[1178] Jeaffreson, i. 259.
[1179] Heath, Epigram 39; Wither, Abuses, i. 1; ii. 3.
[1180] Cf. App. C, No. lix.
[1181] Variorum, iii. 54, 59; Ordish, 106, from Vox Graculi (1623) and Jeaffreson, iii. 164.
[1182] A writer in the Daily News for 9 April 1898 identifies the site of the theatre, without giving any evidence, as ‘between Clock Passage, Newington Butts, Swan Place, and Hampton Street’; cf. 9 N. Q. i. 386.
[1183] App. D, Nos. xlvi, lxxvi, xcii.
[1184] Cf. p. 373.
[1185] C. W. Wallace in N. U. S. xiii. 2, ‘as shown by a contemporary record to be published later’.
[1186] A Woman is a Weathercock, III. iii. 25.
[1187] Rendle, Antiquarian, viii. 60, ‘Among the early Surveys, 1 Edward VI, we see that this was not merely a name—the place was a veritable Rose Garden, and paid £1 3s. 4d. by the year, and the messuage called the Rose paid £4’.
[1188] Close Roll 6 Edw. VI, p. 5, m. 13; cf. Rendle, Bankside, xv; H. P. 1.
[1189] Egerton MS. 2623, f. 13, quoted in Henslowe, ii. 25. But in ii. 43 Dr. Greg misdescribes the Rose as on the west of the Barge, Bell, and Cock.
[1190] Henslowe Papers, 1.
[1191] Ibid. 2.
[1192] Henslowe, i. 209.
[1193] Cf. Dekker, Satiromastix, 1247, ‘th’ast a breath as sweet as the Rose, that growes by the Beare-garden’.
[1194] G. L. Gomme, The Story of London Maps (Geographical Journal, xxxi. 628), ‘1588. Henchley.—Item, we present Phillip Henchley to pull upp all the pylles that stand in the common sewer against the play-house to the stopping of the water course, the which to be done by midsomer next uppon paine of xs yf it be undone. xs (done)’. Wallace, in The Times (1914), says that these records mention the theatre as ‘new’ in April 1588, and show other amercements during the next eighteen years.
[1195] Dr. Greg, in Henslowe, ii. 46, is, I think, successful in showing that all the dated building entries belong to 1592 and not to 1591 or 1593. I suppose the scattered entries with the date ‘1591’ to have been written in first, and the continuous account under the date ‘1592’ added later, probably after Henslowe had changed the year-date in his play-entries, which seems to have been on 6 May.
[1196] Henslowe, i. 7.
[1197] App. D, No. xcii.
[1198] The words ‘Chomley when’ appear with other scribbles by Henslowe on the first page of the diary (Henslowe, i. 217).
[1199] Cf. p. 402.
[1200] Henslowe, i. 4.
[1201] Henslowe, i. 178.
[1202] Ibid. ii. 55.
[1203] Wallace, in The Times (1914).
[1204] Rendle, Bankside, xv, quotes
and adds ‘but when that was, I am not clear’. It reads like Collier.
[1205] I cannot endorse the suggestion of Dr. Martin (cf. p. 378) that the ‘Globe’ of Visscher (1616) was really the Rose. Baker, 165, reproducing a cut from Hollar (1640), also misnames the Globe as the Rose.
[1206] Young, ii. 241.
[1207] Variorum, iii. 56. I should have been happier if Malone had quoted verbatim, but I do not see that Adams, 160, explains away the statement by suggesting that a source for Malone’s ‘error’ is a note on p. 66, where he again cites Herbert for fencing at the Red Bull in 1623.
[1208] E. S. xliii. 341; Index to Remembrancia, 277. It appears from Hatfield MSS. vi. 182, 184, that in May 1596 Langley was concerned in some negotiations about a missing diamond claimed by the Crown; cf. p. 396.
