which were Exhibited in Norfolk-Street. London, 1797. Chalmers, George. A Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the Shak- speare-Papers. London, 1799. Chambers, E. K. The Mediaeval Stage. 2 vols. Oxford, 1903. Chambers, E. K. Notes on the History of the Revels Office under the Tudors. London, 1906. Chapman, George. Works: Plays. Chatto and Windus Edition. London, 1874. Chapman, George. Works: Poems and Minor Translations. Chatto and Windus Edition. London, 1875. Cibber, Colley. Apology for the Life of Mr. Colley Cibber, Written by Him- self. Ed. R. W. Lowe. 2 vols. London, 1889. Collier, J. P. History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shake- speare, and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration. 3 vols. London, 1879. Collier, J. P. Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, Founder of Dulwich College. Shakspere Society Publications, vol. I. London, 1841. Cunningham, Peter. Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court, in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I. Shakspere Society Publications, vol. VII. London, 1842. Dodsley, Robert. Old Plays. Ed. W. C. Hazlitt. 15 vols. London, 1874- 1876. 1821 Variorum. See Shakspere. Fairholt, F. W. History of Lord Mayors' Pageants. Percy Society Pub- lications, vol. X. London, 1843. Fleay, F. G. A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642. 2 vols. London, 1891. Fleay, F. G. A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1550-1642. Lon- don, 1890. Fleay, F. G. A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shake- speare, Player, Poet and Playmaker. New York, 1886. Foxe, John. Ecclesiastical History, conteyning the Actes and Monumentes of Martyrs. 2 vols. London, 1576. Gardiner, S. R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642. 10 vols. London, 1893-1895. Gardiner, S. R. History of the Great Civil War. 4 vols. London, 1893- 1897- Gosson, Stephen. The Schoole of Abuse, containing a Pleasant Invective against Poets, Pipers, Players, Jesters and such like Caterpillars of a Commonwealth. Shakspere Society Publications, vol. II. London, 184 1. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. A Collection of Ancient Documents respecting 237 the Office of Master of the Revels, and Other Papers relating to the Early English Theatre, from the Original Manuscripts formerly in the Hasle- wood Collection. London, 1870. Running title, Dramatic Records. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare. London, 1874. Ilalliwcll-Phillipps, J. O. Letters of the Kings of England. 2 vols. London, [846-1848. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare. London, 1882. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. Visits of Shakespeare's Company of Actors to the Provincial Cities and Towns of England. Brighton, 1887. Harrison, William. Description of England in Shakspere' s Youth. Ed. F. J. Furnivall. New Shakspere Society Publications, series 6, no. 1, 5, and 8. London, 1877-1881. Hazlitt, W. C. The English Drama and Stage, under the Tudor and Stuart Princes, 1543-1664. Illustrated by a Series of Documents, Treatises and Poems. Printed for the Roxburghe Library, 1869. Hazlitt, W. C. The Livery Companies of the City of London. London, 1892. Henslowe, Philip. Diary. Ed. W. W. Greg. Part I, Text. London, 1004. Henslowe Papers, being Documents Supplementary to his Diary. Ed. W. W. Greg. London, 1907. Herbert of Cherbury, Edward, Lord. Autobiography. Ed. S. L. Lee. London, 1886. Heywood, Thomas. An Apology for Actors. Shakspere Society Publica- tions, vol. III. London, 1841. Historical MSS. Commission Reports. London, 1871-. Holinshed, Raphael. First, Second and Third Volumes of Chronicles. 3 vols, in 2. London, 1586-1587. Ingram, J. H. Christopher Marlowe and his Associates. London, 1904. Jonson, Ben. Works. Ed. W. Gifford and F. Cunningham. 9 vols. London, 1875. Jonson, Chapman, and Marston, Eastward Hoe, and Jonson, Alchemist. Ed. F. E. Schelling. Belles Lettres Series. Boston, n.d. Journals of the House of Commons, i$47~- Journals of the House of Lords, 1509-. Kelly, William. Notices Illustrative of the Drama and Other Popular Amusements, chiefly in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Ex- tracted from MSS. of the Borough of Leicester. London, 1865. Koeppel, Emil. Quellcnstudien zuden DramenChapm .n's, Massingcr's und Ford's. Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte, no. 82. Strassburg, 1897. Kyd, Thomas. Works. Ed. F. S. Boas. Oxford, 1901. Lang, Andrew. Social England Illustrated; a Collection of Seventeenth Century Tracts. In the English Garner. Westminster, 1903. 238 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, Cal- endar of. Ed. J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie. London, 1862-. Lodge, Edmund. Illustrations of British History. 3 vols. London, 1 791. Loftie, W. J. History of London. 2 vols. London, 1884. Lyly, John. Complete Works. Ed. R. W. Bond. 3 vols. Oxford, 1902. Lyly, John. Endymion. Ed. G. P. Baker. New York, 1894. Lysons, Daniel. Environs of London. 7 vols. London, 1800-1811. Maas, Hermann. Aussere Geschichte der englischen Theatertruppen in dem Zeitraum von 1559 bis 1642. Materialen zur Kunde des alteren english. Dramas, XIX. Louvain, n.d. Mackay, Charles. A Collection of Songs and Ballads relative to the London Prentices. Percy Society Publications, vol. I. London, 1841. Massinger, Philip. Believe As You List. Ed. T. C. Croker. Percy Society Publications, vol. XXVII. London, 1849. Merewether, H. A., and Stephens, A. J. The History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom. 3 vols. London, 1835. Middleton, Thomas. Works. Ed. A. H. Bullen. 8 vols. London, 1885- 1886. Nash, Thomas. Complete Works. Ed. A. B. Grosart. 6 vols. London, 1 883-1 885. Nicholls, Sir George. A History of the English Poor Law. 2 vols. New York, 1898. Nichols, John. Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. 3 vols. London, 1823. Northbrooke, John. A Treatise against Dicing, Dancing, Plays and Inter- ludes. Ed. J. P. Collier. Shakspere Society Publications, vol. XIV. London, 1843. Old English Drama. 2 vols. London, 1825. Ordish, T. F. Early London Theatres. London, 1894. Price, W. H. The English Patents of Monopoly. Harvard Economic Stud- ies, vol. I. Boston and New York, 1906. Prynne, William. Histrio-Mastix: The Players Scourge or Actors Trag- cedie. London, 1633. Raumer, F. L. G. von. History of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries Illustrated by Original Documents. Translated from the German. 2 vols. London, 1835. Remembrancia. Analytical Index to the Series of Records Known as the Remembrancia, Preserved among the Archives of the City of London. a.d. 15 79-1664. Ed. W. H. Overall and H. C. Overall. London, 1878. ' Rendle, William. Old Southwark and its People. Southwark, 1878. Rushworth, J. Historical Collections, containing the Principal Matters from the Sixteenth Year of King James to the Death of King Charles I. 4 parts in 7 vols. 1659-1701. 239 Rymer, Thomas, anil Sanderson, Robert. Fcedera, Convention; s, Literce, ct Cujuscunque Generis Acta Publica. 20 vols. London, 1726- 1735- Schelling, F. E. Elizabethan Drama, 2 vols. Boston and New York, 1908. Scobell, Henry. A Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use, Made in the Parliament Begun and Held at Westminster the Third Day of November, Anno 1640. London, 1658. Shakspere, William. 1821 Variorum. The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Com- mentators : Comprehending a Life of the Poet and an Enlarged History of the Stage by the Late E. M alone. Ed. J. Boswell. 21 vols. London, 1821. Sharpe, R. R. London and the Kingdom. 3 vols. London, 1894-1805. Sir Thomas More. Ed. A. Dyce. Shakspere Society Publications, vol. XXIII. London, 1844. Small, R. A. The Stage Quarrel between Ben J on son and the So-called Poe- tasters. Forschungen zur englischen Sprache und Litteratur, vol. I. Breslau, 1899. State Papers. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of Edward VI, Mary, Eliza- beth and James I, 1547-1625. Ed. R. Lemon and M. A. E. Green. 12 vols. London, 1856-1872. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I, 1625- 1649. Ed. J. Bruce and W. D. Hamilton. 23 vols. London, 1858- 1897. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, during the Commonwealth, 1649-1660. Ed. M. A. E. Green. 13 vols. London, 1875-1886. State Trials. A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors. Ed. T. B. Howell and T. J. Howell. ^ vols. London, 1816-1826. Statutes of the Realm. Record Commission. 9 vols, in 10. London, 1810- 1828. Stephen, J. F. History of the Criminal Law of England. 3 vols. Lon- don, 1883. Stephenson, H. T. Shakespeare's London. New York, 1905. Stow, John. A Survey of London. Ed. W. J. Thorns. London, 1842. Strype, John. The History of the Life and Acts of Edmund Grindal. Ox- ford, 1 82 1. Stubbs, William. Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. Oxford, 1887-1891. Thompson, E. N. S. The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage. Yale Studies in English, vol. XX. New York, 1903. Thorndike, A. H. The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere. Worcester, 1901. Variorum of 1821. See Shakspere. 240 « Ward, A. W. A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne. 3 vols. London, 1899. Warner, Rebecca. Epistolary Curiosities, consisting of Unpublished Letters of the Seventeenth Century, Illustrative of the Herbert Family. Bath, 1818. Warton, Thomas. History of English Poetry. 4 vols. London, 1824. Wheatley, H. B., and Cunningham, P. London Past and Present. 3 vols. London, 1891. Whitelocke, Bulstrode. Memorials of the English Affairs from Charles I to Charles II. London, 1682. Winwood's Memorials. Memorials of Affairs of State in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I, Collected (chiefly) from the Original Papers of the Right Honourable Sir Ralph Winwood, Kt. Sometime One of the Principal Secretaries of State. London, 1 725. Wotton, Sir Henry. Reliquia Wottoniance; or A Collection of Lives, Letters, Poems. London, 1672. Wright, James. Historia Histrionica. In Hazlitt's edition of Dodsley's Old Plays, vol. XV, pp. 399-431. INDEX Act abolishint Diversity in Opinions, 1530. 7 Act for preventing profane use of holy names in plays, 10, 00 Act of 1543 for the advancement of true religion. 7, 24 Act of Uniformity, 1540, forbade interludes against Book of Common Prayer, 9; reenacted in 1550, 13-14 Acte for the Punishement of Vacabondes, and for Relief of the Poore and Impotent, 27 Actors not under good discipline, 8; status of, under Roman and English law, 21-22, 31, 320; first classed with vagabonds, 25; held in high favor, 36; erring, punished leniently, 134; must have practice for royal performances, 150; realized their impending fate, 222; majority of, entered the King's army, 223. See also Players Admiral's company, The, taken into Prince Henry's service, 37; two plays licensed for, 57-58; authorized to play, 58, 189; expected to obey the Master, 60; at The Rose, 08; submitted to order of Lord Mayor, 176; building a new theater, 100; to occupy The Fortune, 191 Alderman for Southwark never elected, 141 Aldermen of London, see London Allen, Edward, in Earl of Worcester's com- pany, 32 Alleyn, Edward, aided by Earl of Notting- ham, 100; and the Privy Council, 100, 191 Alleyn and Henslowe's new theater, 190, 191 Alsatia, name given to Whitefriars, 147 Amboyna, Tortures of English at, not allowed in a play, 122 Amends for Ladies, by Field, played at Ros- seter's theater, 201 Ancre, Marquess d\ Play concerning the, prevented, 68, 113; responsibility for death of, assumed by Louis XIII, 113 Andrewes, Rye', in Earl of Worcester's com- pany, 32 Apology for Actors by Thomas Heywood, 132 Apprentices, Insurrection by, against the French and Dutch, 94; some London, arrested for performing Taylor's The Hog hath Lost his Pearl, 112; demoralized by the theaters, 178, 187; armed house- holders on watch against, 180; attempt to pull down the Cockpit Theater, 217; attack of, on The Red Bull, 218 Armyn, Robert, in the King's Men, 36 Arthur, Prince of Wales, had company of players, 23 Arundel's, Lord, company of players, 