formances, but the publication of dramas. Playing and printing plays were first entirely suspended; then, the companies of noblemen were allowed to perform, but not without special authority; and, finally, the sign manual, or the names of six of the Privy Council were required to their licenses. The objection stated was, that the plays had a political, not a polemical, purpose. One of the first acts of Mary's government, was to issue a proclamation to put a stop to the performance of interludes calculated to advance the principles of the Reformation; and we may be sure that the play ordered at the coronation of the queen was of a contrary description'. It appears on other authorities, that for two years there was an entire cessation of public dramatic performances; but in this reign the representation of the old Roman Catholic miracle-plays was partially and authoritatively revived. It is not necessary to detail the proceedings in connexion with theatrical representations at the opening of the reign of Elizabeth. At first plays were discountenanced, but by degrees they were permitted; and the queen seems at all times to have derived much pleasure from the services of her own players, those of her nobility, and of the different companies of children belonging to Westminster, St. Paul's, Windsor, and the Chapel Royal. The members of the inns of court also performed “Gorboduc" on 18th January, 1562; and on February 1st, an historical play, under the name of "Julius Caesar," was represented, but by what company is no where mentioned. In 1572 the act was passed (which was renewed with additional force in 1597) to restrain the number of itinerant performers. Two years afterwards, the Earl of Leicester obtained from Elizabeth a patent under the great seal, to enable his players James Burbage, John Perkyn, John Lanham, William Johnson, and Robert Wilson, to perform “comedies, tragedies, interludes, and stage-plays,” in any part of the kingdom, with the exception of the metropolis. 1 See Kempe's "Losely Manuscripts." 1835, p. 61. The warrant for the purpose was under the sign manual, and it was directed to Sir T. Cawarden, as Master of the Revels: We will and command you, upon the sight hereof, forthwith to make and deliver out of our Revels, unto the Gentlemen of our Chapel, for a play to be played before us at the feast of our Coronation, as in times past hath been accustomed to be done by the Gentlemen of the Chapel of our progenitors, all such necessary garments, and other things for the furniture thereof, as shall be thought meet," &c. The play, although ordered for this occasion, viz. 1st Oct. 1553, was for some unexplained reason deferred until Christmas. 2 There is a material difference between the warrant under the privy seal, and the patent under the great seal, granted upon this occasion the former gives the players a right to perform as well within the city of London and liberties of the same " as elsewhere; The Lord Mayor and Aldermen succeeded in excluding the players from the strict boundaries of the city, but they were not able to shut them out of the liberties; and it is not to be forgotten that James Burbage and his associates were supported by court favour generally, and by the pow erful patronage of the Earl of Leicester in particular. Accordingly, in the year after they had obtained their patent, James Burbage and his fellows took a large house in the precinct of the dissolved monastery of the Black Friars, and converted it into a theatre. This was accomplished in 1576, and it is the first time we hear of any building set apart for theatrical representations. Until then the various compa nies of actors had been obliged to content themselves with churches, halls, with temporary erections in the streets, or with inn yards, in which they raised a stage, the spectators standing below, or occupying the galleries that surrounded the open space1. Just about the same period two other edifices were built for the exhibition of plays in Shoreditch, one of which was called "The Curtain," and the other "The Theatre." Both these are mentioned as in existence and operation in 15773. Thus we see that two buildings close to the walls of the city, and a third within a privileged district in the city, all expressly applied to the purpose of stage-plays, were in use almost immediately after the date of the Patent to the players of the Earl of Leicester. It is extremely likely, though we have no distinct evidence of the fact, that one or more play-houses were opened about but the latter (dated three days afterwards, viz. 10 May, 1574) omits this paragraph; and we need entertain little doubt that it was excluded at the instance of the Corporation of London, always opposed to theatrical performances. In 1557 the Boar's Head, Aldgate, had been used for the performance of a drama called "The Sack full of News;" and Stephen Gosson in his "School of Abuse," 1579, (reprinted by the Shakespeare Society) mentions the Belle Savage and the Bull as inns at which particular plays had been represented. R. Flecknae, in his "Short Discourse of the English Stage," appended to his "Love's Kingdom," 1664, says that "at this day is to be seen" that "the inn yards of the Cross-Keys, and Bull, in Grace and Bishopsgate Streets" had been used as theatres. There is reason to believe that the Boar's Head, Aldgate, had belonged to the father of Edward Alleyn. 