[1209] Printed from a contemporary copy in the Guildhall by W. Rendle in Appendix to Part II of Harrison’s Description of England (N. S. S., 1878) and Adams, 162. The original is held by the steward of the manor.
[1210] App. D, No. cii.
[1211] Cf. p. 361, and for the reliability and value of the record as evidence for the structure and staging of theatres, chh. xviii, xx.
[1212] S. v. L. 352, ‘the said howse was then lately afore vsed to have playes in hit’.
[1213] Ibid., ‘the Defendant should be allowed for the true value thereof out of the Complainantes moytie of the gains for the seuerall standinges in the galleries of the said howse which belonged to them’. As ‘which’ may follow on ‘moytie’, I see no reason for Wallace’s inference (360) that the galleries were structurally divided between the two parties, instead of the takings being shared.
[1214] Cf. ch. xiv (Pembroke’s) and ch. xxii (Nashe).
[1215] S. v. L. 353 (6 Feb. 1598), ‘the said Defendant hath euer synce had his said howse contynually from tyme to tyme exercysed with other players to his great gaines’.
[1216] App. D, No. cxiv.
[1217] App. D, No. cxv.
[1218] App. C, No. lii.
[1219] Cf. p. 362.
[1220] App. D, No. cxxiii.
[1221] Manningham, 130; Gawdy, 93.
[1222] Ch. xxiii (Vennar).
[1223] E. S. xliii. 342.
[1224] Act v, sc. i.
[1225] P. Norman, The Accounts of the Overseers of the Poor of Paris Garden, 1608–71 (1901, Surrey Arch. Colls. xvi. 55), from Addl. MS. 34, 110, and again by C. W. Wallace as a new discovery in E. S. xliii. 390. The amounts are £4 6s. 8d. in 1611, £5 3s. 4d. in 1612, £5 5s. in 1613, £3 0s. 10d. in 1614, 19s. 2d. in 1615, and £3 19s. 4d. in 1621.
[1226] It can hardly have been open at the time of the Watermen’s petition early in 1614 (cf. p. 370).
[1227] Herbert, 63; Variorum, iii. 56. Rendle, in Antiquarian Magazine, vii. 211, notes a ‘licence for T. B. and three assistants to make shows of Italian motion, at the Prince’s Arms, or the Swan’ in 1623; cf. Herbert, 47.
[1228] Cf. p. 376.
[1229] N. U. S. xiii. 279; cf. p. 399.
[1230] Wallace, in The Times (1914), ‘Ac de et in vna domo de novo edificata cum gardino eidem pertinenti in parochia Sci Salvatoris praedicta in comitatu Surria praedicta in occupacione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum’.
[1231] Cf. p. 364.
[1232] A rather fantastic argument of Ordish, 85, for the Curtain on the ground of the martial character of the neighbourhood is answered by Murray, i. 99.
[1233] E. M. O. 4368.
[1234] O. v. H. l. 110.
[1235] O. v. H. l. 99; W. v. H. 313.
[1236] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317.
[1237] W. v. H. 314.
[1238] Century (Aug. 1910), 508; cf. p. 424.
[1239] W. v. H. 314.
[1240] O. v. H. l. 194.
[1241] W. v. H. 319.
[1242] Ibid. 317. Wallace dates the admission of Condell in 1610, but this seems to be an error.
[1243] O. v. H. l. 97; W. v. H. 321.
[1244] Rye, 61, from Relation of Hans Jacob Wurmsser von Vendenheym, ‘Lundi 30 [April 1610] S. E. [Prince Lewis Frederick of Württemberg] alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire ou l’on joue les Commedies, y fut representé l’histoire du More de Venise’; cf. p. 369 on visit of Prince of Hesse-Cassel in 1611.
[1245] W. v. H. 320.
[1246] Stowe, 926. Jonas, 104, cites another record of the date from A. Hopten, A Concordancy of Yeares (1615).
[1247] Birch, James, i. 253.
[1248] L. Pearsall Smith, Letters of Wotton, ii. 32.