23; summoned before the Recorder, Fleet- wood, 169 Ascham, Roger, on the Lord Mayor, 150-51 Ashley, see Astley Astley, Sir John, granted reversion of Master- ship, 64; succeeds Buc, 65; special com- mission given to, 65; death of, 66 Audience, Shakspere's, 1, 3; superior social status of, at Burbage's theater, 202, 204 Aunay, Josias d', Warrant to, for playhouse, 305 Bale, John, Famous play of, 6; chief Prot- estant writer of controversial plays, 8 Ball, The, by Shirley and Chapman, censored, "4 Ballad singers to be arrested, 227 Banbury, Mayor of, arrested a company with two licenses, 41-42 Bankside, Two Liberties bordering on the, 142-43; under Justices of Surrey, 145; playhouse allowed at, 186 Bankside playhouse, Privy Council on a seditious play at a, 97 Bankside theaters, Players at, to contribute for poor of St. Saviour's parish, 60, 189; vagabonds frequent the, 183; ordered demolished, 188; again flourishing, 189 Barmondsey Street, Precinct of, under Jus- tices of Surrey, 145 Baraevelt, John of, Story of, dramatized, 114 Barnnelt, Production of, forbidden by the Bishop of London, 19, 114; Buc's cor- rections to, 114-18; analysis of, 115-16 Bear Garden, The, or Hope Theater, in the Liberty of the Clink, 143 Bearbaiting, forbidden on the Sabbath, 20; power to license, 46; suppressed, 224 Beaumont, M. de, on the popular feeling towards James I, 100; tried to prevent performance of Chapman's Biron's Con- spiracy and Tragedy, 105-6, 107-8 Beaumont and Fletcher's A King and No King stopped by the sheriffs, 224; Wit Without Money performed, 225 Beeston, Wiltiam, committed to the Mar- shalsea, 131; removed from charge of his Company, 132 Beeston's, William, company of the King's and Queen's young players. Exclusive right of, to certain plays, 83 ; shows dis- respect to King and defiance of the Master, 68, 131-32 241 242 Beggars. Definition of Sturdy, 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5, 20-30 Believe as You List, by Massinger, refused a license by Herbert, 81; licensed on re- vision, 123; Gardiner on, 123-24 Benger, Sir Thomas, a very inefficient Master, 48, 50; death of, 50 Berkeley, Henry, Letter of, on playing on Sunday, 209 Bethan, Captain, appointed Provost Marshal, 227 Bible, Tyndale's translation of, condemned, 7 Bills of mortality, Increase of area covered by, 212 Biron's Conspiracy and Tragedy, Trouble from, for Chapman, 105-7; Buc's refusal to license, for the press, 106; licensed after much mutilation, 107 Blackfriars district exempt from Lord May- or's jurisdiction, 144; payments for re- pairs in, referred to a commission, 145; Lord Cobham named to preserve order in, 146; granted to the City, 146, 197, 200; rights of sanctuary in, 147; inhabited largely by Puritans, 147; plays in, 185; City protested against Rosseter's Theater in, 198-99 Blackfriars Theater, 38, 76; appeal of in- habitants against, to Privy Council, 144, 184-85, 201-2; question of, puzzling, 185-87; excluded from orders for demoli- tion, 1 88; Children of the Chapel at, 187, 195; commission on removal of, 203; playing at, stopped, 214; authorized theater of the Children of the Queen's Revels, 232; of the King's Company, 198, 201, 233, 234 Blagrave, Thomas, Clerk of the Revels, served as Acting Master, 48, 50 Boar's Head in Eastcheap, Performances allowed at the, 194; authorized theater of Queen's Company, 231, 232 Boar's Head without Aldgate, Players at, arrested, 12 Bondman, The, by Massinger, Duke of Buck- ingham satirized in, 123 Bonner, Bishop, of London, prohibited plays in churches, 42 Book, the usual word for a play, 80 n Book of Common Prayer, Interludes deriding the, forbidden, 9, 13-14 Book of Sports issued by James I, 20; ratified by Charles I, 20 Bourchier, Henry, see Essex, Earl of Box at each theater furnished gratis to Her- bert, 76 Boyle, R., on Barnevell, 115 Boys with good voices taken from schools for the Chapel Royal, 32, 48, 51; forbidden to act in plays, 38 Braynes, John, Indictment of, 160 "Bridge Without," Ward of, 141 Bristol, Messenger from Master's Office sent to, 73; Her Majesty's Servants of her Royal Chambers at, 233 Brome's, Alexander, English Moor, played by the Queen's Company, 129 Brooke, William, see Cobham, Lord Browne, Edward, in Earl of Worcester's company, 32 Browne, Robert, in Earl of Worcester's com- pany, 32 Buc, Sir George, appointed Master of the Revels to succeed Tilney, 62; as an author, 63; extended the Master's juris- diction, 63-64; licensed a playhouse in Whitefriars, 64, 73-74; censored and licensed plays, 65 ; death of, 66; censored the Second Maiden's Tragedy, 78; the first to license plays for printing, 64, 79, 84; letter from Chapman to, on his refusal to license Biron for the press, 106; grants the license, 107; expurgations from the Second Maiden's Tragedy, 100-12, 118, 134; his censorship of Sir John Van Olden Barnevell, 1 14-18; not unreasonably severe, 117. See also Herbert; Master of the Revels; Tilney Buc's Office Book, 46, 74, 75; burned, 66 n Buckingham headed movement against Spain, 119, 122; portrayed in Game at Chess, 119; portrayed by Massinger, 123-24 Buggin, suggests that workmen be compelled to serve the Revels Office, 48 Building and fire laws, Germ of, 207 Bull, The, in Bishopsgate St., 165 Bullbaiting forbidden on the Sabbath, 20; power to license, 46 Bullen, A. H., on Barne-velt, 116 Burbage, James, in Earl of Leicester's com- pany, 33; and others driven to the Liberties, 158; indictment of, 160 Burbage, Richard, in the King's Men, 36 Burbage's private theater, see Blackfriars Theater Burgess class, The wealthier, decidedly Puritan, 216 Burghley, Lord, Three reports to, on re- organization of Revels Office, 48-40; letter of Lord Mayor to, 55, 176; letter from Fleetwood to, 94; Paris Garden disaster reported to, 165-66 Calvert, Samuel, Letter of, to Winwood, on the boldness of actors, 10 1 Cambridge, Scholars of, that go a-begging, 30 Canterbury, Archbishop of, 13; requested to appoint a member of commission on cen- soring, 18, 55; requested by Aldermen of London to influence Tilney to stop plays, 55-56, 179; arranged for players to con- tribute to parish poor, 60, 207; and Bishop of London sole censors and licensers of all printed books, 84; and Herbert, 126; stopped playing at Blackfriars in Lent, 214 Canterbury, Mayor of, arrested actors, 12 Cardinals, Comedy acted in defamation of, 6 Castelain, M., attributes troubles of Jonson and Chapman to Sir Giles Goosecap, 104 243 Catholic interludes, suppressed, 8-0; pag- eants presented at marriage of Mary and Philip, 10; action to prevent danger of sedition from, 13 Cave, Andrew, and others, Patent to, 234 Cawarden, Sir Thomas, Patent of appoint- ment of, as Master of the Revels, 47; superintended Elizabeth's coronation fes- tivities, 47 Censor, The, and his work, 2, 61 ; the Master the sole, for London and about, 76; ex- amples of the work of, 93, 100-12; recom- mended by the Privy Council, 164; adopted by Lord Mayor, 165 Censoring for sedition and heresy not for decency and morality, 13; instructions to officials in, 13-14; no revolution in, by appointment of the Master, 17; com- mission on, 18, 91 ; power of, conferred on the Master, 34, 50; exclusive right of, not rigorously enforced outside of London, 82; arguments for, 86 Censorship, Study of the nature of the, 3; in London under Elizabeth, 4, 13-18, 90- 100; general history of, 1485-1642, 4-19; important step in history of governmental, 7,24; in hands of officials, 8; first attempt to establish a definite system of, 9; ex- ercised by Justices of the Peace, 11-12; of public and private performances, 13; by local authorities, 15; working of the system, 15; in London, 16; conception of the power of, in 1589, 18; germ of the, in the Revels Office, 49; a most important function of the Master, 76; chapter on the nature of the, 80-136; idea of, differ- ent from that of to-day, 89; specimen of Tilney's, 93; specimens of Buc's, 109-12; notable case of, under Herbert, 118-22; effect of, on the drama, 134; what would the Elizabethan drama have been with- out the, 134-35; centralization of power through the, 148-49 Censorship commission, A, appointed, 18, 55, 91 Censorship of the press in London, 84 Chamberlain, John, on tragedy of Goury, 101; on Game at Chess, 122 Chambers, E. K., on common players, 25; on vagabonds, 31; on the Master's authority and on the Master of the Rolls, 54; on the order prohibiting plays in the City, 158, 163; on petition of Queen's Majesty's Players, 171 Chapel Boys, see Children of the Chapel Chapel Royal and St. Paul's, Choir boys selected for, 32 Chapman, George, on Eastward Hoe given without ''allowance," 61; newly dis- covered letters of, 104; disrespect to foreign royalty of, 105; letter to the censor for refusal of press license, 106; Biron finally licensed, 107; indiscreet in repre- senting English royalty, 107 Chapman's Biron, 101, 105-7 Charles I, on abuses committed on Sunday, 20; conditions under, differed from those under Elizabeth, 35; patron of a com- pany, 38; patents of monopoly sold under, 39; project of marriage of, with the Infanta Maria, 118; visit of, to the Spanish court, 119; attitude of, towards Frederick, Elector Palatine, portrayed by Massinger, 122-23; suggested plot of the Gamester to Shirley, 127 n; helped Her- bert revise D'Avenant's Wits, 127; ex- purgated Massinger's King and Subject, 129 Charles II offended at the Maid's Tragedy, 134 Children of Her Majesty's Chapel, Privy Council required permit for the, 160 Children of Paul's, Privy Council demand permit for, 160; not to play in Lent, 105 Children of the Chapel, boy singers from the Chapel Royal, 32; Nathaniel Giles, Mas- ter of, 33; traveled, 36; forbidden to act in plays, 38, 196; appropriated The Spanish Tragedy, 83; acted undisturbed, 195-96; allowed special privileges and status, 196 Children of the Queen's Revels, Royal patent to, 19, 61, 198, 232; Chapel Boys ap- pointed, 37; Eastward Hoe presented by, 61; lost the Queen's patronage, 105; in trouble for producing Biron' s Conspiracy and Bircn's Tragedy, 105; authorized to play in Rosseter's theater, 199. 233 Children of the Revels, Patent to the, 233 Children used for dramatic purposes, 33; this use forbidden, 38 Christmas fees, 74 Christ's College, Cambridge, Pammachius performed at, 6 Christus Triumplians of John Foxe, 8 Church and state, Controversial treatment of affairs of, frowned upon, 90, 01-92 Church-robe, Lender of a, to players, com- mitted to Marshalsea, 87 Churches, Plays given in, 42 City, see London Classes of society, What, withheld their approval from the drama, 138, 140 Clerkenwell under Justices of Middlesex, 145, 180 Clink, Manor or Liberty of the, 143 Coaches, Press of, at Burbage's theater, 202, 203; orders of Council regarding, 203; disturbance of public service by, 208; at The Fortune, 225 Cobham, Lord (William Brooke), to preserve order in Blackfriars, 146; appointed Lord Chamberlain, 184; death of, 184, 189 Cockpit Company paid for a Lenten license, 7S Cockpit Theater. William Beeston's company at, 83, 131; D'Avenant put in charge of the, 206; damaged by apprentices, 217; soldiers arrest players at, 227; D'Avenant's Opera at the, 229 244 Coke, Justice, on players' rights to perform, 40 n; on Rosseter's patent, 199-200 Coke, Thomas, in Earl of Worcester's com- pany, 32 Come See a Wonder acted at Red Bull, 77 Commission on removal of Blackfriars theater, 203 Commissioners for Religion, Three, give license for printing books, 84 Commissions, Various, 48-49, 50 Common Prayer, see Divine service Companies, see Players Company of strangers appearing in 1623, 68, 77 Condell, Henry, in the King's Men, 36 Controversy over the stage, Effect of, on the Puritans, 2 Cornwallis, Thomas, granted a dispensing patent to license gambling-houses, 45 Cotton, John, and others. Failure of, to secure patents for theater in Lincoln's Inn Fields, 304-5 Council, The royal, and the municipal gov- ernment, 2. See also Privy Council Court, High Commission, complained of Jon- son's Magnetic Lady, 126 Court entertainments, Master of the Revels in charge of, 16, 17, 44; given by outside companies, 23; managing of, an important duty, 46; the sole concern of the Master, 48; companies used for, granted special