The Elizabethan Stage, Vol. 2

by E. K. Chambers

[Bibliographical Note.—The chief source of information is J. Greenstreet, The Whitefriars Theatre in the Time of Shakspere (N. S. S. Trans. 1887–92, 269), which gives the text of the bill and answer in Androwes v. Slater (1609, Chancery).]

The accident of litigation brings into light a company of boys, who appear to have acted for a brief and troubled period, which probably ended in 1608 or early in 1609. The story is told by one George Androwes a silk-weaver of London, and begins in February 1608. At that date a part of the dissolved Whitefriars monastery was held, in contemplation of a lease from Lord Buckhurst, by Michael Drayton and Thomas Woodford. The lease was actually executed about the following March, and was for six years, eight months, and twenty days, at a rent of £50. Woodford had assigned his interest to one Lording Barry; and Barry in turn persuaded Androwes to take over a third of it, and to join a syndicate, of which the active manager was Martin Slater, who is described as a citizen and ironmonger of London, but is, of course, well known as an actor in the Admiral’s and other companies. The bill incorporates the terms of Articles of Agreement entered into on 10 March 1608 by Slater on the one hand and Barry, Androwes, and Drayton, together with William Trevell, William Cooke, Edward Sibthorpe, and John Mason, all of London, gentlemen, on the other. They throw a good deal of light upon the business organization of a theatrical enterprise. Slater is to have a sixth part of the net profits of ‘any playes, showes, interludes, musique, or such like exercises’ in the Whitefriars play-house or elsewhere, together with lodging for himself and his family on the premises, and any profits that can be made in the house ‘either by wine, beere, ale, tobacco, wood, coales, or any such commoditie’. When the ‘pattent for playinge’ shall be renewed, Slater’s name is to be joined in it with Drayton’s, because ‘if any restrainte of their playinge shall happen by reason of the plague or other wise, it shalbe for more creditt of the whole company that the said Martyn shall travel with the children, and acquainte the magistrates with their busines’. During any such travel his allowance is to be increased to a share and a half, no apparel, books, or other property of the company is to be removed without the consent of the sharers, and none of them is to print any of the play-books, ‘except the booke of Torrismount, and that playe not to be printed by any before twelve monthes be fully expired’. In order to avoid debt, a sixth part is to be taken up each day of the ‘chardges of the howse’ for the week, including ‘the gatherers, the wages, the childrens bourd, musique, booke keeper, tyreman, tyrewoman, lights, the Maister of the revells’ duties, and all other things needefull and necessary’. The children are to be ‘bound’ for three years to Slater, who undertakes not to part with ‘the said younge men or ladds’ during their apprenticeship except on the consent of his fellow sharers.

The theatrical experience of the syndicate presumably rested with Slater and Drayton. Of Trevell, Cooke, and Sibthorpe I know nothing, except that Trevell, like Woodford, seems still to have had an interest in the lease of the Whitefriars (cf. ch. xvii) in 1621. But Mason and Barry were the authors respectively of The Turk (1610, S. R. 10 March 1609), and Ram Alley (1611, S. R. 9 November 1610), the title-pages of which ascribe them to the children of the King’s Revels, and thereby enable us to give a more definite title to the boys, who are only described in the Chancery pleadings as ‘the Children of the revells there beinge’, that is to say, at the Whitefriars. And we can trace the King’s Revels a little farther back than February 1608 with the aid of the earliest of similar entries on the title-pages of other plays, which are, in the chronological order of publication, Sharpham’s Cupid’s Whirligig (1607, S. R. 29 June 1607), Middleton’s Family of Love (1608, S. R. 12 October 1607), Day’s Humour Out Of Breath (1608, S. R. 12 April 1608), Markham’s (and Machin’s) The Dumb Knight (1608, S. R. 6 October 1608), and Armin’s Two Maids of Moreclack (1609). If Lewis Machin was the author of the anonymous Every Woman In Her Humour (1609), it is possible that this ought to be added to the list. Clearly the boys were playing at least as early as the first half of 1607 and the agreement of 1608 must represent a reconstruction of the original business organization. I do not find anything in the plays to prove an earlier date than 1607, but it is quite conceivable that the King’s Revels may have come into existence as early as 1606, perhaps with the idea of replacing the Queen’s Revels after their disgrace over The Isle of Gulls. But if so, the Queen’s Revels managed to hold together under another name, and in fact proved more enduring than their rivals. Mr. Fleay, however, suggests that the King’s Revels were a continuation of the Paul’s boys, and played at the singing-school, and apparently also that they were themselves continued as the Duke of York’s men (H. of S. 152, 188, 202, 206). He did not, I think, know of Androwes v. Slater, but Androwes v. Slater does not indicate that the King’s Revels were at Whitefriars before 1608; rather the contrary.[202] The dates render Mr. Fleay’s conjectures tempting, although it must be admitted that there is not much evidence. But The Family of Love was played in a round theatre and the Paul’s house was round. The curious description of the Duke of York’s men at Leicester in 1608 as ‘of the White Chapple, London’, might conceivably be a mistake for ‘of the Whitefriars’, but more probably indicates that they came from the Boar’s Head (cf. ch. xvi). ‘The Children of the Revells’ followed them at Leicester on 21 August 1608, but these may have been the Blackfriars children under a not quite official name. A complete search through the Patent Rolls for 1606–8 might disinter the patent for the King’s Revels, which is referred to in the Articles of Agreements; I find no obvious clue to it in the printed index of signet bills. It seems possible that William Barksted (cf. ch. xv) may have belonged to the King’s Revels.