[1249] Winwood, iii. 469.
[1250] Arber, iii. 528, ‘Simon Stafford ... a ballad called the sodayne Burninge of the Globe on the Bankside in the Play tyme on Saint Peters day last 1613’; ‘Edward White ... a doleful ballad of the general ouerthrowe of the famous theater on the Banksyde called the Globe &c. by William Parrat’.
[1251] Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, i. 310, ‘from a manuscript of the early part of the seventeenth century, of unquestionable authenticity, preserved in the library of Sir Mathew Wilson, Bart., of Eshton Hall, co. York’. The Eshton Hall collection, originally formed by John Hopkinson in 1660, has recently been sold, with the verses, to Mr. G. D. Smith of New York. The ‘Sonnett’ was first printed [by Joseph Haslewood] in The Gentleman’s Magazine (1816), lxxxvi. 114, ‘from an old manuscript volume of poems and therefrom by Collier, i. 371, and Hazlitt, E. D. S. 225.
[1252] Taylors Water-Works (1614), reprinted as The Sculler (1630, Works, 515), ep. 22 of 3rd series.
[1253] Underwoods, lxii, written later than the Fortune fire of 9 Dec. 1621.
[1254] Histriomastix, 556.
[1255] Birch, James I, i. 329.
[1256] Cf. p. 374.
[1257] W. v. H. 320.
[1258] Ibid. 321.
[1259] A later statement by Shank in the Sharers Papers puts it at £1,400. Heminges describes Witter’s ‘parte’ by a slip as one-sixth instead of one-seventh of the moiety. If the £120 was one-twelfth of the total cost, his figure (£1,440) would agree with that of Shank. Professor Wallace says in The Times of 2 Oct. 1909, ‘This amount is in fact excessive.... I have other contemporary documents showing the cost was far less than £1,400.’
[1260] W. v. H. 323; Wallace in The Times (1914).
[1261] O. v. H. ll. 245 sqq.
[1262] Lambert, Shakespeare Documents, 87.
[1263] W. v. H. 323.
[1264] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 312.
[1265] Cf. ch. xi. There was a much rougher type of audience at the Globe; cf. Shirley, Prologue at the Globe, to his Comedy called ‘The Doubtful Heir’, which should have been presented at the Blackfriars, quoted in Variorum, iii. 69.
[1266] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars).
[1267] Wallace in The Times (1914). Bodley seems to have acquired a dubious title to hold the land in his own right in 1608, raised a fine of £20 for recognizing the players’ lease in 1609, and a fine of £2 on Heminges for leave to build his taphouse in 1615. Matthew Brend recovered the property through the Court of Wards, after the end of his minority, in 1622.
[1268] Rendle, Bankside, xvii, from Southwark Vestry Papers. Brend was knighted in 1622.
[1269] Cf. p. 374. Wallace, in The Times (1914), makes Matthew Brend’s lease end on 25 Dec. Yet he puts the destruction after the expiration of the lease.
[1270] Stowe, Survey, ii. 58.
[1271] Martin, 158.
[1272] Stopes, Burbage, 196; Martin, 169; from Close Roll, 3 Car. I, pt. 23, m. 22.
[1273] Martin, 174.
[1274] A. Hayward, Autobiography of Mrs. Piozzi, ii. 33.
[1275] History of St. Saviour’s (1795), 231.
[1276] T. Pennant, London (1791), 60, ‘A little west of S. Mary Overies (in a place still called Globe Alley) stood the Globe.... I have been told that the door was very lately standing’; Concanen and Morgan, 224, ‘Several of the neighbouring inhabitants remember these premises being wholly taken down about fifty years ago, having remained for many years in a very ruinous state: avoided by the young and superstitious as a place haunted by those imaginary beings called evil spirits’.
[1277] Martin, 165, 177. It is probably a mere coincidence that John Knowles held a garden next the Globe site in 1599.
[1278] Rendle, Bankside, xix; Antiquarian, viii. 216.