privileges, 58 Coventry, The players of, appear at Leicester, 27 Cowley, Abraham, Herbert licenses a book of verses by, 85 Cowlye, Richard, in the King's Men, 36 Cranmer, Interlude played at house of, 6 Cromwell, Richard, ordered an investigation of D'Avenant's opera, 229 Cromwell, Thomas, used stage as weapon in Protestant cause, 6 Crosse Keys, Punishment of Lord Strange's Company for playing at, 176-77; Lord Hunsdon asked permission for his com- pany to play at, 182, 207 Crown, Licensing power limited to the, alone, 28, 35, 45 ; autocratic power exercised by the, 34; extended system of formal patents, 36; licensing power of, obeyed in London, 40; authority of, paramount, 148; dealings of, with the Corporation of London, 149, 150-51 Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, by D'Ave- nant, produced at The Cockpit, 219 Curtain, The, to be torn down, 60; Justices of Middlesex to censor plays at, 18, 60, 100, 192; not especially under the Master, 61; in the Liberty of Holywell, 143; erected in 1576, 158; plays at, suppressed in Lent, 160; denounced, 160, 168; Lord Mayor requests pulling down of, 169; survived, 170; ordered demolished, 187, 191; authorized theater of the Queen's Company, 231, 232 Daniel, John, Letters of Assistance granted to, for his provincial children's company, 210, 233 Daniel, Samuel, to approve plays, 19, 61; Buc's consent to patent to, 64 Dates expressed in the new style, v D'Avenant, Sir William, Patent granted to, for a new theater, 43, 205-6; Herbert's censoring of the Wits by, 127-28; put in charge of King's and Queen's young Com- pany, 132; put in charge of The Cock- pit, 206; devised a new entertainment at Rutland House, 229; his Siege of Rhodes, 229; The Cruelly of the Spaniards in Peru at The Cockpit, 229 Davenport's History of Henry the First licensed, 81 David, John, and company, License for, re- fused to Earl of Warwick, 165 Daye's, John, Come See a Wonder, acted, 77; Isle of Gulls, 101 De Meretrice Babylonica of Edward VI, 8 Decency and morality, Censoring not con- cerned with, 13, 134; Puritan care for, in London, 16; Puritan notions of, did not affect the Master, 89; or the censor, no, 127; City Council's concern for, 156 Deity, Use of name of, in plays, forbidden, 19, 90 Dekker, Thomas, devised a Lord Mayor's show, 217 Derby's, Earl of, company of players, 22; at Leicester, 26 Disorder or contempt of authority, objects of censorship, 89-90, 94 Disorders, incident to play-houses, 55-56, 156-57; great, at the theaters, 178, 183- 84,190-91; less frequent, 197; ordinance against, 226 Divine service, Performances during, for- bidden, 34, 158, 164, 165, 199, 208 Dixon, Thomas, see Cotton, John Dobell, S., on the Jonson and Chapman letters, 104 Doctrines in question. Discussion of, forbid- den, 5; unauthorized by the King sup- pressed, 7-8; forbidden by Mary, 10-11 Donne's, John, Paradoxes, Printing of, licensed by Herbert, 85 Drama, Government regulation of the, under the Tudors and Stuarts, 1; general regulation of the, by the central govern- ment, 3, 4-43; flourishing in Eng..mil in 1485, 4; used for controversial purposes, 5; approved when supporting views of the Crown, 6; serious trouble with the, 9; removed from political and religious con- troversy, 15; powers of Master of the Revels over the, 17, 44-46; patented companies holding monopoly of, 68; all regulation of, under royal patents and Master of the Revels, 107; victory for the City would have hindered development of the, 198 Dramatists, The, without the censorship, 134; 245 would have been more scurrilous, 135; were spokesmen of the dominant party, •35 Drousiano, Italian comedian, Privy Council requests a permit for, 150 Drugs, Sale of, licensed by Herbert, 70, 72 Dudley, Sir Robert (Earl of Leicester), Letter of, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, concerning his players, 15, 26 Dyer, Sir Edward, and his extortion for grants, 45 Dymock, Sir Edward, and others, Case against, in the Star Chamber, 108 East India Company, ordered picture of tor- tures of the English at Amboyna, 122 East Smithfield, Precinct of, 146 Eastward Hoe presented by Children of the Queen's Revels, 61; attack on the Scotch in, 101-2; caused Jonson's imprisonment, 102, 103, 104 Edict of 1533, so-called, an error, 5 Edward VI approved extreme Protestantism, 8; wrote a comedy De Meretrice Baby- lonica, 8; ceded to the City all royal liberties and franchises in Southwark, 141; regulation of drama during reign of, 9, Hi 152 Elector Palatine's Company, Patent to, 64, 232 Elizabeth, Lady, patron of a company, 38 Elizabeth, Queen, The memorable Poor Laws of, 1, 24, 27; economic system of monopo- lies under, 1 ; situation in dramatic world at opening of reign of, 13, 90-91; procla- mation of, concerning plays, 14-15. 152; conciliatory policy of, 15, 91; proclama- tion concerning the companies of noble- men, 26; royal patent to Earl of Leices- ter's company, 33-34, 49; patents of monopoly granted under, 39; grants a special commission to Edmund Tilney, 51; authority of Revels Office at end of reign of, 61; not averse to representation of current political events, 91; fondness of, for character of Falstaff, 96; and the Essex conspiracy, 08-09; a character in Biroris Conspiracy, 107; fondness of, for dramatic performances, 149, 155, 160, 164, 179, 191; driven from London by the plague, 162; common plays not fit for, 173; all plays suppressed five days before death of, 106 Elizabethan drama, Effect of the censorship on the, 89, 134-35; essentially non-con- troversial, 135; hopelessly abhorrent to decency and morality, 229, 230 Elizabethan theaters, Investigation into con- ditions surrounding the, 1 ; bitter attacks on the, 3. See Theaters Endymion, Veiled symbolism discovered in, 91 English Moor, The, by A. Brome, played by the Queen's Company, 129 English plays prohibited for three months, 8-9 English Poor L-iw based on Statutes of Elizabeth, 24 Essex conspiracy, Noblemen of the, 3; case of the, 08-99 Essex, Earl of, Execution of the, 99 Essex's, Earl of, company of players, 22; Privy Council demand a permit for, 160 Evening prayer, Plays allowed after, on Holy Days, 20, 164, 165, 174, 208 Exeter, Mayor of, refused a company of men holding a patent for children, 41 Falstaff, Character of, 06 Famous Victories of Henry V, 96 Fee for licensing a play, 79, 81 Field's, Nathaniel, Amends for Ladies per- formed at Rosseter's playhouse, 201 Fines to be devoted to the poor and sick, 158, 207 Fleare, The, entered in Stationer's Register licensed by Buc, 84 Fleay, F. G., on intervention of the Bishop, 19 n; conjecture of, 58 n, 97 n; sugges- tion of, 65; on "licensing of a book," 79, 80; plays entered in Stationers' Register tabulated by, 84 n; on Sir Thomas More, 94 n; on Day's Isle of Gulls, 101; on the imprisonment of Jonson and Chapman, 104; on title to Second Maiden's Tragedy, 109 n; on inn-yard performances, 183 n; on suppression of plays, 188; on laxity of restriction, ig4; on Rosseter's patent, 199; on the plague, 213; on the Patent to the Queen's Company, 231-32 Fleetwood, Letter of, to Burghley, on ap- prentices' insurrection, 94; on disciplining noblemen's players, 160-70 Fletcher, Lawrence, in the King's Men, 36 Fletcher's, John, Loyal Subject, revived by King's Company, 82; Woman's Prize, or The Tamer Tamed, 124-26 Flower of Friendship, The, by Edmund Tilney, 50 Foreign nations, Anything reflecting on, censored, 00 Foreign residents, Insurrection against, de- picted in Sir Thomas More, 93, 94 Fortune, The, licensed to Henslowe, 59, 61; to take place of The Curtain, 60, 191; a privileged theater, 61; price of license per month, 73 ; rope dancers at, 75 ; players at, fined for disrespect shown to religion, 130; in the Liberty of Finsbury, 143; erection of, 189; coaches at, 225; authorized theater of the Prince's Company, 232; of the Elector's Company, 232 Foxe, John, wrote a Christus Triumphans, 8 Foxe's Martyrologie, 5 France, Queen of, satirized by Chapman, 105-6 Franchise, Municipal, in control of the guilds, 138 Frederick, Elector, took over Prince Henry's players, 38 Freedom of the city, how obtained, 138 246 Freemen voted for aldermen and councilmen of London, 138 French, Popular feeling against the, 04-95 French comedians performed at The Cockpit, 205; secured royal warrant for another playhouse in Drury Lane, 205 French players, 23, 39; had special royal permission, 68; to play in Lent, 75-76; subject to the Master's orders, 77 Game at Chess disapproved by Privy Council, 68; Middleton's expression of popular hatred of Spain in the, 119; licensed and suppressed, 119; Secretary Conway's let- ter to Privy Council on the, 110-20; copy of, licensed by Herbert, 120; playing of, forbidden, 121; exceptional popularity of, lig, 122, 135 Gamester, The, by Shirley, Plot of, suggested by Charles I, 127 n Gaming, Herbert's efforts for right to license, 72 Gaming-houses, Thomas Cornwallis granted a patent to license, 45 Gardiner, S. R., on the Political elements in Massinger, 123-24 Gardiner, S., Bishop, offended by anti-papal tragedy Pammachius, 6 Garrard, George, Letter of, to Wentworth, on the new regulation, 203; on conflict of jurisdictions, 214 Gentlemen, Mere, not allowed licensing power, 26, 27 Gentry, The censor's consideration for the feelings of the, in Giles, Nathaniel, Master of the Chapel Chil- dren, Complaint against, 33; warrant to, forbids children acting in plays, 38 Globe Theater, The, 3, 37, 38; profit on performance of Pericles at, given to Her- bert, 76; performance of Ricliard II at, for the Essex conspirators, 98-99; Game at Chess acted at, 119; in the Liberty of the Clink, 143; constructed from material of The Theater, 188 n ; selected by the Lord Chamberlain's Company, 191; authorized theater of the King's Company, 201, 231, 233, 234; closed on account of expected riot, 204 Gloucester, Duke of, see Richard III Golding Lane, Playhouse allowed at, 186, 100, 191 Gondomar, Spanish ambassador, Popular hatred of, 1 18-19; personated in the Game at Chess, 119, 121 Gosson's Sclwols of Abuse, 159, 209, 219; Playes Confuted, 219 Government, Remarks hostile to, censored, 90 Gowry produced by the King's Company, 100-1; references to, 115 Great Duke of Florence, The, by Massinger, portrayed the Duke of Buckingham, 123 Great Seal, Patents granted under the, 33- 34. 49. 155. 198, 231, 232, 233 Grindal, E., Bishop of London, appealed to Privy Council to stop all plays, 152, 211; a representative Puritan, 215 Guild rights, Strange relics of, 2 Guilds, Cycles of mysteries presented by trades, 22; organization and functions of the, 138-39 Gunpowder Plot, Reference to, 115 Gunter's house, a meeting place of the Essex conspirators, 99 Haysell, chief player of Earl of Worcester's company, 53-54 Hayward purchased deputyship from Her- bert, 86 Hennings, John, in the King's Men, 36; paid Herbert for a courtesy, 76 Henry IV first produced, 06 Henry VII, had company of players, 4, 23 Henry VIII, Policies of, aroused spirit of revolt, 5; letter of, to Justice of the Peace in York, 6-7; reaction of, against Prot- estantism, 7; had a company of players, 23; proclamation of, against vagabonds, 25; on the liberties of Blackfriars, 144 Henry, Prince, took over the Admiral's players, 37; death of, 38 Henryson, William, in Earl of Worcester's company, 32 Henslowe, P., manager of The Rose, paid license fees to Tilney, 57, 79; paid for license of The Fortune, 59; loans of, to the Company, 80 Henslowe's Diary, Discussion of entries in, 79-80; forgeries in, on Nash's Isle of Dogs, 98 Her Majesty's Players, Company of, selected by Tilney, 32, 166-67; performed within Mayor's jurisdiction, 168-69; before the Recorder, 169; number and names of, demanded by City authorities, 174. See also Queen's Majesty's Players, Queen's Servants Her Majesty's Servants of her Royal Chamber at Bristol, 38; patent to, 233 Herbert, Sir Henry, Master of the Revels, Intermeddling of, in dramatic affairs, 46; claims of, under patent as Master, 47; cites Tilney, 60; claims based on patents granted, 64, 66 n; purchased Reveis Office, 65, 87; family of, 66; Office at height of power under, 66; his suit after the Restoration, 66 n; received orders to suppress plays during plague, 68; limita- tion