NEWINGTON BUTTS
In all books, both old and new, concerning theatrical matters in Elizabethan times, mention is made of a theatre existing in Newington Butts. This district was situated near St. George’s Fields in Southwark. Antiquaries, with imagination all compact, mark the ground where now stands Spurgeon’s Tabernacle as the site of the old theatre. Unfortunately, there is a lack of documentary evidence of any description definitely stating the existence of a regular built theatre in this locality. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence proving that play acting constituted one of the chief amusements of this neighbourhood.
Although not actually possessing any positive evidence of a theatre existing in this neighbourhood, we must accept as a certainty that either an inn-yard, town hall, or public theatre stood in this vicinity, otherwise there is no accounting for a passage in Henslowe’s Diary in which is recorded the event of the Lord Chamberlain’s men and the Lord Admiral’s men acting at Newington.
“In the name of God Amen Beginning at Newington My Lord Admiral’s men and my Lord Chamberlain’s men as followeth.” After this entry the Diary contains a list of plays acted by these companies from June 3rd until June 13th, 1594, then a line is drawn across the page, doubtlessly signifying that the engagement terminated. The next entry, dated June 15th, 1594, continues indefinitely until 1597. From June, 15th, 1594, all notices refer to plays acted at the Rose Theatre. Most writers credit all the performances to the Newington Butts Theatre, a palpable error, arising from insufficient study of the details connected with this period.
The list of plays acted by the two companies is as follows:
Out of these ten performances, six may with certainty be placed, on the credit side of the Lord Chamberlain’s men, the remaining four on those of the Admiral’s. The “Hamlet” was, of course, the old play attributed by all students to Thomas Kyd, the same play on which some years later Shakespeare founded his own “Hamlet.” “The Taming of a Shrew” is likewise an old play, upon which Shakespeare founded his “Taming of the Shrew”; the author of the old play is not known. Shakespeare changed the names of the principal parts, with the exception of Kate or Katherine, developed the characters by adding greater depth of feeling and making them living personalities instead of types of characters as in the earlier play. He likewise contrived that the different plots were more skilfully interwoven, and in every way improved upon the old play. “Andronicus” may be the play attributed to Shakespeare by the editors of the First Folio, or perhaps this drama was an earlier play of Marlowe’s or one of his disciples. Although this “Andronicus” finds a place in the First Folio, most critics agree that Shakespeare was not the author. At the most, he may have revised a few scenes and added touches here and there, but in no other way is he responsible for this revolting and barbarous play, doubtless written by some popular dramatist to please the ears and eyes of the groundlings, who simply revelled in these horrors, without ever being satiated, the appetite growing by what it fed on.
Even in our own day the disgusting and revolting posters exhibited in all our streets entice coppers from the populace; this demand for sensational and bloodthirsty scenes unites the Elizabethan age in matters of beastliness with these that prevail at the present day. In spite of three hundred years’ progress and free education and all the aids to refinement that lie at the door of all Londoners, the mass of the people clearly demonstrate by the class of their amusement how little they have materially benefited by their education, constantly demanding the villainous dreadfulness of low class entertainments instead of encouraging the refined pleasures of a Shakesperean performance.
Even the better educated classes cannot rise much above the red-nosed comedian or the cracked-voiced variety artist or to visit nightly some filthy so-called musical comedy or revue at a West End theatre, with courtesans posing as actresses, and low music-hall performers, introducing before a fashionable audience all sorts of vulgarisms and indecent jokes and styling themselves heaven-born actors and actresses, thus further insulting a noble profession.
Of “Hester and Assuerus” nothing is known beyond the name of the play. A foreign version with the same title is extant, perhaps copied or adapted from Henslowe’s play. Those four plays in 1594 belonged to the repertory of Lord Strange’s company; a few years previously they had been in the possession of another company, from whom they were purchased by Lord Strange’s men. The three remaining plays were the property of the Admiral’s men, namely Marlowe’s celebrated drama of the “Jew of Malta,” acted scores of times to an ever-admiring audience. The play called “Bellendon” has been identified with a play entered in the Stationers’ Register as “The True Tragedy and History of King Rufus the First, with the Life and Death of Belyn Dun, the first thief that ever was hanged in England.” The play is not extant.
