Government regulation of Elizabethan drama

Front matter

Jjriivfi-R'sirv

Preys'

*

Preface

In preparing this essay I have, of course, obtained many suggestions from the well-known works of Collier, Fleay, and Ordish, and especially from Mr. Chambers' admirable Mediaeval Stage and Tudor Revels, which, in the portion of my field that they cover, have been of great use to me. So far as possible, I have based my work on the official documents of the time, in the form in which they appear in the authoritative governmental collections, such as the Statutes of the Realm and the Acts of the Privy Council. But in many instances, of course, I have had to use transcripts and excerpts made by independent scholars.

In the case of quotations of any considerable length, I have endeavored, so far as I could, to reproduce the spelling used in my source. I cannot pretend, however, that there is the slightest consistency in the usage found in my various documents ; for the methods of transcribers vary greatly, — ranging from Mr. Kelly's apparently exact reproductions of the Leicester Records, showing every curl and abbreviation, to such forms as some of Collier's, which are quite modern in spelling save for the interjection of an occasional final e, and to the entirely modernized versions, such as Birch's Charters. From the point of view of my subject, fortunately, this matter is of small importance.

All dates I have expressed in the new style, except in the case of direct quotations. In these few instances the reader should bear in mind that according to the old style the year began on March 25.

I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor William Allan Neilson, of Harvard University, who first suggested to me an investigation into some of the social conditions surrounding the theaters of Shakspere's day, and to the inspiration of whose teaching I owe much. My thanks are due also to Professor William W. Lawrence, of Columbia University, for suggestions,

VI

and to Professor John W. Cunliffe, of the University of Wisconsin, for his kindness in assisting me to procure some material. I am chiefly indebted, however, to Professor Ashley H. Thorndike, of Columbia University, who has aided me with constant advice and kindly encouragement, and, from his wide and minute knowledge of the Elizabethan drama, has contributed to my essay many valuable suggestions.

Columbia University, March, 1908.

Contents

PACE

Introduction i

CHAPTER

Introduction

The following study has grown out of an investigation into the conditions surrounding the Elizabethan theaters and the characteristics of the people who attended them. In endeavoring to secure some light on Shakspere's audience, I was led to investigate the standing of players and playhouses in the eyes of the law. Since the facts concerning the government regulation of the drama under the Tudors and the early Stuarts have apparently never been collected in complete and orderly form, — though they have been incidentally treated in various books, — it seemed to me worth while to attempt an account of the laws and regulations, national and local, which affected the drama during this important period of its history.

The results of such an investigation have considerable historical and sociological interest. They illustrate the political and religious controversies following the Reformation, when the still primitive drama was a dangerous controversial weapon. They bring us into touch with the economic and social unrest in the days when multitudes of "rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars" roamed through the country, and the memorable Poor Laws of Elizabeth made the first serious attempt to grapple with this problem, — laws which mentioned strolling "players in their interludes" among many other varieties of "masterless" vagabonds. We see, too, the economic system of monopolies, so widespread under Elizabeth and James, applied to the stage, in the granting to certain favored companies of players royal patents which gave them practically the exclusive right to perform. From the point of view of constitutional history it is interesting to note the development of the Tudor and Stuart B l despotism, — the gradual extension of royal power and the overriding of the rights of local self-government ; so that finally, instead of regulation of plays by municipal and shire authorities, we find an officer of the King's household, the Master of the King's Revels, endowed with absolute licensing power over plays, players, and playhouses throughout the kingdom. .

Of more concrete interest is the long controversy over plays in London, with edicts and counter-edicts from the royal Council and the municipal government. In miniature we see here the same conflict as in the civil war which was soon to come, — a spirit of Puritanism and love of civil liberty encountering the increasingly autocratic power of the royal government. This long controversy over the stage is supposed to have helped inflame the Puritans with hatred of the Court and of royal despotism. They were forced to subside for a time, to submit to royal encroachment upon their liberties; but in 1642 and the years that followed they obtained their revenge upon players and Court alike.