of jurisdiction of, 68-69; sold special licenses, 60; requires Mayor of Maidstone to uphold his license, 71-72; tries to ex- tend powers of Office, 72-73; benefit per- formances and fees for, 74-75; gratuities to, from players, 76; claimed that fee was for trouble in reading a play, 81; burned a play, 81; gives greater care to old plays, 82; licensed plays entered in Stationers' Register, 85; before the Star Chamber for licensing Donne's Para- 247 doxes, 85; statements of, as to his receipts, 87-88; death of, 88; "reformations" of, 11S; held responsible for licensing Game at Chess, 120; saved by Pembroke, 121; threatened King's players for performing the Sfomsh Viceroy without license, 77, taa; letter of, to Mr. Knight, 12s; had trouble about Jonson'sMagneticLady, 126; commends Shirley's young Admiral, 127; his ''reformation" of D'Avenant's Wits revised by King Charles, 127-28; energy of, in eliminating oaths, 128-20; on King Charles' expurgation of Massinger's King and Subject, 120-30; last entry in his Office Book, 132 Herbert's Office Book, 64; portions of, sur- vive, 66; entry regarding license to King's Company, 60; warrant entries in, 70; gratuity mentioned in, 76; shows receipts for licensing books of poetry, 85; on Beeston's Company, 131; plague entries in. 213 Herbert's Register, see Herbert's Office Book Heywood, Thomas, sums up errors against which dramatists must be on guard, 132- 33; devised a Lord Mayor's show, 217 Historia Histrionica on persistency of the players, 227 History of Henry the First by Davenport licensed, 81 History of the Duchess of Suffolk full of dangerous matter, 81 Histriomastix, William Prynne's, 76; full tide-page of, 220 Hog, The, hath Lost his Pearl, by Taylor, Some actors of, imprisoned, 1 12-13; licensed by Buc, 112, 133 Holbom under the Justices of Middlesex, 145, 180 Holinshed on proclamation by Elizabeth, 14 Holland House at Kensington, Plays per- formed at, 227 Holmes, Request of the Lord Chamberlain for a right for, to license playing-places, 153-54 Holy Days, Plays forbidden on, until after evening prayer, 164, 165, 174, 208 Holy names, Act forbidding profane use of, in plays, 10-20, 00 Honest Man's Fortune, The, revived on entreaty of Joseph Taylor, 82 Hope or Bear Garden, The, in the Liberty of the Clink, 143 Hours of performances, Regulation of, 20, 34, 164, 165, 174, 182, 100, 208 Householders, Armed watch of, organized, 145, 180 Howard, Henry, Earl of Northampton, accused Jonson of "poperie and treason," 103 Hull, The players of, appear in Leicester, 27 Hunsdon, George, Lord, signer of petition against Blackfriars playhouse, 185; made Lord Chamberlain, 180 Hunsdon, Lord, head of commission on gov- ernment of Blackfriars and Whitefriars, 145; owner of The Theater claimed pro- tection of, against Recorder Fleetwood, 160-70; request of, for his company to play at Cross Keys, 182-83; death of, 184 Indebtedness,- Acknowledgment of, v-vi Inhabitants of London, Number of, 140 Injunctions of 1550, 84 Inn-yard performances, Conditions surround- ing, 156; suppressed, 165 Inn-yards, Demand for license to play in, 153; plays given in, 159; Queen's Players ask leave to act in, 171; plays in, 175; plays stopped in, 184, 192, 197 Inns of Court, Plays by the young lawyers of, 22 Insurrection, Censor objects to references to, 93-95 Interludes, Playing of, forbidden, 5; to spread Protestant doctrine encouraged by officials, 6; prohibited for three months, 8-9, 14; forbidden on the Sabbath, 20 Isle of Dogs by T. Nash, Privy Council on the, 97-98 Isle of Gulls, by John Day, 101 Italian players, Privy Council requested a permit for, from the Mayor, 153, 159 James I, Economic system of monopolies under, 1; accession of, 18; issued the Book of Sports, 20; conditions under, differed from those under Elizabeth, 35; issued patent to Shakspere's Company as the King's Men, 36-37; patents of monopoly sold under, 39; position of Master of Revels strengthened under, 61; boldness of players in early years of reign of, 100-8; popular attitude towards, 100; references to, in Bamevell, unfailingly re- spectful, 115; friendship of, with Spain, 1 18-19; plays stopped two days before arrival of, in London, 196; issued and stayed order for patent to John Cotton, 204 Jesuit plotting set forth by Middleton in his Game at Chess, 119 John, King, An interlude touching, played at house of Cranmer, 6 Johnes, Rye', in Earl of Worcester's com- pany, 32 Johnson, One, paid by Leicester officials not to collect penalty for unlawful games, 57 Johnson, William, in Earl of Leicester's company, 33 Joiners, A company of, in trouble, for playing on Sunday, 151 Jones, Inigo, complained of being represented in Jonson's Tale of a Tub, 124 Jonson, Ben, granted reversion of the Master- ship, 64-65; imprisoned for writing against the Scots in Eastward Hoe, 102, 103; various incarcerations of, because of his plays, 102-5; the Poetaster, 102-3; Sejanus, 103; banqueted his friends, 103; newly discovered letters of, 104, 104 n; chronologer of London, 217 248 Jonson's Bartholomew Fair ridicules inter- preting plays, 133 Jonson's Magnetic Lady, Players made inter- polations in, 78; licensed, 81; offensive personalities and oaths in, 126 Jonson's Tale of a Tub censored, 134 Justices of Essex reprimanded, 12 Justices of Middlesex directed to exercise censorship, 18; Master of the Rolls one of the, 54; to stop plays in London, 58; ordered to enforce rules, 60; to censor plays at The Curtain, 60, 100, 192; to suppress all plays in Lent, 160, 210; appealed to by the Lord Mayor, 160-61; form of order sent to, 180-81; ordered to stop plays and demolish theaters, 187; opposed to Alleyn and Henslowe's new theater, 190 Justices of the Peace, Two, to try cases for spreading unorthodoxy, 8; ordered to exer- cise censorship over plays, 11-12, 13, 14; to punish vagabonds, 26; two could license players, 27, 30 Justices of the Peace of Surrey ordered to suspend performances in theaters, 54, 58, 175; to demolish theaters, 188; to guard against riot at The Globe, 204 Kentish Street, Precinct of, under Justices of Surrey, 145 Killigrew, Thomas, became Master after death of Herbert, 88 King, A, and No King, by Beaumont and Fletcher, stopped by sheriffs, 224 King and Subject, by Massinger, expurgated by King Charles, 129; Herbert on, 120-30 King, the, Nothing to be printed in English without permission of, 9; defamation of, to be punished, 9, 90; commands of, transmitted to players through the Mas- ter, 67; allowed French company to play in Lent, 75-76; Beaumont complains of players satirizing the English, 107-8; dis- respect to, shown by Beeston's Company, 131-32 King's Company of Players, The, 4; af Leicester, 26; patent issued to Shakspere's Company as the King's Men, 36-37, 231; other patents modeled on, 38; to play also at Blackfriars, 38; under the Master's authority, 64; patent of, to travel, 69; Herbert's warrant of protection to, 69-70; gave benefits for Herbert, 74, 76; paid Christmas and Lenten fees, 74-75, an; apology to Herbert for acting The Spanish Viceroy, 77; licensed Davenport's His- tory of Henry the First, 81 ; Winter's Tale revived by, without fee, 81; Tamer Tamed revived by, suppressed by Herbert, 82; Fletcher's Loyal Subject revived by, 82; took The Malcontent of the Chapel Children, 83; paid Herbert to forbid the playing of Shakspere, 83; plays of, printed without their consent, 85; indiscreet in producing Gowry, 100-1; acted Game at Chess at The Globe, 119; forbidden to play, 120; restored to favor, 121; at Burbage's playhouse, 198, 201; new patent to, authorizing playhouse at Black- friars, 202; plague provisions in patents to, 212-13; patents to, 36-37, 231, 233, 234 King's Council, Any two of the, authorized to try cases for unauthorized views, 8 Kings, modern Christian, Players forbidden to represent, 90, 101, 107, 119; reference to vices of, censored, 109-10 Kirkhara, Edward, and others, Warrant to, 232 Knight, Letter of Herbert to, 125 Kyd, Thomas, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured, 95; released, 96 Laborers, Statutes of, against vagabonds, 24 Lady Elizabeth's Company in Rosseter's theater, 199, 233; acted Amends for Ladies, 201; patent to, 233 Lady Mother, The, licensed by Blagrave, 78 Lady Saunder's house in Blackfriars, 199, 200 Lambarde, William, and Queen Elizabeth on the Essex conspiracy, 99 Lanham, John, in Earl of Leicester's com- pany, 33 Latin plays not under censorship, 13 Lau, Hurfries de, Warrant to, for a playhouse, 20s Laud, Appeal to Bishop, against Blackfriars theater, 202-3 Laws and regulations, national and local, affecting the drama, 1; how their develop- ment is shown, 3; national, 4-43; passed to make profitable grants of right to break, 45 Lea, Robert, and others, Patent to, 233 Leather, Sale of grants to break regulations made about tanning, 45 Leek, Sir Francis, claimed as patron by a company of players, 25; his livery and badge worn, 31-32 Le Febure, M., King's warrant to, for theater in Drury Lane, 205 Legislation and regulation, Development of, 3; on the content of plays, 7; reserved licensing of plays to Crown and Privy Council, 13; general, affecting licensing of plays, 10-21; possibilities of evasion of, 41 Leicester, Earl of, a representative Puritan, "5 Leicester, Many traveling companies appeared in, 26; companies under license of Master of Revels at, 35, 40, 70; payments at, for players' right to perform, 40; noblemen's licenses accepted in, 41; company at, with license from Tilney in 1583, 53, 70; no other under license of blaster at, till 1623, 54, 70; officials of, paid one John- son for not collecting penalty for unlawful games, 57 249 Ix-icester's, Earl of, Company, 15; royal patent issued to, 16, 155. mi; copy of patent, 33-34. I55i 208; company afterwards Shakspere's, 33; granted special favors under the Master, 49-50, 58; performed at The Theater, 158; Privy Council required permit for, 160; mistaken for Queen's by Collier, 171 Lennox, Duke of, Company authorized by, 41 n Lent. Regulations regarding eating flesh in, enforced, 54 n; Council issued orders for closing theaters in, 68; performances allowed in, by special license from the Master, 44, 75; and King, 75-76; first law against performances in, 160; rule against performances in, 192, 210-11 Lenten dispensations, 74, 75, 211 Lenten performances distasteful to the Puri- tans, 76, 200, 211 Letters of Assistance granted to John Daniel, 210, 233 Liberties of Blackfriars and Whitefriars, 144-48; no officials in charge of, 145; finally under jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor, 146; exemptions for inhabitants of. 147 Liberties, on Middlesex side of the Thames, north of the wall, 143; puzzling, scat- tered through the City proper, 143-45; players seek refuge in the, 158-59; Mayor begged that plays be stopped in the, 161 Liberty, A, and "Liberties" defined, 142 Liberty of Finsbury, The Fortune theater in the, 143; under Middlesex Justices, 144; inhabitants of, approve of a new playhouse, 100 Liberty of Holywell, Theaters in the, 143, 158; under Middlesex Justices, 144 Liberty of the Clink, Three theaters in the, 143; under Justices of Survey, 145; Sunday law violated in, 175, 209 License, A formal written, granted, 28; copy of, granted by Earl of Worcester, 32 Licenses, All, abolished by Parliament, 226 Licenses, noblemen's, Abolition of, 35, 38; law against, not fully enforced, 40-41 Licenses, Royal, bought and sold, 31 n, 41-42; less formal, granted indirectly, 34, 36; various, sold by the Master, 69, 72 Licensing "of a book" probably meant for performance, 70-80 Licensing of players, 4, 21-42; letter of Sir Robert Dudley asking for, 15; authority over, given to Master of the Revels, 16- 17; no provision for, by statute till 1572, 21 ; grew out of their protection as retainers of nobles, 22; first definite system of, 24; operation, 26, 27; authority for, limited to the Crown, 28, 45; more regularity and rigor in, 31; monopoly to favored companies, 36; company with a commission under the Great Seal of Eng- land, 41 Licensing of playing places, 4, 45-43; au- thority over, given to the Master, 16-17; earliest, an affair of the church, 42, Crown and Privy Council supreme in, 42; royal patents extended to, 43; fads concerning, not clear. 