|
COPYRIGHT 2000 Rice University
Early modern dramatic texts have been read as political documents, aesthetic statements, and instruments for social change, but they were also the property of a working company, as Roslyn Lander Knutson and others have pointed out. [1] In order to assess the place of these texts in early modern culture, it is critical to understand their economic value and impact. A play and its economic workings can reveal a great deal about the daily business of a theatrical company and about that company's relation to London markets and culture. A Shakespeare dramatic text, such as Henry V, can, therefore, be read in a detailed economic context, exposing possible commercial pressures upon and opportunities for the Chamberlain's or King's Men and opening up new interpretations.
I begin from the following assumptions: early modern plays are in their primary state in performance and are recoverable only in an incomplete archeological sense. Since I am emphasizing the text I shall be discussing in its performed state and in its function as an owned, saleable commodity, one might well call it the Chamberlain's Men's play, to stress its joint ownership, rather than Shakespeare's play. I also suggest that when a play added a new prop or a new actor, when it was revived or performed in a different locale, it sometimes underwent such a change that it almost became a different play. In these assertions I agree with Stephen Orgel. [2]
Henry V, positioned during the critical move from the Theatre to the Globe, can serve as a case study for this kind of economic close reading. It tells a story of continual repositioning, good and bad decisions, business errors, and the workings of a company that was trying to succeed financially but was far from assured of success. From 1598 through 1599, the Chamberlain's Men dealt with a series of difficulties. One of these difficulties was related to politics: the company's choice of Henry V as a topic, assuming that it would be topical and popular, and the subsequent return of the earl of Essex in defeat. But most of the company's problems were internal and economic. [3] The search for a theatrical home took up most of the company's energy, through the Blackfriars financial fiasco, in the bitter battles with Giles Allen over their lease (which resulted in pulling down the Theatre), and through their commissioning of Peter Street to build a new theater in Southwark, the Globe. Another major blow was the departure of William Kempe from the company. Henry V shows the strains of making a series of accommodations to fit financial and internal crises: casting changes, location changes, and changes in topical references. These accommodations can be seen in the prologues, in the accommodations to the casting, in the break from 2 Henry IV, and finally, quite possibly, in the "Bad" Quarto text of 1600.
In 1597, James Burbage died, leaving his sons' capital invested in the Blackfriars Theater. He had bought the Blackfriars on 4 February 1595/96. [4] His plans to move the company there had been frustrated by the petition of the inhabitants, including the company's own patron, Lord Hunsdon:
[W]hereas one Burbage hath lately bought certaine roomes in the same precinct neere adjoyning unto the dwelling houses of the right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine and the Lord of Hunsdon, which romes the said Burbage is now altering and meaneth very shortly to convert and turne the same into a comon playhouse, which will grow to be a very great annoyance and trouble [ldots] both by reason of the great resort and gathering togeather of all manner of vagrant and lewde persons that, under cullor of resorting to the playes, will come thither and worke all manner of mischeefe, and allso to the great pestring and filling up of the same precinct, yf it should please God to send any visitation of sicknesse as heretofore hath been [ldots] and besydes, that the same playhouse is so neere the Church that the noyse of the drummes and trumpetts will greatly disturbe and hinder both the ministers and parishioners in tyme of devine service and sermons [ldots] there hath not at any tyme heretofore been used any comon playh ouse within the same precinct, but that now all players being banished [ldots] from playing within the Cittie by reason of the great inconveniences and ill rule that followeth them, they now thincke to plant them selves in liberties. [5]
The petitioners object to the increased traffic, the noise, the nature of the audience ("vagrant and lewde persons"), and to the possibility of the plague. Perhaps most significant is their statement that the players are banished from the city and "now thincke to plant them selves in liberties." It has often been assumed that the freedom sought by the playing companies was primarily political and that the companies were marginalized.[6] Steven Rappaport points out, however, that the liberties were economically attractive to those who wished to avoid city regulation in order to make more money.[7] The liberties were, therefore, "enterprise zones," and as such were equally attractive to theatrical companies seeking economic freedom. In short, the inhabitants of Blackfriars successfully blocked the move. The Chamberlain's Men were losing their lease at the Theatre and had nowhere to go.
Andrew Gurr has quite rightly identified 1598/99 as a critical time for the Chamberlain's Men.[8] It began with lease trouble. In 1597/98, as Gurr has pointed out, the Burbages had one theatrical property that they could not use (the Blackfriars), another that was coming down (the Theatre), and nowhere else to play.[9] They also had some plays that were quite successful, judging from their revival, among them the Henry IV plays, which featured Will Kempe as the fat knight Falstaff.[10] Negotiations with Allen about the lease of the ground had completely broken down by November 1598, and it was obvious that something would have to be done. Cuthbert Burbage determined to pull down the Theatre and use the timbers elsewhere, and on 28 December 1598, that is exactly what he did, without, of course, informing Allen, who hoped to acquire the theater building. On 20 January 1599, Street the carpenter and his men began work building the Globe across the Thames. The entire procedure resulted in a nasty lawsuit, in whi ch Allen claimed damages of [pounds]800.[11]
Meanwhile, of course, the Chamberlain's Men were attempting to continue their ordinary business and to economize as best they could. They played at court on St. Stephen's Night, New Year's Night, Twelfth Night, and Shrove Sunday (26 December 1598; /January 1598/99; 6January 1598/ 99; and 20 February 1598/99), earning a total of [pounds]30. [12] They presumably shifted over to playing at the Curtain until their new theater could be ready. Jean MacIntyre has...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