In the course of the controversy we gain also an interesting glimpse of the illogical irregularities of the English governmental system, the complicated and confused organization which the government of London had gradually developed, with its uncertain jurisdiction, its privileged persons and places, its laws which might or might not be enforced, its strange relics of guild rights and ecclesiastical exemptions.

From the literary point of view such a study of laws and ordinances is of course valuable only in so far as it throws light on the history of the stage during this golden age. Patents and laws regulating the licensing of plays may be dull reading in themselves, but it is interesting to watch the pen of the censor rigorously expurgating pages of the plays submitted to him, and to speculate on the different lines the drama might have followed had it been free to treat all subjects at will. By far the most striking aspect of the study, however, is the acquaintance it gives us with the actual conditions surrounding the theaters of Shakspere's day, when the Lord Mayor endeavored to suppress them as resorts where the "basest sort of people" rioted and plotted " most ungodly conspiracies," and as abominations which drew down upon the city the wrath of God. Through the maze of conflicting regulations and protesting letters one can catch vivid glimpses of that strange audience for whom Shakspere wrote, — ranging from the noblemen of the Essex conspiracy, who met at the Globe, including the brilliant figure of the young Earl of Southampton, a daily frequenter of the playhouses, down to the rabble of apprentices, vagabonds, and cutpurses who rioted in the pit, to the scandal of all peaceful citizens.

In the essay which follows I have partially abandoned the usual chronological plan, in order to obtain a clearer and more unified view of the development of the different aspects of legislation and regulation. I shall deal first with the general regulation of the drama by the central government, through parliamentary statutes, royal proclamations, council orders, and patents, applying to the country at large. This includes the laws and patents concerning the status of players and the licensing of them, the licensing of playhouses, and, in general outline, the development of the power of censorship. The succeeding section traces the rise of the Master of the Revels from mere manager of court entertainments to regulator of the drama throughout the kingdom, the growth and exercise of his very extensive powers of licensing players, playhouses, and plays. Following this is a fairly minute study of the nature of that censorship of which the Master was the official administrator, as it appears in the expurgations he made, and in the cases when players or playwrights were disciplined for indiscretions. The next two chapters give a somewhat detailed account of the local regulations in London, especially of the long and bitter strife between a municipal government trying to keep plays out of the city and royal authority endeavoring to have them admitted. With details of dramatic regulation in other parts of England I have not attempted to deal. The period is finally and definitely closed by the victory of the Puritan movement. This had caused bitter attacks on the stage during most of the Elizabethan era, and it culminated at last in the Ordinances of the Long Parliament in 1642, 1647, and 1648, prohibiting all theatrical performances whatsoever.

CHAPTER I National Regulation

Before investigating the more interesting details of administrative history in London during the golden years of the Elizabethan age, it is essential to survey the general regulation of the drama by the national government throughout our period, until 1642; that is, to consider such statutes, orders, proclamations, and patents as emanated from royal and parliamentary authority and applied to the kingdom at large. It is convenient to consider such legislation under three general heads, as it concerned itself with the licensing of plays, the licensing of players, or the licensing of playing places. The licensing of plays was the first to receive serious consideration from the government, and may conveniently be treated first.

The licensing of plays evidently involved two questions, — when they should be allowed, and what they should contain. Sometimes they were suppressed altogether; sometimes merely their content was restricted, — they were censored. The exercise of the censorship in London under Elizabeth and the early Stuarts will be treated in detail in a later chapter. We have here to consider the general history of the censoring power from the beginning of the Tudor period until the Civil War.

When Henry VII ascended the throne in 1485, the drama was already flourishing in England. Mysteries were being performed in many towns and parishes, and moralities were common. Noblemen kept among their retainers companies of professional players, and the King himself had a company in his household.1 But in spite of all this dramatic activity, apparently no necessity for governmental censorship was yet felt. The regulation of plays seems to have been attended to

1 Sec below, pp. 22-23.

I satisfactorily enough by the local civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Not until the troubles of the Reformation and the policies of Henry VIII began to arouse a spirit of revolt among the people, did the royal government feel that there was anything to fear from the content of plays. Then it became evident that the religious nature of the drama at this time, coupled with the religious nature of the questions in dispute, made the stage a peculiarly dangerous weapon.