7 \; monthly fees for, not [xiid under Herbert, 74; request for grant of privilege of, to one Holmes, 153; letter from Mayor and Corporation in reply, 154 Licensing of plays, 4-21; first delegation of the power of, 12; system of, established by Elizabeth, 14-15; authority of Master of the Revels over, 17; general legisla- tion affecting the, 19-21; in London, 52, 157-58; a most important function of the Master, 76; fee received for, 79 Licensing power, Absolute, over plays, players, and playhouses, 2, 3; exercised by Justices of the Peace and local officers, 11-12; granted to Master of the Revels, 16-17; concentration of, in the Crown, 33> 3S~3 '. germ of the Master's, 49; no effort made to extend, 50; Herbert tried to make his, general and exclusive, 72-73 Lieutenant of the Tower, 146 Lincoln, Henry, Earl of, Case of, against Sir Edward Dymock and others, for a libel- lous performance, 108 Lincoln's Inn Fields, Attempts to secure a theater at, 204-5 Livery Companies, Government of London in hands of the, 138; twelve great guilds called, 138, 139; names of, misleading, 139; membership largely of non-crafts- men, 139; members of the upper middle class, 140 Locke, Thomas, Letters of, to Carleton, on the performance of Barnnell, 1 14 London, Long controversy over plays in, 2, 3; confused organization of govern- ment of, 2; local regulations in, 3; cen- sorship in, 4; English plays forbidden in, 9; Privy Council, requests that plays be allowed in, 17, 42; Master of the Revels censor in, 18; Earl of Leicester's Company to play in, 34; royal favor secured privi- leges in, 35; arrival of James in, 36; monopoly of playing in, 39; admission of actors into, 53; suppression of plays in, 54. 55, 58, 108, 176, 181; chapter on local regulations in, 1 543-1 792, 137-77; municipal government and topographical limits of, 137; constitution of the city government, 137-38; controlled by the upper middle class, 140; topographical limits of, 140-41; maps of, 140 n; di- visions of, 141; Liberties of, 142; new charter granted to, by James I, 146-47; conflict concerning admission of plays into, 140; first expression of Puritan attitude in, 152; chapter on local regulations in, 1502-1642, 178-214; our sympathy with, in the struggle, 198; a great center of Puritanism, 216 250 London, Aldermen of, call on Archbishop of Canterbury to influence Tilney to stop [days, 55-56, 170; complain of being libeled at The Red Bull, 130-31; one alderman chosen annually from each ward, 138 London, Bishop of, as Ordinary, 12-13, i5 2 ', forbade production of Barnevell, 19, 114; arranged for players to contribute for parish poor, 60, 207; and Archbishop of Canterbury, censors and licensers of printed books, 84; unsuccessful appeal to Laud against Burbage's theater, 203 London, City authorities of, opposed to plays, 150-51, 154; sometimes lax, 151; overridden by patent to Earl of Leicester's players, 33-34, 155; order of December 6, 1574, 156, 174, 207; chief arguments of, against plays, 156-57; orders of, prohibiting plays, 158-59, 163-64; re- sume war against plays, 160; character- istically Puritan, 164; suppressed inn- yard performances, 166; reply to petition of Queen's players, 171-74; letter of disputing players' Articles, 172-73; the Remedies, 173, 174; made no effort to suppress unlawful plays, 194-95; gave way to royal regulation and authoriza- tion, 197; complained against Rosseter's Theater, 199 London Common Council, Order of, on censorship, 15-16; not carried out con- sistently, 17; complains of abuse of special privileges, 41; given orders by Privy Council, 42 ; four councilmen chosen annually from each ward, 138; ordinance of 1574 regulating dramatic performances in London, 156-58, 159; orders of, against plays, 160, 163-64 London, Corporation of, opposed to Master of the Revels, 52; how controlled by the Livery Companies, 138; officially sub- mitted to royal will in dramatic matters, 149; ordered Burbage's theater closed, 202 London drama, Master of Revels supervising the, 54, 55; regulation of, in reigns of Edward VI and Mary, 152 London, "Liberties" of, defined, and their location, 142-45 London, Lord Mayor of. Endeavors of the, to suppress theaters, 2-3; ordered to arrest players and stop plays, 12; to appoint censors, 16, 17, 52; requested to name member of commission on censor- ing, 18, 55; ordered to suspend per- formances, 54; efforts of, to buy off licensing plays, 56-57; ordered to enforce rules, 60; to suppress plays in Lent, 60, 210; elected annually, i.}8; theaters erected just outside the jurisdiction of the, 140; boundaries of jurisdiction of, 140-41; took formal possession of South- wark, 141; orders sent to, by Privy Council, 58, 144, 145; jurisdiction of, 148; guardian of morals of citizens, 150; Roger Ascham on the, 151; appeals of, to Privy Council, against actors, 151; letter of, and Corporation, to the Lord Chamberlain, on right to license playing places, 154, 206; asked by Council for reasons for restraining plays, 154-55; required to admit the comedy players within the City, 155-56; reproof to the puritanical, from the Council, 156; ap- peals to Privy Council against The Theater, 161-62; demands of noblemen on, 165; requested the Court to suppress The Theater and The Curtain, 169; dif- ficulty of, in stopping plays in London, 176; demands suppression of all plays in and about the City, 183-84, 187, 192; censured by the Lords for not en- forcing orders, 193; ordered by Parlia- ment to suppress plays, 224 London stage. Royal and municipal legis- lation affecting the, 198; summary of chief lines of legislation on the, 206-14 Long Parliament, Ordinances of the, 3, 218, 222-26 Lord Chamberlain, Master of Revels subordi- nate to the, 16, 47, 85; exercised authority over the drama, ig; issued tickets of privilege, 39, 69 n; in charge of the Sov- ereign's amusements, 46; G. Chapman's letter to, 61; "Declaration of the Ancient Powers of the [Revels] Office," 65; order of, for suppression of plays, 68; order that all players must have license from the Master, 73; confirms to Wm. Beeston's Company right to certain plays, 83; on Jonson's Tale of a Tub, 124; order regarding Wm. Beeston's Company, 131; request of, for grant to license playing-places for one Holmes, 153; conflict with Bishop of Canterbury, 214 Lord Chamberlain's Company (Shakspere's), Patent issued to, as the King's Mm, 36-37, 231; authorized to play, 58, 189; expected to obey the Master, 60; The Spanish Tragedy of the, appropriated by the Chapel Children, 83; and the Essex conspiracy, 98-99; played before Queen Elizabeth, 99; Privy Council require permit for, 160; ask permission to play at Cross Keys, 182-83, 207, 208; selected The Globe, iqi, 231 Lord Chancellor advised against patent for theater in Lincoln's Inn Fields, 205 Lord Govertuuncc and Lady Publike-Wele, morality by John Roo, 5 Lord Lieutenants to exercise supervision, 12, 14; granted license to Earl of Leices- ter's players, 15 Lord Mayor's shows. Dramatic character of many, 217 Lord Protector's company at Leicester, 27 Lord Secretary's company of players af Leicester, 26 Lordship of Finsbury, set Liberty of Fins- bury 251 Louis XI IT assumed responsibility for death of Marquess d'Ancre, 113 Lowins apologised t" Herbert, 135 l ■: Subjoct, by Fletcher, licensed by Buc, reformed by Herbert, allowed to King's Company, 8a Luther. .1 character in a play, 6 Lydd, Visits of players to, 23 Lyly, John, hoped for the Mastership, 62 n; his Pappe with a Halehett, 01 Magnetic Lady, Jonson's, Players made inter[H)!ations in, 78; licensed, 81; made trouble for Herbert 126 Maid of Honor, The, by Massinger, Political significance of, 124 Maid's Tragedy, The, 134 Maidstone. Mayor of, refuses to permit licensed players to perform, 71; re- buked by Sir Henry Herbert, 71-72 Malcontent, The, of the Chapel Children, taken by the King's Men, 83 Maria, the Infanta, Project of marriage of, with Prince Charles, 118 Marlowe, Christopher, arrested killed, 06 Marquis of Dorset's company licensed, 10 Martin Marprelate Controversy, 17, 176; treated on the stage, 55; first case of rigorous interference by the authorities, 91; plays against Martin refused a license, 91; resulted in appointment of censorship commission. 177 Martinists ridiculed on the stage, 17; violent dramatic attacks on the, 91 Mary, Queen, Proclamation of, in 1553, 5, io-ii, 152; anti-Protestant plays on ac- cession and marriage of, 10 Mary's, Princess, players in Leicester, 26 Massinger, Philip, in trouble over Believe as You List, 122-24; licensed as revised, 123; Gardiner on political elements in, 123-24; protected by Pembroke, 124; difficulty about licensing King and Subject of, 129 Massinger's Believe as You List refused a license by Herbert, 81 Master of the King's Games of Bears, Bulls and Dogs, Royal patents to, 46 Master of the King's Revels, 2; official administration of the censorship, 3; place of the, in general history of censor- ship, 16; patent issued to in 1581, 16-17, 35, 51. 163; authority of, estab- lished slowly, 17, 18; power of, in and about London, 18, 35, 52; active under Stuart rule, 18-19; gave indirect royal authorization, 35; established right in country at large, 35; licensed companies to travel, 35, 40, 53, 70; rights granted to, reserved, 38; extended exercise of his powers, 39, 45, 55; had power to license playing- places, 43. 73-74; chapter on the, 44-88; sold licenses, 44, 211; licensed traveling players, 43, 70, 72 ; tracing development of power of, difficult. 46; first appeared under Henry VII, 46-47; sir I bonus Cawarden made permanent Master in 1545, 47; powers conferred in patent, 47; busied solely with court entertainments, 48; reforms in Office of, recom mended, 48-49; exam- ined companies and plays for approval, 49; natural person to exercise liicnsing power, 50; Edmund Tilney appointed, So; given power to summon players, 51-S2; to license plays, players and play- houses, 52, 55; held responsible by Council for regulation of theaters in London, 54; order sent to in 1598, 58; payments to, by Henslowe, 59, 61; ex- ercised a general jurisdiction 60; re- lations of , with Privy Council, 60; position of, strengthened, 61; commission to Sir George Buc as, 62-63; authority granted to, in patents, 63-64; Sir John Astley and Ben Jonson granted reversion of Mastership, 64-65; Sir Henry Herbert recognized as, 65; fee of, 67; higher authorities acted through, or over head of, 68; power of licensing ill defined, 68; court on jurisdiction of, 69; case of Herbert at Maidstone, 71-72; censor- ship and licensing plays most important function of, 53, 73, 76, 82; had right to suppress a play, 77; methods of censoring, 77-78; fee of, for licensing a play, 79; new source of revenue for, in licensing the printing of plays, 64, 84; licensed books of poetry, 85; arguments for power of, over licensing for the press, 86-87; busi- ness of, extensive and profitable, 87; income, 88; expurgations of, in surviving MSS., 89; character of men chosen for office of, 89; concern of, not a moral, but a practical political one, 89; "reformations " of Sir Thomas Mure, 94-95; case of William Beeston's Company's defiance of the, 131-32; rise of the, 177; licensing power of, established by IS92, 179; reg- ulated performances, 197; Prynne's attack on the, 221; all licenses of, abol- ished, 226. See also Buc, Sir G.; Revels Office; Tilney, E. Master of the Revels' Servants at Leicester, 70 Master of the Rolls a Justice of the Peace in Middlesex, 54; orders sent to, by Privy Council, 145, 17s Muster of St. Catherine's, 146 Masterless vagabonds, 1; society had no hold on the, 22; subject to severe pen- alties, 24 Masters of the Chapel Children authorized to take up singing boys, 32, 48, 51 Maurice of Orange, caused execution of John of Barnevelt for treason, 114 May-game, A seditious, 6 Mayors of towns expected to supervise li- censing, 13; to determine standing of wandering players, 27 252 Merchant Taylors' Company, Court of the, refused an annuity to Tilney to stop licensing plays, 56 Metropolitan district, Divided jurisdiction over the, 145-46 Middlesex and Surrey, Justices of the Peace of, 18; orders of Privy Council sent to, 58, 145, 175, 210; to