2 It has been supposed by some, that the Curtain theatre owed its name to the curtain employed to separate the actors from the audience. We have before us documents (which on account of their length we cannot insert) showing that such was probably not the fact, and that the ground on which the building stood was called the Cur tain (perhaps as part of the fortifications of London) before any playhouse was built there. For this information we have to offer our thanks to Mr. T. E. Tomlins of Islington. 3 In John Northbrooke's "Treatise," &c. against "vain plays or interludes," licensed for the press in 1577, the we being then ready and in the printer's hands. It' the same time in Southwark; and we know that the Rose theatre was standing there not many years afterwards'. John Stockwood, a puritanical preacher, published a sermon in 1578, in which he asserted that there were "eight ordinary places" in and near London for dramatic exhibitions, and that the united profits were not less than £2000 a year, at least £12,000 of our present money. Another divine, of the name of White, equally opposed to such performances, preaching in 1576, called the play-houses at that time erected, "sumptuous theatres." No doubt, the puritanical zeal of these divines had been excited by the opening of the Blackfriars, the Curtain, and the Theatre, in 1576 and 1577, for the exclusive purpose of the drama; and the five additional places, where plays, according to Stockwood, were acted before 1578, were most likely a play-house at Newington-butts, or inn-yards, converted occasionally into theatres. An important fact, in connexion with the manner in which dramatic performances were patronized by Queen Elizabeth, has been recently brought to light. It has been hitherto supposed that in 1583 she selected one company of twelve performers, to be called "the Queen's players;" but it seems that she had two separate associations in her pay, each distinguished as "the Queen's players." Tylney, the master of the revels at the time, records, in one of his accounts, that in March, 1583, he had been sent for by her Majesty "to chuse out a company of players:" Richard Tarlton and Robert Wilson were placed at the head of that association, which was probably soon afterwards divided into two distinct bodies of performers. In 1590, John Lanham was the leader of one body, and Lawrence Dutton of the other. 3 1 See the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," (published by the Shakespeare Society) p. 189. It seems that the Rose had been the sign of a house of public entertainment before it was converted into a theatre. Such was also the case with the Swan, and the Hope, in the same neighbourhood. 2 By Mr. Peter Cunningham, in his "Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels," printed for the Shakespeare Society. pp. 32 and 186. The editor's "Introduction " is full of new and valuable information. 3 Tarlton died on 3 Sept. 1588, and we apprehend that it was not until after this date that Lanham became leader of one company of the Queen's Players. Mr. Halliwell discovered Tarlton's will in the Prerogative Office, bearing date on the day of his decease: he there calls himself one of the grooms of the Queen's chamber, and leaves all his "goods, cattels, chattels, plate, ready money, jewels, bonds obligatory, specialties, and debts," to his son Philip Tarlton, a minor. He appoints his mother, Katherine Tarlton, his friend Robert Adams, and his fellow William Johnson, one also of the grooms of her Majesty's chamber," trustees for his son, and executors of his will, which was proved by Adams three days after the death of the testator. As Tarlton says nothing about his wife in his will, we may presume that he was a widower; and of his son, Philip Tarlton, we never hear afterwards. C We have thus brought our sketch of dramatic performances and performers down to about the same period, the year 1583. We propose to continue it to 1590, and to assume that as the period not, of course, when Shakespeare first joined a theatrical company, but when he began writing original pieces for the stage. This is a