According to most stage historians, a proclamation in 1533 V attempted to regulate the content of plays. It forbade, we are told, all evil-disposed persons to preach, either in public or private, "after their own brains, and by playing of interludes and printing of false, fond books, ballads, rhymes, and other lewd treatises in the English tongue, concerning doctrines in matters now in question and controversy." . Were this authentic, it would be the earliest formal pronouncement concerning censorship. But no such edicl was issued in 1533. This proclamation, as may be seen by a comparison of the phrasing, was that promulgated by Queen Mary on August 18, 1553.1 Warton, in his History of English Poetry,2 by a slip, mentioned the document as having been issued in 1533, describing it as I have quoted above and citing Foxe's Martyrologie as his authority. But Foxe mentions no such edict in 1533. He does, however, on the page referred to by Warton,3 give at length Mary's proclamation of 1553. Historians of the stage, following Warton's statement, have continued this error.4

Though no formal censoring regulation of this sort was made at this early date, the drama was already being used for controversial purposes. Even in 1526 Wolsey had felt obliged to defend himself against the political attacks of a play at Gray's Inn, John Roo's morality of Lord Govemaunce and Lady Publike-Wele.5 In the religious controversy it is interesting to note how, under royal sanction, the stage was being employed as a weapon on both sides, as the policy of the Crown changed.

1 See below, p. 10.

3 Martyrologie (1576 edition), 1339.

* Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, I, 119; Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, II, 220.

* Chambers, op. cit., II, 192, 219.

The royal Defender of the Faith smiled at first on dramas in support of the Papacy. In 1527 there is record of a play by the St. Paul's boys before ambassadors from France, on the captivity of the Pope, in which the "herretyke Lewtar" was a character; and in 1528 comedies were acted before Wolsey on the release of the Pope, — also orthodox, no doubt.1 But in 1533, the year of Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn, we note a change. A comedy was acted at Court in that year "to the no little defamation of certain cardinals";2 and in 1537 much offense was given to Bishop Gardiner, the Chancellor of Cambridge University, by the performance at Christ's College of a "tragedie," part of which was "soo pestiferous as were intolerable"— no less a play than the famous anti-papal Pammachius itself.3 The high officials of church and state now seem to have encouraged the use of interludes to spread the Protestant doctrine. There is evidence that Cromwell, especially, found the stage a convenient weapon in the Protestant cause;4 and Cranmer was apparently in sympathy with this policy, for in 1539 there was an interlude at his house which a Protestant described as "one of the best matiers that ever he sawe touching King John," and which may have been John Bale's famous play.5 When thus used to support views favored by the Crown, the controversial drama was graciously approved. But as the spirit of revolt spread through the country, the government discovered that plays could be used also as a weapon of attack by the opponents of the royal policy. In 1537 it was found necessary to prohibit games and unlawful assemblies in Suffolk, on account of a "seditious May-game," which was "of a king, how he should rule his realm," and in which "one played Husbandry, and said many things against gentlemen more than was in the book of the play." 8 A more serious case of seditious use of the drama occurred in York about the same time (the exact date is unknown). We learn of it from a letter written by Henry VIII to some Justice of the Peace in York,7 regarding the "late evil and seditious

'Chambers, Mediaval Stage, II, 2x9-220. ' Ibid., II, 220. s Ibid.

* Ibid. » Ibid., 221. c Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, XII, 557, 585. 7 Printed in a translation from the original Latin in Halliwell-Phillipps, Letters 0/ the Kings 0/ England, I, 354.

rising" in that city at the performance of a " religious interlude of St. Thomas the Apostle." The King has been informed that the disorder was due to the seditious conduct of certain papists who took part in preparing for the interlude, and he exhorts the Justice to prevent any such commotion in future, and gives him authority to arrest and imprison "any papists who shall, in performing interludes which are founded on any portions of the Old or New Testament, say or make use of any language which may tend to excite those who are beholding the same to any breach of the peace."