stop plays, 184; censured by the Lords for not enforcing orders, 103-04 Middleton, Edward, brought before the Council, 121 Middleton, Thomas, author of Game at Chess, "shifted out of the way," 120; devised a Lord Mayor's show, 217; chro- nologer of London, 217 Midsummer Night, 1592, Precautions taken against disorders feared on, 145-46, 170-82 Militia ordered to suppress all plays, 225 Minstrels the predecessors of the professional actors, 22 Monasteries, dissolved, Liberties precincts of, 144 Money bond required of players as surety, S8-59 Monopolies, Economic system of, applied to the stage, 1 Monopoly, Patents of, granted to favored persons, 39, 197 Monster Lately Found Out, by Rawlidge, 163, 217 Monteagle, Lord, in the Essex conspiracy, 98 Moralities common in 1485, 4 Morality, A sort of Roman Catholic con- troversial, performed at Sir John York's house, 113 Morality, Puritan care for, in London, 16 More, Sir Thomas, as represented in the play, 93-05 MS. Herbert, 66 n Munday, Anthony, devised a Lord Mayor's show, 217 Municipal officers in towns, Supervision by, 14 Municipality, see London Murray, Sir James, delated Ben Jonson to the King for writing against the Scots, 102, 103 Mysteries and moralities common, 4; cycles of, presented by trades guilds, 22; lawful, 24 Nash, Thomas, Imprisonment of, for his Isle of Dogs, 97-98; complains that players are persecuted, 184 New Romney, Visits of players to, 23 Newcastle, Players at, arrested and whipped, 228 Newington precinct under Justices of Surrey, 145 Newington Theater, the, Location of, 143; Lords prohibited plays at, 17s; plays ordered at, 182 Nicolini, Francis, and his company, Warrant to, 70 Noblemen, kept companies of players, 4, 22-23, 26; players of, licensed, 10; power of licensing taken from, 28, 35, 38; com- panies of, transferred to members of the royal family, 36, 38; licenses of, recog- nized by local officials in spite of law, 40-41; not to be attacked in plays, 90, 97; satire on, censored, III, 124 North, Lord President of the, ordered by Privy Council to suppress players and plays, 11-12, 25; letter to, from Sir Robert Dudley, asking license for his players, 15, 26 Northampton's, Marquis of, company at Leicester, 27 Northbrooke's Treatise, 159, 219 Northumberland's, Earl of, company of players, 22; appear at Leicester, 27 Nottingham, Earl of. Lord Admiral, urged that Edward Alleyn be allowed to finish his theater, 190 Oaths, Effort of censor to excise all, 90; care in expunging, 111-12, 118; an offense to Herbert, 124; censoring of, 128-29; condemnation of, satirized, 133 Official buildings, Players' rights to perform in, bought off, 40 Oldcastle, Sir John, Shakspere's use of the name in Henry IV, 96, 188 Orange, Prince of, as presented in Bar- neveli, 115, 116 Order of expulsion of players, 163-64, 220; probable date of, 164, 172-73 Ordinance of suppression rigorously enforced, 226-28 Ordinary of the Diocese, the bishop sitting in ecclesiastical court, 8; given power of licensing plays, 12, 13 Oxford, Scholars of, that go a-begging, 30 Oxford's, Earl of, company of players, 22; allowed to play at the Boar's Head, 194 Painter, William, Reversionary grant of Master's office to, 65 n Pammachius, anti-papal tragedy, performed at Christ's College, Cambridge, 6 Papacy, Dramas in support of the, 6 Papists performing interludes inciting to breach of the peace to be imprisoned, 7; James I on the conversion of, 20 Pappe with a Hatehett by Lyly, 01 Paradoxes by J. Donne, Licensing of, for printing, brought Herbert to the Star Chamber, 85 Paris Garden, Bear-baitings and bull-baitings in, 46; Manor or Liberty of, 143; The Swan in, 143; under Justices of Surrey, 145; disaster at, 163, 165-66, 175, 210 Parish organizations in Blackfriars and White- friars, 145 Parish plays, 22 Parker's, Sir Henry, company of players, at Leicester, 26 Parliament, Act of Uniformity 1540 (2 and 3 Edward VI), 9; 1559 (1 Elizabeth, cap. 253 a), 13; Act against profane use of holy names in plays, 10; lirst statute of first, of Charles I, on abuses on Sunday, 20; Puritan clement in, demanded restriction of players, 36, 222; performances in spite of, 224-25 Parliament, the Long, Edict of, against Stage-plays, 222-23; new orders of, 2:4; adopts extreme measures, 225-27 oa the Jesuit, Pamphlet by, 92 Patents, Licensing or dispensing, granted by the Crown as favors, or sold, 45; for playing-places, 153-54, 206 Patents, royal, History of, 33-30; system of, developed, 36; second, sometimes granted, 38; result of system of, 38-39; other forms of license than, granted, 39; supe- rior even to the Statutes, 45, 148, 155; provisos in, 63-64; Prynne declares un- constitutional, 221; abolished by Parlia- ment, 226; tabulated, 231-34 Patient Grissel. Payment to printer to stay printing of, 80 Paul's Boys, Play by, on the captivity of the Pope, 6; suppression of the, 92; acted undisturbed, 195. See also Children of Paul's Pedlars and petty chapmen, Patent for licens- ing, under James 1, 46 Pembroke, Earl of. Lord Chamberlain, 39 n; action of, on Game at Chess, 121; catered to by Massinger, 123-24 Pembroke and Montgomery, Earl of, Lord Chamberlain, 39, 85; dispute with Arch- bishop of Canterbury, 214 Pembroke's, Earl of, servants, 39 Penalties, Severity of, supposed necessary by a brutal age, 29 Percy, Sir Charles, in the Essex conspiracy, 98 Percy, Sir Jocelyn, in the Essex consipracy, 98 Performances, Sacrilegious and libellous, severely punished, 108; unchaste and seditious, not tolerated, 158; continued in the Liberties and in inn-yards, 175; order limiting number of, 192; regulated by Master of the Revels, 197; City forced to tolerate dangerous, 198; in spite of Parliament, 224, 225 Pericles, Profit on performance of, given to Herbert, 76 Perkvn, John, in Earl of Leicester's com- pany, 33 Personalities, offensive, Effort to suppress, 134 Persons of high rank not to be attacked in plays, 60, 90, 97 Philaster, of Beaumont and Fletcher, Her- bert's fussy alterations in, 128-29 Philip and Mary, Marriage of, 10 Phillippes, Augustine, in the King's Men, 36; on the performance of Richard II for the Essex conspirators, 98-99 Pit, Rabble frequenters of the, 3 Plague, Regulations for playing in time of, 34. 37. 38, 211-14; plays forbidden on account of the, 58, 68, 150, 152, 155; favors shown players in time of, 76, 214; increase of the, 156, 160, 161; stops per- formances, 162, 167, 168, 175; answer to rules proposed by Queen's players for plague, time, 173, 174, 211-12; severe, 181, 182, 184 Players and playhouses, Standing of, in the eyes of the law, 1, 3 Players, Favored companies of, granted royal patents, 1, 35; a company of, suppressed in the North, n, 25; letter on behalf of the Earl of Leicester's, 15; various sorts of companies of, 22, 23; professional, kept by noblemen, 4, 22-23; exempt from sumptuary law, 23; fre- quently traveled, 23-24, 26-27; licensed by the Crown, 28, 45; companies of, traveled under royal or noble protection, 31, 32, 36; less personal relation of, with patron, 31; sometimes purchased name and license, 31 n; licensed under the Great Seal, 33-34, 155; royal license valuable to noblemen's players, 34; secured many privileges in London through royal favor, 35, 49, 150, 160; monopoly granted to favored, 36, 38-39, 150; noblemen's and London, trans- ferred to royal family, 36, 38; monopoly of patents to, not absolute, 39; rights of, to perform bought off, 40, 41, 70, 72; licensed by Master of the Revels, 45; rehearsed before him, 49; company of, suppressed, 58, 189; enjoying royal patents obliged to obey the Master, 59, 61, 63-64; not to perform without license, 65, 158; annual licenses to traveling, 70; all, must have license from the Master, 73; none severely punished, 92 ; in trouble because of their impertinence, 108; cen- tralization of power over, 148-49; chief reason for admission of, into London, 149-50; a nobleman's company com- mitted, 151; attitude of London Cor- poration toward traveling, 152; opposi- tion to, in the City high, 153; must be authorized by Mayor and Aldermen, 158; driven to the Liberties, 158; expelled and playhouses pulled down, 163; favored by Privy Council, 160, 162-63, 164; letter to suppress all, 169; excluded from London, 170; powerful influence at command of, 188; only two companies of, allowed, 191-92; sheltered by royal protection, 197; taxation of, for benefit of sick and poor, 206-7; mentioned as rogues and vagabonds in the statutes, 221; legal status of worthy, 222; edict of Long Parliament against, 222-23; to be arrested and punished, 224-25; status of vagabond imposed on all, 226; act in defiance of the law, 224, 225, 227; peti- tion Parliament, 227-28. See also Actors, Licensing of players Players, Strolling, arrested, 12; unlicensed, called rogues and vagabonds, 21, 29; 254 needed a license for protection, 23, 27; liable to penalties as " masterless men," 24, 25-26; standing of, left to local authorities, 27; two forms of license for, 27; penalties for " wandering abroad," 28-29, 221-22; not vagabonds in eyes of the law, 30-31; situation of, radically altered under Puritan domination, 31; licensed by the Master, 45 Players' pass, A, issued to members of King's Company, 30, 69 Playhouses, Licensing of, 73; must be approved by Mayor and Aldermen, 158, 207; order of the Council to reduce the number of the, 191-92; frequented by a better class, 216; to be disabled, 225, 226. See also Theaters Playing-cards, Monopoly in, 39 Playing places, Fixed, 35; authorized, 38J national regulation of, 42-43; authorized, specified in patents, 197. See also Theaters Plays, Regulation of, by municipal and shire authorities, 2; licensing of, 4-21; content of, censored, 4-5, 158; reported edict of 1533 against, not authentic, 5; used by opponents of the royal policy, 6; first legislation concerning content of, 7; use of, for proper ends approved, 7-8; English, prohibited for three months, 8-9; royal proclamation against, 9; censoring of, 9-10; a source of sedition, 10; troubles with, frequent, 11; ordered *s"nppressed through Justices of the Peace, 11-12; forbidden in summer of i557i 12; prohibited for a season by Elizabeth, 14; rigorous steps to suppress offensive, 18, 91-92, 176-77; commission on, 18, 91 ; unfit matter in, suppressed, 19, 91; pro- hibition of, on the Sabbath, 20-2 1, 158, 164; all, prohibited by Puritans, 21, 152, 164; given by actors in good standing, 22; examined by Master of the Revels, 49; six selected for giving at Court, 49; for- bidden in London, 58, 68, 91, 108; all, must be licensed by the Master, 73; copies of, left with the Master, 78; fee for li- censing, 79. 