G60 
PLAYHOUSE. 
final cenfure on plays at their firft exhibition is as ancient 
as the time of Shakefpeare; for no lefs than three plays 
of his rival Ben Jonfon appear to have been damned ; 
and Fletcher’s Faithful Shepherdefs, and The Knight 
of the Burning Peltle, written by him and Beaumont, 
underwent the fame fate. 
It is not eafy to afcertain what were the emoluments 
of a fuccefsful «6tor in the time of Shakefpeare. They 
had not then annual benefits as at prefent. The perform¬ 
ers at each theatre feem to have fhared the profits among 
them. From Ben Jonfon’s Poefalter we learn, that one 
of either the performers or proprietors had feven fhares 
and a half. From the prices of admiffion into our ancient 
theatres, which have been already mentioned, we imagine 
the utmoft that the fharers of the Globe playhoufe could 
have received on any one day was about 35 1 . So lately as 
the year 1685, Shadwell received, by his third day on the 
reprefentation of the Squire of Alfatia, 130I. which 
Downes the prompter fays was the greateft receipt that 
had been ever taken at Drury-lane playhoufe at fingle 
prices. It appears from the MSS. of lord Stanhope, trea¬ 
surer of the chambers to king James. I. that the cuftom- 
ary fum paid to John Heminge and his company for the 
performance of a play at court was twenty nobles, or 
61 . 13s. 4-d. And Edward Alleyn mentions in his Diary, 
that he once had fo (lender an audience in his theatre 
called the Fortune, that the whole receipts of the houfe 
amounted to no more than three pounds and fome odd 
(hillings. 
Thus fcanty and meagre were the apparatus and ac¬ 
commodations of our ancient theatres, on which thofe 
dramas were firft exhibited that have (Ince engaged the 
attention of fo many learned men, and delighted fo many 
thoufand fpedtators. Yet even then, we are told by a 
writer of that age, “that dramatic poefy was fo lively 
■ exprefled and reprefented on the public ftages and theatres 
of this city, as Rome in the age of her pomp and glory 
never faw it better performed; in refpedt of the adtion 
and art, not of the colt and fumptuoufnefs.” 
The original fchool, founded by Shakefpeare and Ben 
Jonfon, continued by Maflinger, Beaumont and Fletcher, 
Shirley, Ford, and others, whofe compofitions are diftin- 
guilhed by irregularity as well as genius, was clofed by 
the breaking out of the great civil war in 164.2. The 
ftage had been the conftant objefl of reprobation and ab¬ 
horrence on the part of the Puritans> and its profeffors 
had no favour to expedl at their hands if victorious. We 
read, therefore, with intereft, but without furprife, that 
almoftall the aftors took up arms in behalf of their old 
mailer king Charles, in whofe fervice molt of them pe- 
rifhed. Robinfon, a principal alitor at the Blackfriars, 
was killed by Harrifon in cold blood, and under the ap¬ 
plication of a text of Scripture, “ Curfed is he that doeth 
the work of the Lord negligently.” A few furvivors 
endeavoured occafionally to praCtife their art in fecrecy 
and obfcurity, but were fo frequently difcovered, plun¬ 
dered and (tripped by the foldiers, that “ Enter the Reel 
Coat, Exit Hat and Cloak” was a very frequent ftage-di- 
reCtion. Sir William Davenant endeavoured to evade 
the fevere zealots of the time, by reprefenting (at Rut- 
land-houfe, in Alderfgate-ftreet) a fort of opera, (aid to 
have been the firffc drama in which moveable feenery was 
introduced upon the ftage. Even the cavaliers of the 
more grave fort difapproved of the revival of thefe feltive 
entertainments during the unltable and melancholy pe¬ 
riod of the interregnum. “ I went,” fays the excellent 
Evelyn, in his Diarjq 5th May, 1658, “ to fee a new opera 
after the Italian way ; in recitation, mulic, and feenes, 
much inferior to the Italian compofureand magnificence; 
but it was prodigious that in fuch a time of public con- 
lternation fuch a vanity fhould be kept up or permitted ; 
and, being engaged with company, could not decently 
refill the going to fee it, though my heart fmote me for 
it.” Davenant's theatrical enterprife, abhorred by the 
fanaticifm of the one party, and ill adapted to the dejeCted 
circumftances of the other, was not probably very fuc¬ 
cefsful. 