The passage, in 1539, of the Act abolishing Diversity in Opinions, which reasserted the doctrine of transubstantiation, communion in one kind, the celibacy of the clergy, monastic vows, private masses, and auricular confession, marked Henry's reaction against Protestantism, and was followed by persecution of the unorthodox. One Spencer, an ex-priest who had become an interlude-player, was burned at Salisbury for "matter concerning the sacrament of the altar";1 and in London a man was " presented for procuring an interlude to be openly played, wherein priests were railed on and called knaves." 2

Such cases as these led to the first legislation concerning the content of plays, — an important step in the history of governmental censorship. (This was the Statute 34 and 35 Henry VIII, cap. 1, passea in 1543, and entitled "An act for the advancement of true religion and for the abolishment of the contrary." 3 With the drama it deals only incidentally. It condemns Tyndale's translation of the Bible and other unorthodox writings, and orders the suppression of anything conflicting with the doctrines authorized by the King. Seditious people, the act states, have tried to subvert the true doctrine not only by sermons, "but allso by prynted bokes, prynted^balades, jplayes, rymes, songes, and other fantasies." Any of these conflicting with the authorized religion are to be "abolished, extinguished, and forbidden." j But the act shows no trace of the later Puritan disapprovatof plays as such ; seditious matter in them it condemns, but their use for proper ends it expressly approves. ( It provides

1 Chambers, Medieval Stage, II, 221. * Ibid.

3 Statutes of the Realm, III, 894.

that "it shalbe lawfull to all and everye prsone and prsones, to sette foorth songes, plaies and enterludes, to be used and exercysed within this Realme and other the kinges Domynions, for the rebuking and reproching of vices and the setting foorth of vertue : so allwaies the saide songes, playes or enterludes meddle not with interpretacions of Scripture, contrarye to the doctryne set foorth or to be sett foorth by the Kinges Majestic '}

Any one accused of spreading unorthodox views in such ways is to be tried before any two of the King's Council or the Ordinary of the diocese (i.e. the bishop sitting in ecclesiastical court), and two Justices of the Peace of the same shire where the Ordinary sits, or before any other person especially appointed for the purpose. Such censorship as there was, was therefore in the hands of these officials.

With the accession of Edward VI, in 1547, royal approval turned again to extreme Protestantism. But during this reign there was, nevertheless, much difficulty in keeping plays within proper bounds. We find at the very outset that the actors were not held in good discipline. On February 5, 1547, the Bishop of Winchester wrote to the Lord Protector, requesting his interference to thwart the Southwark players' project for a "solemn play" during his memorial services for the late King, "to trye who shall have most resorte, they in game, or I in ernest." x Protestant dramas were now written and encouraged by those high in authority. Edward VI, according to Bale, wrote a comedy De Meretrice Babylonica, John Foxe, the martyrologist, a Christus Triumphans, and Bale himself was of course the chief Protestant writer of controversial plays.2 In 1551 the English comedies "in demonstration of contempt for the Pope" were reported by the Venetian Ambassador to his government.3 - It was now the Catholic interludes which needed suppression ; and so serious was the danger of sedition from this source, that on August 6, 1549, there was issued a royal proclamation prohibiting English plays altogether for the next three months. "For asmuche as a greate number of those that be common

Plaicrs of Enterludes and Plaics," the edict recites, "as well within the citie of London, as els where within the realme, do for the moste pari plaie suche Interludes' as contain matter tendyng to sedicion and contempnyng of sundcry good orders and lawes, where upon are growen, and daily are like to growe and ensue, muche disquiet, division, tumultes, and uproares in this realme; the Kynges Maiestie . . . straightly chargeth and commaundeth al and every his Maiesties subjectes . . . that from the ix day of this present moneth of August untill the feast of all Sainctes ncxte comming, thei ne any of them, openly or secretly plaie in the English tongue any kynde of Interlude, Plaie, Dialogue or other matter set furthe in forme of Plaie in any place publique or private within this realme, upon pain that whosoever shall plaie in Englishe any such Play, Interlude, or other matter, shall suffre imprisonment, and further punishment at the pleasure of his Maiestie." ! — "