81; licenses given to act, not to print, 79-80; objection of players to publication of, 79-80; revival of old, re- quired Master's approval, 81, 82, 118, 124; greater care in supervision of old, 82, 124; stealing, prevented by the Master, 82-83, urgent reason for not printing, 83; in- herited from Queen's Company confirmed to William Beeston's Company, 83; print- ing, without consent of companies owning, caused trouble, 85; many uncensored before Herbert's time, 134; arguments against, 156-57; lawful, honest and comely use of, allowed, 157; provision for licens- ing, 157-58; forbidden at the universities, 178-79; public demand for, 195; all stopped five days before death of Eliza- beth, 196; edict of the Long Parliament against, 222-23; new orders against, 224, 225-27 Playwrights, Prominent, devised the Lord Mayor's shows, 217 Poetaster, Jonson in trouble because of the, 102-3 Political and historical dramas. Attitude of the censor, Buc, towards, 11 5-16 y Political and religious questions in plays") fairly suppressed, 133-34 -J Political liberty, Eulogy of, in Barnevelt, 117 Political or personal allusions caused trouble to two distinguished poets, 105 Political unrest reflected in the drama, 97-9^ Politics, Factional not general, touched on in the drama, 135 Poor, Contributions for the, 158, 183, 190, 206-7; admission fees forfeited to the, 226 Poor Laws, The memorable, of Elizabeth, 1, 24, 27; subsequent, altered licensing system, 28 Pope, English comedies in contempt of the, reported by the Venetian Ambassador, 8 Porter, Endymion, appeals to the King against Herbert's censoring of D'Ave- nant's Wits, 127 Press, licensing for the, Revels Office makes efforts to continue, 86; arguments show- ing jurisdiction claimed, 86-87 Priests railed on in an interlude, 7 Prince's Company, The, 37; patent of 1606 granted to, 63, 232; authorized to play in Rosseter's theater, 199, 233; acted Amends for Ladies in, 201; sought license for playhouse at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 204 Printing, Edict concerning licensing of, 9; a method of arousing revolt, 10; Master assumes licensing of, 84; Lord Chamber- lain exercises authority over, 85 Private theater, Burbage's, 186 Privy Council, given censorship of printing and of plays, 9-10; vigilant, n; orders of, against players and pipers, 12; gave the Ordinary the power of licensing plays, 12; reserved supreme authority, 13, 15, 19; on plays in London, 17, 52, 150; devised a commission of Church, City and Crown, 18, 55, 91; orders of, to Lord Shrewsbury, 25; grants open war~ rants to Earl of Sussex's players and to Lord Strange's company, 34; secured privileges for favored players, 35, 153, 159, 160; ordered London Council in play matters, 42 ; suspended performances in London, 54, 55, 58, 91, 150, 189, 210; did not recognize the Master, 58, 60; transmitted orders through the Master, 67, 68; play concerning the Marquess d'Ancre stopped by, 68, 113; perform- ances in Lent prohibited by, 75, 150, 160; charges of, against T. Nash, 07; stopped performances at The Rose, 98; co:n- plaint of, against players at The Curtain, 100; report of action taken on Game J/ Chess, 120; stopped a play on the torture 255 of the English at Ambovna, 122; order of, against players of The Red Hull for libel, 130-31; orders issued by, regarding disorders in the Liberties, 145-46,170-8:; friendly to the drama, 140; various reasons of, for suppressing plays, 150; city authorities agreed with the, 150; some- times strongly opposed to plays, 151; refused to attend Lord Mayor's feast on account of the plague, 156; ordered resumption of performances, 160, 162-63, 164; forbade performances on account of plague, 157, 101, 162, 175; power of, to get players admitted to the City, 167; order of, for reverence of God and en- couragement of Queen's bearbaiters, 177; acquired the Puritan attitude, 178; order sent to the Middlesex Justices, 180-81; for reopening of The Rose, 1S1-82; on Blackfriars Theater, 186; prohibit plays and order theaters de- molished, 187; order of, reducing number of theaters and of performances, 18, 60, igo-02; not enforced, 192; censure Mayor and Justices, 162, 193-94; lax- ness of, in enforcing orders, 194-95 Proctors of the Court of Probate defamed by players at The Red Bull, 130-31 Profanity, see Oaths Protestant cause, Stage a weapon in the, 6, 10 Protestant dramas written by those high in authority, 8 Protestantism, Henry's reaction against, 7; extreme, approved by Edward VI, 8; moderate, in ascendant under Elizabeth, 13 Provost Marshal for London and adjoining counties, 178, 189; commission of, revoked, 183; Captain Bethan appointed, 227 Prynne, William, Hislriomastix, 76, 219, 220; mutilation and suffering of, in the pillory, 134; complaint of, against Sunday plays, 210; on players as rogues and vagabonds, 221; not all Puritans as rigorous as, 222; view of, became law, 226 Public prayers, Coaches disturb, 202, 209 Puncteus, John, and his company, Warrant to, 70 Puritan, a broad term, 215; political party called, 216; ideas spread among the populace, 217; attack on the drama, 159-60, 197-98, 218-20; general line of argument, 219; summary in title-page of Prynne's lli^tri.>-\lastix, 220; movement appreciated by the modern mind, 229 Puritan prohibition relaxed, 71, 194-95; more stringent, 158; extreme, became law, 226 Puritan victory, Chapter on the, 215-30 Puritanism and the royal government, Conflict between, 2; development of, 215; London a great center of, 216; reaction against, 230 Puritans inflamed with hatred of the Court 2; final victory of the, 2, 3; have majority in Parliament, [9; situation altered under, 31; desired to abolish all players, 36, 22i; punishment of offending, 134; the stage anathema to the, 135; result of struggle of City with Privy Council unsatisfactory to the, 175; opponents of the court party, 215; attitude of, towards statutes regulating players, 220-21; laws passed by, really suppressed plays, 223; had the better part, 230 Queen's Company, The, patented 1603, 37, 231-32; receives a second patent in 1609, 63, 232; another company of the same name at The Cockpit, 83; in trouble in 1637, 129; plays Brome's English Moor, 129 Queen's Majesty's Players, The, appear in Leicester, 27, 32; a new company organ- ized in 1583, 32, 166-169; accused of abuse of special privileges, 41, 174; petition of, for leave to play, 170; reply of the City to, 171-74; rogues, but for Her Majesty's favor, 173, 221; proposal of, for plague rule, 173, 211 Queen's Men, see Queen's Majesty's Players Queen's Servants, see Queen's Majesty's Players Rainolde's Overthrow of Stage-Playes, 219 Raleigh, Sir Walter, granted a patent for licensing taverns and wine-selling, 45; fate of, called up, by seeing Bamevelt, 115 Rankins' Mirrour of Monsters, 219 Ratcliffe, Precinct of, Lord Wentworth in charge of, 146 Rawlidge's Monster Lately Found Out, 163, 217, 219 Recreations, Lawful Sabbath, 20 Red Bull, Come See a Wonder acted at the, 77; players at, arraigned for libeling aldermen and proctors, 129-30; appren- tices plan to pull down the, 218; Wit Without Money acted at, 225; players at, through bribing officer, 227; authorized theater of the Queen's Company, 232 Red Bull company forbidden to play Shak- spere's plays, 83; arrested several times, 228 Reformation, Controversies following the, illustrated, 1; spirit of revolt aroused by the, 5 Refutation of Heywood's Apology for Actors, 219 Regulation of plays. National, 4-43; by local civil and ecclesiastical authorities, 4-5; irksome in London, 158; rigid enforcement of, 159; history of, 198 Regulations, Maze of conflicting, 3; numerous possibilities of evasion of, 41; non-en- forcement of, 194, 195 Religion, Questions of, not allowed in plays, 256 15, go, 92; the censor's care for, no, 130 Religious controversy, Offensive representa- tion of, 92 Remedies for Articles proposed by Queen's players, 173, 174, 212 Respublica, anti-I'rotcstant morality, repre- sented at Court of Mary, 10 Restrictions, Laxness in enforcing, 194-95 Revels Office, Reports from officials of, on its reorganization, 48; germ of censorship developed in, 49; in an unsettled state, 47, 49; reorganization of the, 50; powers of, 51; the workmen of the, 51; authority of, outside the Court, 61; extension of the powers of the, 62, 63; under Buc, 64; "Declaration of the Ancient Powers of the Office," 65; organization of, 67; ad- ministration of, lax under Buc, 85; efforts of, to continue licensing for the press, 86; Bill for licensing the stage left no authority to, 88. See also Buc, Sir G.; Master of the Revels; Tilney, E. Rich, Lord, ordered by Privy Council to investigate a play, n Richard, Duke of Gloucester, see Richard III Richard 11, Performance of, arranged by the Essex consiprators, 98-99 Richard III, Company of players of, 22 Rights under patents, Buying off the exer- cise of, 57 Rogues, Definition of, 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5, 29-30; branded with an R, 29; Queen's Players rogues but for Her Majesty's favor, 173, 221; large numbers of, 1, 178; all stage-players to be considered, 226 Roman-Catholic religion, Players allowed greater freedom for attacks on the, 92; reference to, censored, no Roo's, John, morality of Lord Governaunce and Lady Publike-Wele, 5 Rope-dancing licensed by Herbert, 70, 72; at The Fortune, 75 Rose theater, The, outside the city limits, licensed by Tilney, 57; Lord Strange's Company at, 79; Nash's Isle of Dogs at, 97; performances at, stopped, 98; in the Liberty of the Clink, 143; petitions to reopen, 181-82; new house in place of, 190 Rosseter, Philip, Patent under Great Seal issued to, to build a playhouse in Black- friars, 198-99, 232; Chief Justice Coke decides against, 199; builds and uses theater, 200-1 Royal power. Gradual extension of, 2 Royalty, Passages reflecting on, censored, 109-10 Sabbath, Puritan objection to sports on the, 20; orders of James I and Charles I regarding, 20; libellous performance on the, severely punished, 108; no plays al- lowed on, 163, 164, 175, 192, 209; Lords more zealous for the, than the Lord Mayor, 177 Sacke/ull of N ewes, Performance of, at Boar's Head prevented, 12 St. Catherine's precinct, 146, 212 St. Giles in the Fields under Justices of Middlesex, 145, 180; to be included in bills of mortality, 212 St. Martin's, Precinct of, Bailiff of West- minster to preserve order in the, 146 St. Saviour's parish, Players to contribute for poor of, 60, 189, 207; location of, 143; appealed to Council for suppression of playhouses, 189 St. Thomas the Apostle, Seditions rising at performance of religious interlude of, 7 Salisbury, An ex-priest burned at, 7 Sanctuary, Privileges of, in Blackfriars and Whitefriars, 147; all rights of, abolished, 147 Sappho and Pluio, Veiled symbolism dis- covered in, 91 Savoy, Liberty of, a pretended privileged place west of the City, 148 Schelling. F. E., on the Jonson and Chapman letters, 104 Sclwole of Abuse, by Gosson, 159, 209 Scotch, Satirical reference to the, in East- ward Hoe, caused Jonson's imprison- ment, 101-2 Scripture, Interpretation of, not to be meddled with in plays or interludes, 8 Seamans Honest Wife censored by H. Her- bert, 78, 124 Second and Third Blast of Retrait, 219 Second Mayden's Tragedy, The, censored by G. Buc, 78; Buc's expurgations from, 109-12, 134; plot of, 109, 115 Sedition, Letter of Henry VIII on, 6-7; Act against, 7; danger of, 8, 13; edict against, 9, io-ii, 152; censoring concerned with suppressing, 13; censoring for, in Lon- don, 16; sound speeches against, in Sir Thomas More, 03; government guarding against, 95; fear of condemnation for, 133 Sejanus, Jonson in trouble because of, 103, 104 Self-government, Overriding the rights of local, 2, 198 Servants of the Master of the Revels, 35 Seyle, Henry, Herbert received money from, for allowing books of verses by Lord Brooks and Cowley, 85 Shakspere, William, high in prosperity and royal favor, 31, 99; royal patent to, 36- 37; plays of, forbidden to the Red Bull company, 83; asserted to have written a set of alterations and additions to Sir Thomas More, 93; Sir John Oldcastle falsely attributed to, 96; not restrained by the censorship, 135; not concerned with controversial purpose, 136; years during which he was rising to preeminence, 178 257 Slukspere's audience, Endeavor fo secure some light on, i, 3 Slukspere's Com puny, 33, 06; patent issued to, as the King's Men, 36-37; play Richard II for the Essex conspirators, 08-00 Shakspere'a Henry IV, 06 Shakspere'a Richard II, 0S-00 Sheriffs, of London, stopped play by appren- tices at the Whitcfriars, 112; elected by the Common Council, 138; afraid to enforce writs in Whitcfriars, 14S; ordered to suppress all plays, 225; to demolish play-houses, 226 Shirley, Sir Thomas, to preserve order in Whitcfriars, 146 Shirley's, James, Young Admiral, warmly approved by Herbert, 127 Shoreditch, Precinct of, Lord Wentworth to preserve order in, 146, 212 Short Treatise Against Stage Plays, 219, 222 Showmen, All sorts of, licensed by the Master, 72 Shrewsbury, Earl of, Lord President of the North, ordered to suppress a company of players, 11, 25; Earl of Leicester to, on behalf of his players, is Shrewsbury's, Earl of, company of players, 23 Siege of Rhodes, The, by D'Avenant, pro- duced at Rutland House, 229 Singleton's, Hugh, Orders appointed to be executed, 163 Sir Giles Goosecap named as cause of Jonson and Chapman's troubles, 104 Sir John Oldcastle falsely attributed to Shak- spere, 96 Sir John Van Olden Barnexelt, see Barnevelt Sir Thomas More the earliest manuscript showing Tilney's "reformations" for public performance, 55; description of, 03-05 Slander, Fear of condemnation for, 133 Sly, William, in the King's Men, 36 Southampton, Earl of, a daily frequenter of the playhouses, 3 Southwark, Borough of, 140, 