“Cutlack” is also a lost play, probably alluded to in Guilpen’s “Skialetheia,” a series of epigrams and satires published in 1598:
“Clodius methinks looks passing big of late,
With Dunstons browes and Allens Cutlacks gate.”
The Diary alluded to so frequently is the famous theatrical account book kept by Philip Henslowe, whose stepdaughter married Edward Alleyn, the greatest actor of his day. On his retirement from the stage he purchased the Manor of Dulwich for £10,000. Henslowe’s connexion with the theatrical world lasted over a quarter of a century; how he drifted into the world of the theatre is a puzzle not easily solved, he being by trade a dyer; possibly his son-in-law may have persuaded him in investing money in theatrical ventures; at all events he controlled several places of amusement, and was on friendly terms with most of the playwrights and actors of his day. When he opened the Rose Theatre he entered in his Diary day by day a list of plays that were produced there. On the first production of a new play at his theatre he wrote the letters “n e” before the title; these may signify “new enterlude” or simply a contraction of the word “new.” Whenever the letters are found, they always indicate that the play was a new one, or an old play fresh-adapted for the requirements of up-to-date audiences. Many other matters were jotted down in this Diary, especially the sums of money lent to needy authors, or money advanced for new plays and other services, likewise money expended on his theatres and bear-baiting house, and a few entries of a private nature. This manuscript volume is chiefly helpful in deciding the date and authorship of several plays.
For benefits received we are apt to regard Philip Henslowe in a more favourable light than the illiterate, greedy and grasping theatre manager and pawnbroking usurer really deserves. Without exception this volume ranks as the most precious record of theatrical history for the Elizabethan period. Everyone interested in the subject must feel deeply grateful to Mr. W. W. Greg, who by his immense learning and untiring industry, has given to students an edition of the Diary beyond all praise. The original manuscript of this volume forms one of the treasures of Dulwich College, and reposes in the library of this excellent institution.
An important reference respecting the Newington Butts Theatre is contained in the following document issued by the Privy Council, circa 1592, granting the Rose Theatre company permission to open their doors, and further stating: “That not long since, upon some consideration, their Lordships restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside, and enjoined them to play three days a week at Newington Butts, but they understand that the tedium of the way thither and for the fact that for a long time past no plays have been performed there on weekdays, makes the use of that house inconvenient, and also that the restraint is a cause of injury to a number of poor watermen, they therefore order that the Justices shall permit Lord Strange’s men or any other company to perform at the ‘Rose’ as usual.”
The next reference is of a more substantial character, as denoting the existence of some kind of playhouse, in all probability a regular theatre. Howe, in his continuation of Stow’s Annals, 1631, gives a list of the early theatres in London, adding besides one in former times at Newington Butts. In spite of this authentic statement, the Newington Butts Theatre has been declared a myth, and, until further evidence is forthcoming, is likely in thus remaining so. That a place of entertainment for the acting of plays existed in this neighbourhood has been proved beyond doubt.
Considering the number of years plays were acted here, how shall we account for the lack of notices respecting the building in which the plays were acted? Nothing more tantalizing can be recalled in the whole history of the early drama.
When, in the year the Lord Admiral’s men and the Lord Derby’s men played at Newington Butts, both companies had already enjoyed many years of prosperity, and therefore quite unlikely they would give ten consecutive performances at an inn-yard or on a stage erected in an open place. Henslowe, in his Diary, simply remarks: “Beginning at Newington my Lord Chamberlain’s men and my Lord Admiral’s men.” Even this entry does not assist us in determining the nature of the place where the plays were represented. It is to be regretted that Mr. Greg has not elucidated this puzzle for us, no one else but himself is capable of untying this knotty question.
Elizabethans themselves rarely allude to any of their theatres or places where plays were acted, the Newington Butts locality seemingly not deserving a passing notice.