[1279] Chalmers, Apology (1797), 114, ‘I maintain, that the Globe was situated on the Bank, within eighty paces of the river, which has since receded from its former limits; that the Globe stood on the site of John Whatley’s windmill, which is at present used for grinding colours; as I was assured by an intelligent manager of Barclay’s brewhouse, which covers, in its ample range, part of Globe Alley; and that Whatley’s wind mill stands due south from the western side of Queenhythe by the compass, which I set for the express purpose of ascertaining the relative bearings of the windmill to the opposite objects on the Thames’; W. Wilson, History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches (1814), iv. 148, 175, ‘In former days there stood here [in Globe Alley] a theatre called the “Globe”.... Near to this place stood the meeting-house.... Its dissolution took place about the year 1752.... It is at present used for warehousing goods. A mill was also erected over it for the purpose of grinding bones’; R. Wilkinson, Londina Illustrata (1819), i. 135, ‘Upon the disuse of the theatre, its site ... was formed into a meeting-house.... Afterwards a mill was erected here to grind bones; and it is at present appropriated for the purpose of grinding stones and similar materials’. The plan, however, which accompanies Wilkinson’s text, assigns the theatre to an improbable site some way west of the meeting-house. The Globe Alley meeting-house was built in 1672; it appears in a list of 1683, and is marked on Rocque’s map of 1746 on Rendle’s favourite site. Wilson only says the meeting-house was near the Globe; Wilkinson identifies the sites. Chalmers mentions the windmill, but not the meeting-house. I may add that a line drawn south from the west of Queenhithe would pass west of any possible site for the Globe. Malone’s ‘nearly opposite to Friday Street, Cheapside’ (Variorum, iii. 63) can also only be approximate.
[1280] Cf. facsimile from token-book in Martin, 157.
[1281] Concanen and Morgan, History of St. Saviour’s (1795), 224, ‘It was situated in what is now called Maid lane; the north side and building adjoining, extending from the west side of Counter-alley to the north side of the passage leading to Mr. Brook’s cooperage; on the east side beyond the end of Globe-alley, including the ground on which stood the late parish workhouse, and from thence continuing to the south end of Mr. Brook’s passage. Under this building was Fountain-alley, leading from Horseshoe-alley into Castle-lane.’ This account appears to make the site extend farther north than Dr. Martin allows for, right up, indeed, to Maid Lane.
[1282] Plan of 1810 in R. Taylor, Londina Illustrata, ii. (1825) 136; plan of 1818 in Taylor, Annals of St. Mary Overy (1833), 140.
[1283] Martin, 171. One cannot lay much stress upon hearsay locations of the site by employees of the brewery (Martin, 183), or the discovery of underground staging still farther south than Dr. Martin’s site on a spot which in 1599 must have been well within Winchester Park (Martin, 201), or of a stone inscribed ‘[T]heayter’, just south of Globe Alley (Martin, 184).
[1284] Martin, 164.
[1285] A Clink poor relief assessment of 1609 (Collier, Alleyn Memoirs, 91; Warner, 49) shows two names, each assessed for ‘halfe the parke’; this would hardly be the Bishop’s. The token-books also show persons resident in the park, but here the order of the entries points to a locality south of Maiden Lane, near the gate of the Bishop’s Park (11 N. Q. xii. 143).
[1286] Wallace in The Times (1914). Dr. Martin explains (11 N. Q. xii. 161) that, in order to conduct their patrons from Bankside to the play-house south of Maiden Lane, ‘the owners of the Globe had erected a bridge over the ditches and quagmire of Maid Lane’.
[1287] Dr. Wallace says that all these records were made by the Commissioners ‘in dealing with the property of Brend and others on the north side’ of Maiden Lane. But there is no reference to ‘the north side’ in the actual record. Bingham had, and Sellers may have had, more than one plot in the neighbourhood.
[1288] Cf. p. 379.