The syndicate did not hold together long. It will be noticed that, in spite of the attempt in the articles to bar the printing of plays, these had begun to reach the stationers again as early as April 1608. The inhibition of 1608 hardly gave the company a chance, and then came the plague. They were probably broken before the end of 1608, and although Mason and Barry had at least the consolation that they had got their own plays staged, other members of the syndicate could only reflect that they had lost their money. And when dissensions broke out, and Slater sued Androwes on a bond of £200 given by the sharers for observance of the articles, and this for defaults which Androwes himself had not committed, it is not surprising that Androwes drew the conclusion that he had been a gull. He took Slater to Chancery, and alleged that he had been asked £90 and paid £70 for his share in the expectation of a profit of £100 a year, and on the understanding that the apparel was worth £400 when it was not worth £5, that he had been led into building and other expenses to the tune of £300, that the lease had been forfeited for non-payment of rent before any assignation had been made to him, and that he had been clearly told by Slater that his obligation was not to extend beyond any breaches of covenant that he might himself commit. Slater denied any responsibility for Androwes’s misunderstandings, and pointed out that he had himself been the principal sufferer by the breakdown of the enterprise, since he and his family of ten had been illegally turned out of the rooms to which they were entitled under the articles of agreement, and were now driven to beg their bread. The view taken by the court is not upon record.

The company which was described as the King’s Revels at Norwich in 1611 and 1612 was travelling under the Queen’s Revels patent of 1610, and was therefore clearly misnamed. But a second King’s Revels company did in fact come into existence through a licence given to William Hovell, William Perry, and Nathan May under the royal signet on 27 February 1615. It performed only in the provinces, and is traceable at Norwich, Coventry, and Leicester. Its warrant was condemned and withdrawn by an order of the Lord Chamberlain on 16 July 1616 (Murray, ii. 343), and in the following year the company seems to have amalgamated with the provincial relics of the Queen’s Revels.

v. CHILDREN OF BRISTOL

Masters:—John Daniel (1615–17); Martin Slater, John Edmonds, Nathaniel Clay (1618).

A signet bill for a patent for a company of Children of Bristol under the patronage of Queen Anne was passed in June 1615, perhaps as a result of her visit to that city in 1613.[203] On 10 July Sir George Buck wrote to John Packer, the Earl of Somerset’s secretary, to say that the grant had been made through the Queen’s influence on behalf of Samuel Daniel, and that he was prepared to assent to it, without prejudice to his rights as Master of the Revels.[204] The actual patent, dated 13 July, is made out to Daniel’s brother John.[205]

De concessione regardante Iohannem Daniell.

Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices of peace, Mayors, Sheriffes, Bayliffes, Constables, headboroughes and other our lovinge subjectes and Officers greetinge. Knowe yee that wee at the mocion of our most deerelie loved consort the Queene have licenced and authorised, And by theise presentes do licence and authorise, our welbeloved subjectes Iohn Daniell and his Assignes to entertaine and bringe vp a company of children and youthes vunder the name and title of the children of her Maiesties royall Chamber of Bristoll, to vse and exercise the arte and qualitie of playinge Comedies, histories, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes, and such other like, as they have alreadie studied or hereafter shall studie or vse, aswell for the solace and delight of our most derely loved Consort the Queene whensoever they shalbe called, as for the recreacion of our loving Subiectes, And the said Enterludes or other to shewe and exercise publiquely to their best commoditie, aswell in and about our said Citie of Bristoll in such vsuall houses as themselves shall provide, as other convenient places within the liberties and freedomes of any other Cittie, vniversitie, Towne, or Burrowe whatsoever within our Realmes and Dominions, willing and commaundinge you and every of you, as you tender our pleasures, not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without any your lettes, hinderances, molestacions, and disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be aydinge and assistinge vnto them, yf any wronge be done vnto them or to them offred, and to allowe them such further curtesies as have bene given to other of the like qualitie, And alsoe what further grace and favour you shall show vnto them for our sakes wee shall take kindly at your handes. Provided alwaies and our will and pleasure is, all authoritie, power, priviledge, and profitt whatsoever belonginge and properlie apperteyninge to the Maister of the Revelles in respect of his office shall remayne and abide entire and in full force, effect, and vertue, and in as ample sort as if this our Commission had never byn made. In witnes whereof &c., witnes our selfe at Westminster the seaventeenth day of Iuly.