176 
at least as the mild righteousness of this passage, despite Eliza- : 5 
beth’s absolute law against criticism of the state in public plays, _ 
CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
Under these conditions of course the public theatres were not 
and could not be “followed” as formerly. 
of grief to the “common stages,’’* as people now, since the new 
fashion, were calling the public theatres, whose cause Shakespeare 
champions, lay in this “aerie” of “little eyases’”* that the Queen- 
care was fledging. 
The rivalry is not with inferior children-actors, but with a 
company of boys whose unquestioned excellence receives the gen- 
into the country March 12,160[1]-2. 
They returned to London and re- 
newed acting Aug. 17, 1602 (idem, 
179). 
Strolling players; of course, had 
been in earlier stage-history per- 
mitted to wander at will. But 
Shakespeare cannot have these in 
mind, for the law of 1597 (supra, 
152°) put a stop to this by the 
regulating control of noble patron- 
age. Besides, the satire on the 
Children and. theatrical conditions 
could not have had point in refer- 
ence to this earlier period. The 
company to which Shakespeare be- 
longed traveled in 1593, 1594, 1597, 
but not again, it seems, prior to the 
Hamlet presentations at the univer- 
sities. (See Sidney Lee, A Life of 
William Shakespeare, 5th edition, 
1905, 40, for list, from which, how- 
ever, this last item is omitted). 
No -company traveled except 
when its profits in London were un- 
satisfactory. For this condition at 
the present period, the Blackfriars 
stands as the cause. 
In only two plays does Shake- 
speare mention strolling players,— 
in Hamlet (1601-2) and The Tam- 
ing of the Shrew (1602?), just at 
the time when the Queen’s pur- 
poses were bearing bitter fruit for 
the public theatres. 
*The practice of so calling them 
originated in the Queen’s orders 
through the Privy Council in dif- 
ferentiation from Blackfriars. (See 
supra, 156-57.) 
Jonson in The Case is Altered, 
II, iv, (at Blackfriars ca. Sept.— 
Oct., 1597) uses “common theatres” 
and “public theatre” in a long and 
sharp satire on the sort of audi- 
ences frequenting them. In Cyn- 
thia’s Revels, Induction (ca. April, 
1600), he uses “common stages” 
and “public theatre” opprobriously. 
Doubtless the frequenters of the- 
atres made the same distinction ;— 
conveying thereby the stigma of din- 
feriority that Shakespeare here dis- 
relishes. 
But “common” in reference to 
plays in the sense of “ordinary” or 
“usual” is found very early. £. g., 
in 1552, Bishop of London Bonner 
issued to the clergy an order pro- 
hibiting in churches “all manner of 
common plays, games, or inter- 
ludes” &c. (See E. Malone, Shake- 
speare Variorum, ed. Boswell, 1821, 
III, 45). But no opprobrium seems 
to attach to the word then as is laid 
upon it later in distinguishing 
Blackfriars and _ public theatres. 
Examples of this earlier inoffensive 
use in application to plays, games, 
etc., are numerous even in official 
papers prior to 1597. But the op- 
probrious sense of both “common” 
and “public” applied to theatres 
dates from that year. f 
*The terms “aerie”’ (eagles- 
nest) and “eyases” (eaglets) ap- 
plied to the Queen’s establishment 
present in a single view actors and 
supporter. There is conveyed also 
the sense of security of position 
against all interference. See fur- 
ther on this meaning under “aerie,” 
The New English Dictionary (ed. 
Murray). Compare also “her mai- 
290 
The immediate source 
=~ 