The Act of Uniformity, passed by Parliament in the same year, 1549 (2 and 3 Edward VI, cap. 1), forbade interludes containing anything ''depraving and despising" the Book of Common Prayer.2

Serious trouble with the drama evidently continued, for on April 28, 1 55 1, another royal proclamation dealt with plays, and made the first attempt to establish a definite system of censorship. The avowed purpose of the edict is the "reformacion of Vagabondes, tellers of newes, sowers of seditious rumours, players, and printers without license & divers other disordred persons." It inveighs at length against sedition, unfaithfulness to the true religion, and lawbrcaking, and commands magistrates to enforce the statutes. Devisers of rumors and tales touching his Majesty are to be punished. No one is to print, sell, or distribute anything in English without the written permission of the King or the Privy Council, on pain of imprisonment and fine. Finally, a regulation similar to this one concerning the licensing of printing, is made concerning the censoring of plays : V Xor that any common players or other persons, vpon like paines, to play in thenglish tong, any maner Enterlude, play or mattre, without they have special licence to shew

1 Hazlitt, English Drama, 8. 2 Statutes of the Realm, IV, pt. i, 38.

for the same in writing vnder his maiesties signe, or signed by .vi. of his highnes priuie counsaill." ' J

It was impossible, of course, for the Privy Council to exercise this censorship with any thoroughness throughout the kingdom ; but in some cases they certainly acted. In June, 1551, for example, the Council apparently considered that even noblemen's players should not perform before their masters without special leave, for they granted the Marquis of Dorset permission to have his players play "only in his lordship's presence." 2 And in June, 1552, it appears that they had ordered a "cowper" shut up in the Tower "for the making of plays." 3

With Mary's accession, in 1553, the pendulum swung again. At the very commencement of her reign a morality called Respublica was represented at Court, which was bitterly anti-Protestant in sentiment, and introduced the Queen herself in the character of Nemesis.4 On the occasion, also, of her marriage with Philip, there were Catholic interludes and pageants.5 Her realization of the danger from the use of the same weapon by her enemies to stir up Protestant revolt is shown in the long and interesting proclamation of August 18, 1553.6 This declares that the Queen favors the Roman Catholic doctrine, but that she will not at present compel her subjects to accept it. She commands them, however, not to stir up any sedition or any disputes about these matters. Among methods of arousing revolt printing and playing again appear prominently.

" And furthermore, forasmuche also as it is well knowen, that sedition and false rumours haue bene nouryshed and maynteyned in this realme, by the subteltye and malyce of some euell disposed persons, whiche take vpon them withoute sufficient auctoritie, to preache, and to interprete the worde of God, after theyr owne brayne, in churches and other places, both publique and pryuate. And also by playinge of Interludes and pryntynge false fonde bookes, ballettes, rymes, and other lewde treatises in the englyshe tonge, concernynge doctryne in matters now in question and controuersye, touchinge the hyghe poyntes and misteries

1 Hazlitt, English Drama, O-14.

2 Acts of the Privy Council, III, 307. s Ibid., IV, 73.

* Printed in Brandl, Quellen des weltlkhen Dramas in England. 1 Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, II, 223.

• Printed in full in Hazlitt, English Drama, 15-18.

of christen religion. . . . Her highnes therfore strayghtly chargeth and commaundeth all and every her sayde subiectes . . . that none of them presume from henceforth to preache . . . or to interprete or teache any scriptures, or any maner poyntes of doctryne concernynge religion. Neythcr also to prynte any bookes, matter, ballet, ryme, interlude, processe or treatyse, nor to playe any interlude, except they haue her graces speciall licence in writynge for the same, vpon payne to incurre her highnesse indignation and displeasure."