141-42; grants of Edward III and IV, 141; never a part of London City, 142; theaters outside the, 142; complaint of inhabitants of, to Privy Council, 175; serious tumult in, 170-80; playhouses in, ordered de- molished, 188; to be included in bills of mortality, 212 Southwark players, Complaint of Bishop of Winchester against the, 8 Spain, King of, scoffed at on the stage, 92; public feeling against, 118-20 Spanish Tragedy, The, belonging to the Lord Chamberlain's Company, appropriated by the Chapel Children, 83 Spanishe Viceroy, The, acted by King's Com- pany without Herbert's license, 77, 122 Spencer, an ex-priest, turned interlude- player, burned at Salisbury, 7 Sporfs on the Sabbath, Proclamation of James I forbidding, 20; those allowed in Book of Sports, 20 Stage, Light on the history of the, 2; bitter attacks on, in Elizabethan era, 3; a dangerous weapon in religious disputes, 5 Stage-Players Complaint, 222 Star Chamber, Herbert summoned before the, 85; report of trial of Sir Edward Dymock and others, 108 Stationers' Company, Master and Wardens of the, gave license for printing, 84; ordered not to allow printing of plays belonging to companies without their consent, 85 Stationers' Register, Dramas entered in, authorized by Revels Office, 64; licensing for printing entered in, 70; Buc appears as licenser in the, 84; Herbert licensed plays entered in, 85 Statute 1 James I (1604), cap. 7, limited licensing power to the Crown, 28, 3s, 4s; branded vagabonds, 29; passed, 38; obeyed in London, 40; on wandering players, 221, 222 Statute 8 and 9 William III, cap. 27 (1697), 148 Statute 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5 (1572), 27, 28, 221; preamble of, sets forth grave social trouble, 29; made little change in con- ditions, 31 Statute 21 James I, cap. 28 (1623-1624), abolished all rights of sanctuary, 147 Statute 34 and 35 Henry VIII the first to suggest censorship, 7, 24 Statute 35 Elizabeth, cap. 7, 28 Statute 39 Elizabeth (1597-98), cap. 4, 28, 29, 71, 221 Statute of 1606 forbidding use of name of Deity in plays enforced, 90, 128 Statutes of Laborers, against vagabonds, 24 Statutes of the Realm, superseded by royal patents, 155 Strand, Precinct of the. Bailiff of West- minster to preserve order in the, 146 Strange's, Lord, company granted an open warrant, 34; payments for licensing of plays presented by, at The Rose, 57; traveling license granted to, 58, 182, 208; payment to Master for, 59; acting at The Rose, 79; two members of, im- prisoned, 92, 176-77; petition of , to reopen The Rose, 181 Stuart despotism, Development of, i _2 w any expression of revolt against, censored, J 118 -* Stubbes, John, punished with loss of right hand, 134 Stubbes', Philip, Anatomic of Abuses, 219 Suffolk, Games and unlawful assemblies prohibited in, 6 Suffolk's, My Lady of, company of players, 27 Sunday, Agitation about performances on, 20, 151, 163, 164, 175, 200-10. See also Sabbath UNIVERSITY Sal ■ ■2r>s Sundays and Holy Days, Plays chiefly used on, 157, 200 Supplies, Passage on raising, censored by King Charles from Massinger's King and Subject, 120-30 Sussex's, Earl of, players granted an open warrant, 34; traveling license granted to, 58, 182 Swan, The, situated in the Liberty of Paris Garden, 143; prevention of building of, demanded, 183 Swanston apologized to Herbert, 125; sided with Parliamentary party, 223 Swincrton, Sir John, Supposed representation of, in The Hog hath Lost his Pearl, 112 Syston, Churchwardens of, paid players not to play in the church, 42 Tale of a Tub, Jonson's, complained against by Inigo Jones and censored, 124 Tamer Tamed, The, revived by King's Com- pany, suppressed by Herbert, 82. See Woman's Prize Taverns and wine-selling, Sir Walter Raleigh granted a patent to license, 45 Taxation of players for sick and poor, 60, 189, 206 Taylor's, R., The Hog hath Lost his Pearl played at The VVhitefriars, broken up by sheriffs, n 2-13 Temple, the, Question whether, is in the Cify or no, never decided, 137 Theater, The, in Liberty of Holywell, 143; erected in 1576, 158; plays at, suppressed in Lent, 160; great disorders at, 161, 178; Lord Mayor to Privy Council against, 161; basest sort of people at, 168; Lord Mayor requests pulling down of, 169; owner of, obdurate before Recorder Fleetwood, 169-70; performances at, 17s; haunt, 183; ordered torn down, 188 n Theater in VVhitefriars, Permit for erection of a, sold by Buc, 64, 73-74 Theaters, of Shakspere's day, 2; permanent, established, 35, 36; various specified, 38; royal patents for erection of, 43; order for destruction of all, 58, 187-88; licenses for established, 64, 73; closed in Lent, 68; erected outside jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor in neighborhood of disorderly resorts, 140; outside Southwark in the "Liberties," 142; "in the fields," under the Justices of the Peace, 143; in Black- friars and VVhitefriars under the Lord Mayor, 148; regular, built in the Liberties, 153. 158-59; attacks on the, 160, 184, 187, 218-10; nests of crime. 178; severe orders against, 170; dangers of, 170, 180, 181-82; the fixed, outside the City, and licensed by the Crown, 197 Thelwall, Simon, granted Revels Office jointly with Herbert, 66 Lords prohibited vagabond persons demolished, 187; Third University of England, The, treatise by Sir George Buc, 63 Tilney, Edmund, Master of the Revels, Office books of, lost, 46; patent issued to, to hold in successive reigns, 50; author of The Flower of Friendship, 50; special commission granted to, 51; empowered to take workmen for the Office, 51; opposed by Corporation of London, 52; claiming authority throughout the Kingdom, 53; commission of, to a company of players, 53; not active in London till 1589, 54; member of censorship commission, 55; authority of, under Queen's patent, 56; efforts to raise a "consideration" for, 56-57; received license fees for plays from Henslowe, manager of The Rose, 57, 79; not recognized by the Privy Council, 58; succeeded by Sir George Buc, 62-63; licensed established theaters, 57, 64, 73; censorship exercised by, on Sir Thomas More, 93; his "reformations," 94-95; summoned by Walsingham to select Her Majesty's Players, 166. See also Buc; Herbert ; Master of the Revels Town halls, Use of, as playhouses, authorized in patents, 43 Town officials could buy off players' rights to perform, 40 Town players, Number of, diminishing, 31 Tragedies, romantic, and tragi-comedies, "Reformation" administered to, by Buc, 115 Tudor and Stuart despotism, Development of the. 1-2 Tudor rulers, All the, had royal companies, 23 Tudors, Regulation of the drama under the, 1, 36; censorship under the early, 90 Tunstall, James, in Earl of Worcester's company, 32 Tyndale's translation of the Bible condemned, 7 Unchastity in plays, Censoring of, in London, 16, 156, 158 Universities, Plays forbidden at the, 178-79 Unorthodox views, Officials authorized to try those accused of spreading, 8 Unrest, Economic and social, 1 Vagabonds, Severe penalties imposed on, 24; proclamation of Henry VIII against, 25; statute against, 26; severe penalties provided for, 28-29; definition of, in 14 Elizabeth, cap. 5, 20-30 Venetian Ambassador reports English com- edies in contempt of the Pope, 8 Verneuil, Mademoiselle de, satirized by Chapman, 105-6 Vices in high places, References to, censored as disrespectful to the Sovereign, 109 Walls, The old city, 140-41 Walsingham, Sir Francis, organized Her 259 Majesty's Players, 166; wrote to Lord M.ivor in behalf of, 168 Wanderers engaged >n business, Act for licensing, 27; power to license, granted, 46 Warrants of protection, 51, 69 Warton, T., Slip made by, in his History of English Poetry, 5 Warwick. Servants of the Earl of, Privy Council require a permit for the, 160; license refused the Earl for, 165 Watermen, Petition of, for reopening of The Rose, 181 Watson's Hekatompathia, Commendatory verses prefixed to, by Sir George Buc, Wayfaring life, Vivid picture of, in 14 Eliza- beth, cap. s, 20-30 Webster, John, devised a Lord Mayor's show, 217 Wcntworth, Lord, to preserve order in certain precincts, 146 Westminster, City of, 140; Bailiff to pre- serve order in, 146; to be included in bills of mortality, 212 Whitechapel, Precinct of, Lord Wcntworth to preserve order in, 146 Whitefriars, Permit for erection of a new the- ater in, sold by Buc, 64, 73-74; Taylor's Tlie Hog hath Lost his Pearl performed at the, 1 1 2- 1 3; authorized theater of the Children of the Queen's Revels, 232 Whitefriars precinct exempt from Lord Mayor's jurisdiction, 144; Sir Thomas Shirley to preserve order in, 146; a no- toriously disreputable district, claimed priv- ileges of sanctuary, 147-48; sheriffs afraid to enforce writs in, 148; under municipal authority, 197 Whitgift, John, Archbishop of Canterbury, 55-56, 179 Whore New Vamped, a libellous play against aldermen and proctors, 130-31 Williams, John, see Cotton, John Winchester, Bishop of, complains of the South- wark players, 8; disorderly houses under the scignorial protection of the, 143 Winter's Tale revived by King's Players without a fee, 81 Wit Without Money, by Beaumont and Fletcher, acted at the Red Bull, 225 Wither's Abuses Stript and Whipt, 219 Wits by D'Avenant rigorously censored by Herbert, 127; revised by King Charles, 128 Wolsey defends himself from attacks in a play, 5; comedies on release of the Pope acted before, 6 Woman's Prize, or, The Tamer Tamed, by Fletcher, Trouble with the, 82, 124-26; Herbert's letter to Mr. Knight on, 12s; offense of, chiefly profanity, 125; in- decency of, 126 Women, Passages reflecting on the character of, censored, 111 Worcester's, Earl of, company, License granted to, 31; taken into the sen-ice of Queen Anne, 37; attacked validity of commission issued by Tilney, 53-54; allowed to play at the Boar's Head, 194 Workmen of the Revels under special pro- tection of the Queen, 51 Wotton, Sir Henry, Letter of, to Sir Edmund Bacon, on arrest of some apprentices for playing, 112-13 Wylson, Robert, in Earl of Leicester's com- pany, 33 Yonge, Richard, Justice of Middlesex, 55, 176 York, Duke of, patron of a company, 38 York, Seditious use of drama in, 6 York, Sir John, fined and imprisoned for a play acted at his house, 113 York's, Duke of, company, Patent to, 63, 232 Yorkshire, Earl of Shrewsbury Lord Lieuten- ant of, 15 Young Admiral, by James Shirley, warmly commended by Herbert, 127 C.A.N. VITA Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve was born in New York City on October 3, 1877. She received her early edu- cation at private schools in her native city, especially at the Brearley School, where she was prepared for college. En- tering Barnard College, Columbia University, in the autumn of 1895, she proceeded to the degree of A.B. in June, 1899. During the year 1899- 1900, as Fiske Graduate Scholar in Political Science at Columbia University, she pursued courses in Medieval History under Professor James Harvey Robin- son, in American History under Professor Herbert L. Osgood, and in Sociology under Professor Franklin H. Giddings. She received the degree of A.M. in June, 1900. For the next five years she taught in the Department of English in Barnard College, as Assistant and Tutor. From 1905 to 1908 she devoted herself to graduate study under the Faculty of Philosophy in Columbia University, pursuing courses in English under Professor William P. Trent, Professor Ashley H. Thorndike, Professor George P. Krapp, Professor William W. Lawrence, Professor William Allan Neilson, now of Harvard University, and Professor John W. Cunliffe, now of the University of Wisconsin ; in Old French under Professor Henry A. Todd ; and in Comparative Literature under Pro- fessor Jefferson B. Fletcher. I */n r )iinL - RETURN TO the circulation desk of any University of California Library or to the Bld q R S R h EG,0NAL UBRARY FAC 'L'TY BWg. 400, Richmond Field Station University of California Richmond, CA 94804-4698 1-yeaMoans may be recharged by bringing books Renewals and recharges may be made 4 h I prior to due date y made 4 da ys DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 20,000 (4/94) J c i k&Kl *>j* -iv« TO 2/rJb '.'■vf ♦ ; : ;•'' **l GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY e« B00Q*1352bD