In the year 1659, about the time that general Monk 
marched with his army out of Scotland towards London, 
Mr. Rhodes, a bookfeller, who had formerly been ward¬ 
robe-keeper to the company which aCted at Blackfriars, 
fitted up the Cockpit in Drury-lane. The aftors he pro¬ 
cured were chiefly new to the Itage; and two of them, 
Betterton and Kynafton, had been his apprentices. About 
the fame time, the few performers who had belonged to 
the old companies affembled, and began to a£t at the Red 
Bull Inn, in St.-John-ftreet; and, from the eagernefs 
with which two patents were foon afterwards obtained 
from the crown, it may be prefumed that they met with 
a confiderable (hare of fuccefs. Sir William Davenant, 
before the civil wars broke out, had been favoured with 
a patent by Charles the Firffc; and therefore his claim to a 
new one was warranted, as well by his former pollelfion 
as by his fervices and fufferings in the royal caufe. The 
other candidate was Henry Killegrew, not Thomas Kille- 
grew as generally fuppofed. See Dibdin’s Hilt, of the 
Stage, vol. iv. p. 22. 
Thus with royalty the ftage revived in England ; but 
the patent theatres in the capital were limited to two, a rejlric- 
tion which has never Jince been extended. This was proba¬ 
bly by the advice of Clarendon, who endeavoured, though 
in vain, to (tern the flood of idle gaiety and diflipation 
which broke in after the Reftoration. The aftors who 
had been employed by Rhodes were foon afterwards 
taken under the protection of fir William Davenant; and 
the remains of the old companies were received by Mr. 
Killigrew; all of them were fworn by the lord chamber- 
lain, as fervants of the crown; the former being Ityled 
the Duke of York’s Company, and the latter that of the 
King. 
Sir William Davenant, to whofe indultry and perfeve- 
rance the ftage has many obligations, led a life chequered 
with various fortunes. He was the fon of John Dave¬ 
nant, a confiderable vintner, who kept the Crown at Ox¬ 
ford; and, as Shakefpeare very frequently called there in 
his journey from London to Warwickfhire, a curious re¬ 
port has prevailed, that, having been pleafed to (how 
great attention to the young vintner when a child, fir 
William owed not only his fuccefs to our great bard’s 
inftrudtions, but ,his being to his gallantry. Other cir¬ 
cumftances were adduced to corroborate this report, and 
among them it was faid that Shakefpeare was his godfa¬ 
ther, and hence he was chriltened William. Nay, he was 
faid to referable him very Itrongly in every feature, but 
particularly about the nofe; but this faft was afterwards 
left undecided, for, Davenant having unfortunately loft 
his nofe, that evidence of Shakefpeare’s incontinence was 
removed out of the way. This report, however, has 
never been much credited; for it has been faid, on the 
contrary, that Mrs. Davenant was a woman of unble- 
milhed reputation, and that Shakefpeare’s civility and at¬ 
tention were no more than a tribute of friendHiip and 
refpeft to her hufband, for whom he had a high opinion 
and regard. See farther particulars of the life of Dave¬ 
nant in our fifth volume. 
The King’s Company, after their removal from the 
Red Bull, performed .in a new-built houfe, firuated in 
Gibbons’s tennis-court. (See the article London, vol. 
xiii. p. 525, 6.) But, this theatre not being well adapted 
for the ufe to which it was appropriated, they were 
obliged to ereft a more convenient one in Drury-lane. 
This latter was finilhed and opened on the 8th of April, 
1663, with Beaumont and Fletcher’s comedy of Tim Hu¬ 
mourous Lieutenant, which was afted for. twelve nights 
fuccelfively. The following is a copy of the Playbill 
which announced the opening of this theatre. It (hows 
the gradual increafe in the prices of admiflion ; and it is 
obfervable befides, that no farces were performed as yet. 