matter which is more distinctly considered in the biography of the poet; but it is necessary here to fix upon some date to which we are to extend our introductory account of the progress and condition of theatrical affairs. What we have still to offer will apply to the seven years from 1583 to 1590. The accounts of the revels at court about this period afford us little information, and indeed for several years, when such entertainments were certainly required by the Queen, we are without any details either of the pieces performed, or of the cost of preparation. We have such particulars for the years 1581, 1582, 1584, and 1587, but for the intermediate years they are wanting.1 The accounts of 1581, 1582, and 1584, give us the following names of dramatic performances of various kinds exhibited before the Queen: A comedy called Delight. A comedy of Beauty and Love and Fortune. History of Telomo. Ariodante and Genevora. History of Felix and Phi- Five Plays in One. This list of dramas (the accounts mention that others were acted without supplying their titles) establishes that moral plays had not yet been excluded”. The "Game of the Cards" is expressly called "a comedy or moral,” in the accounts of 1582; and we may not unreasonably suppose that "Delight," and "Beauty and Housewifry," were of the same class. "The Story of Pompey," and "Agamemnon and Ulysses," were evidently performances founded upon ancient history, and such may have been the case with "The History of Telomo." 'Love and Fortune" has been called "the play of Fortune" in the account of 1573; and we may feel assured that "Ariodante and Genevora" was the story 66 1 From 1587 to 1604, the most important period as regards Shake. speare, it does not appear that any official statements by the master of the revels have been preserved. In the same way there is an unfortunate interval between 1604 and 1611. 2 One of the last pieces represented before Queen Elizabeth was a moral play, under the title of "The Contention between Liberality and Prodigality," printed in 1602, and acted, as appears by the strong. est internal evidence, in 1600. told by Ariosto, which also forms part of the plot of "Much Ado about Nothing." "The History of Ferrar" was doubtless "The History of Error" of the account of 1577, the clerk having written the title by his ear; and we may reasonably suspect that "Felix and Philiomena" was the tale of Felix and Felismena, narrated in the "Diana" of Montemayor. It is thus evident, that the Master of the Revels and the actors exerted themselves to furnish variety for the entertainment of the Queen and her nobility; but we still see no trace (“Gorboduc" excepted) of any play at court, the materials for which were obtained from the English Chronicles. It is very certain, however, that anterior to 1588 such pieces had been written, and acted before public audiences; but those who catered for the court in these matters might not consider it expedient to exhibit, in the presence of the Queen, any play which involved the actions or conduct of her predecessors. The companies of players engaged in these representations were those of the Queen, the Earls of Leicester, Derby, Sussex, Oxford, the Lords Hunsdon and Strange, and the children of the Chapel Royal and of St. Paul's. About this date the number of companies of actors performing publicly in and near London seems to have been very considerable. A person, who calls himself " a soldier," writing to Secretary Walsingham, in January, 1586,2 tells him, that "every day in the week the players' bills are set up in sundry places of the city," and after mentioning the actors of the Queen, the Earl of Leicester, the Earl of Oxford, and the Lord Admiral, he goes on to state that not fewer than two hundred persons, thus retained and employed, strutted in their silks about the streets. It may be doubted whether this statement is much exaggerated, recollecting the many noblemen who had players acting under 1 Tarlton, who died, as we have already stated, in Sept. 1588, obtained great celebrity by his performance of the two parts of Derrick and the Judge, in the old historical play of The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth." 2 See the original letter in Harleian MSS. No. 286. 3 The manner in which, about this time. the players were bribed away from Oxford is curious, and one of the items in the accounts expressly applies to the Earl of Leicester's servants. We are obliged to the Rev. Dr. Bliss for the following extracts, relating to this period and a little afterwards: 1587 Solut. Histrionibus Comitis Lecestriæ, ut cum suis ludis . XXg (no sum) 1590 Solut. per D. Eedes, vice-cancellarii locum tenentem, quibusdam Histrionibus, ut sine perturbatione et strepitu ab Academia discederent |