In this provision for royal license and censorship no express mention is made, as in Edward's proclamation of 1551, of the license by six of the Privy Council as alternative to the royal permission. But it was evidently through the Council that the royal authority was exercised. In spite of the proclamation, troubles with plays were frequent, and we find the Council vigilantly interfering in various parts of the country. In 1556 and 1557 the difficulties seem to have grown acute. On February 14, 1556, the Privy Council ordered Lord Rich, the Lord Lieutenant of Essex, to stop and investigate a play about to be given in that county, and report to the Council.1 In the following April they directed the Lord President of the North to suppress a company of players who had "wandered abowt the North partes, and represented certaine playes and enterludes, conteyning very naughty and seditious matter touching the King and Quene's Mau and the state of the realme, and to the slaunder of Christe's true and Catholik religion, contrary to all good ordre, and to the manifest contempt of Allmighty God, and daungerous example of others." The Council directed the Lord President of the North to give orders to all the Justices of the Peace within his rule that "they doo in no wyse suffer any playes, enterludes, songues, or any suche lyke pastymes whereby the people may any wayes be steryd to disordre, to be used by any manner p'sonnes, or under any coulour or pretence." 2 It is evident from this that, in spite of the proclamation limiting the licensing power to the Crown, the actual exercise of censorship, the responsibility of determining whether any play contained seditious

1 Acts of the Privy Council, V, 234, 237.

1 Letter printed in Lodge, Illustrations, I, 212-213.

or heretical matter, rested with the Justices of the Peace and other local officials.

In May there is another mention of an order "against players and pipers strolling through the kingdom, disseminating sedition and heresies." l In June of the following year, 1557, the Council ordered the Mayor of London to arrest players who had been giving "naughty plays," and to permit no play henceforth within the City "except the same be first seen and allowed" 2 — presumably by the municipal officials. In the same month the Mayor of Canterbury arrested some actors and sent their "lewd play-book" to the Council for its consideration.3 The boldness of the players apparently became so great that the Council decided to forbid all plays during the summer. Orders to this effect were sent to the Justices of the Peace of every shire,4 but the enforcement of the rule was difficult. The Council reprimanded the Justices of Essex, because of their laxness in this duty ; 5 in September it directed the Mayor of London to prevent the performance of another "lewd play," called a "Sacke full of Newes," at the Boar's Head without Aldgate, to arrest the players, and to send their playbook to the Council.6 On due consideration the Lords evidently decided that the " Sacke full of Newes" was harmless, for the next day they bade the Mayor release the players.7

At the same time they directed him to charge the actors throughout the city "not to play any plays, but between the feasts of All Saints 8 and Shrovetide, and then only such as are seen and allowed by the Ordinary," 9 —that is, by the Bishop of London sitting in ecclesiastical court. This appears to be the first formal delegation by the Crown and Privy Council of the power of licensing plays, though, as we have seen, in practice such power had been exercised before by local officials. In view of the religious nature of the plays and of the matters in dispute, it was natural that the Bishop should be chosen for this duty in London. As we have found, the Ordinary had before

2 Acts, VI, 102. 5 Ibid., 119. 8 November 1.

this possessed a somewhat similar jurisdiction.1 Concerning the Bishop of London's administration of this power, we have no definite information. In later years, as we shall see, he and the Archbishop of Canterbury sometimes interfered again in dramatic affairs in London.

In tracing the history of the censorship we have now reached the opening of Elizabeth's reign. Hitherto, as we have seen, such scanty and vague legislation as there was concerning the licensing of plays had reserved this power to the Crown and the Priw Council, except for some authority granted to the Ordinary. In practice, however, it is evident that the Council did not expect this rule to be followed. It was obviously impossible for them to overlook beforehand and license plays throughout the kingdom. There was no definite system of licensing, but they apparently expected the local officials, — the Lord Lieutenants and the Justices of the Peace in the shires, and in the towns the Mayors. — to exercise supervision. The Council reserved, of course, supreme authority, and in cases of flagrant impropriety they interfered, through the local officials, and sometimes called for the book of the play, to see how serious the matter was. We shall find that during the early years of Elizabeth's reign practically the same system was in force, though it was now formulated more definitely.

In summing up this early period we should notice also that the censorship and licensing apparently applied to both public and private performances; that it sometimes, however, dealt only with those in English, not with Latin plays ; and that the censoring was concerned with suppressing sedition and heresy, — anything likely to stir up political revolt, — and not with matters of decency and morality.