[1289] R. I. B. A. Journal, 3rd series, xvii. 26.
[1290] Halliwell-Phillipps (Calendar of Shakespeare Rarities, 81) had a document of 1653 concerning a sewer ‘in Maide Lane nere the place where the Globe play-house lately stood’, which he considered as establishing the exact locality of the theatre. It is probably now in America.
[1291] Cf. p. 436.
[1292] I ought not to have suggested in The Stage of the Globe, 356, that the first Globe might have been rectangular.
[1293] Variorum, iii. 67.
[1294] Henslowe Papers, 14; Henslowe, ii. 56.
[1295] Henslowe Papers, 16.
[1296] Ibid. 25.
[1297] Ibid. 108.
[1298] Printed by W. W. Greg, Henslowe Papers, 4, from Dulwich Muniments, 22; also in Variorum, iii. 338, and Halliwell-Phillipps, Illustrations, 81; Outlines, i. 304.
[1299] Quarterly Review, ccviii. 442; Architectural Review, xxiii. 239. Models by Mr. Godfrey are at the Columbia and Illinois Universities (Adams, 277). M. W. Sampson has pointed out in M. L. N. for June 1915 (cited by Adams, 279) that the passage in The Roaring Girl (1611), i. 1, where Sir Alexander Weargrave displays his house to his friends, is really a description of the Fortune when ‘Within one square a thousand heads are laid’.
[1300] Henslowe Papers, 25.
[1301] Ibid. 11.
[1302] App. D, Nos. cxvii, cxviii, cxxi, cxxii, cxxiv.
[1303] Cf. ch. viii and App. D, No. cl.
[1304] Henslowe Papers, 110.
[1305] Cf. ch. xi.
[1306] Henslowe Papers, 64.
[1307] Ibid. 25.
[1308] Ibid. 27.
[1309] Birch, James I, ii. 270.
[1310] Cf. ch. xi.
[1311] Birch, James I, ii. 280.
[1312] Young, ii. 225.
[1313] Henslowe Papers, 28.
[1314] Cf. App. I. It is this second house that is represented as a small angular flagged building in the ‘Ryther’ maps.
[1315] Fortnightly Review (May 1916).
[1316] W. J. Lawrence in Archiv (1914), 301; cf. p. 520.
[1317] Adams, 284, gives the history of the Fortune during 1621–49.
[1318] A Boar’s Head on the Bankside, which belonged to Henslowe in 1604 and previously to Alleyn (Henslowe, ii. 30), was apparently not an inn.
[1319] E. Gayton, Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot (1654), 277, ‘Sir John of famous memory; not he of the Boares Head in Eastcheap’. Neither the text nor the stage-directions of Henry IV name the Boar’s Head; but the references to Eastcheap (1 Hen. IV, I. ii. 145, 176; II. iv. 16, 485; 2 Hen. IV, II. i. 76; II. ii. 161) are sufficient, and when Prince Hal asks (2 Hen. IV, II. ii. 159) ‘Doth the old boar feed in the old frank?’, Bardolph answers, ‘At the old place, my lord, in Eastcheap’. Doll Tearsheet (II. iv. 250) calls Falstaff a ‘whoreson little tidy Bartholomew boar-pig’.
[1320] Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 258. Harben, 88, however, suggests that the name was transferred to this house from another on the north side of Great Eastcheap in St. Clement’s.
[1321] Stowe, Survey, i. 126; ii. 72. I suppose the inn is identical with the ‘Blue Bore Inne’ marked by Ogilby (1677). The site is at No. 30 on the north of Aldgate High Street (Harben, 87).
[1322] Dasent, vi. 168.
[1323] App. D, No. cxxx. The description of this letter in the Index to Remembrancia, 355, as referring to ‘the Boar’s Head in Eastcheap’ has proved misleading.
[1324] App. D, Nos. cxxv, cxxix, cxxxv.
[1325] Cf. ch. xiii (Anne’s).