Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of English Theatres from the Beginnings to the RestorationAdams, Joseph Quincy
History
Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of English Theatres from the Beginnings to the Restoration
Adams, Joseph Quincy
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616 -- Stage history -- To 1625; Theaters -- England -- London -- History
This unfortunate occurrence destroyed Langley's dream of a successful
year. It also destroyed the splendid Pembroke organization, for
several of its chief members, even before the inhibition was raised,
joined the Admiral's Men. On August 6 Richard Jones went to Henslowe
and bound himself to play for two years at the Rose, and at the same
time he bound his friend Robert Shaw, who was still in prison; on
August 10 William Bird came and made a similar agreement; on October 6
Thomas Downton did likewise. Their leader, Gabriel Spencer, also
probably had an understanding with Henslowe, although he signed no
bond; and upon his release from the Marshalsea he joined his friends
at the Rose.[263]
[Footnote 263: Langley sued these actors on their bond to him of L100
to play only at the Swan; see the documents printed by Mr. Wallace.
Ben Jonson also joined Henslowe's forces at the Rose, as did Anthony
and Humphrey Jeffes, who were doubtless members of the Pembroke
Company.]
In the meantime the Queen's anger was abating, and the trouble was
blowing over. The order to pluck down all the public playhouses was
not taken seriously by the officers of the law, and Henslowe actually
secured permission to reopen the Rose on October 11. The inhibition
itself expired on November 1, but the Swan was singled out for further
punishment. The Privy Council ordered that henceforth license should
be granted to two companies only: namely, the Admiral's at the Rose,
and the Chamberlain's at the Curtain. This meant, of course, the
closing of the Swan.
In spite of this order, however, the members of Pembroke's Company
remaining after the chief actors had joined Henslowe, taking on
recruits and organizing themselves into a company, began to act at the
Swan without a license. For some time they continued unmolested, but
at last the two licensed companies called the attention of the Privy
Council to the fact, and on February 19, 1598, the Council issued the
following order to the Master of the Revels and the Justices of both
Middlesex and Surrey:
Whereas license hath been granted unto two companies of
stage players retayned unto us, the Lord Admiral and Lord
Chamberlain ... and whereas there is also a third company
who of late (as we are informed) have by way of intrusion
used likewise to play ... we have therefore thought good to
require you upon receipt hereof to take order that the
aforesaid third company may be suppressed, and none suffered
hereafter to play but those two formerly named, belonging to
us, the Lord Admiral and Lord Chamberlain.[264]
[Footnote 264: Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, XXVIII, 327.]
Thus, after February 19, 1598, the Swan stood empty, so far as plays
were concerned, and we hear very little of it during the next few
years. Indeed, it never again assumed an important part in the history
of the drama.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account