Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:22:48.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wenceslas Hollar and Christopher Beeston's Phoenix Theatre in Drury Lane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Graham F. Barlow
Graham F. Barlow
Affiliation:
Graham Barlow lectures in theDepartment of Theatre, Film & Television Studies, University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1616 Christopher Beeston converted a cockpit in Drury Lane into a playhouse known as the Phoenix or Cockpit in Drury Lane. It was the second enclosed and private theatre in Jacobean London, Blackfriars being the first. With the exception of the Cockpit in Court, this theatre not only survived the vicissitudes of the Interregnum, continuing to operate covertly and sporadically, but also it emerged at the Restoration already adapted with some limited capacity for mounting productions decorated with changeable scenery. Yet in spite of their historical importance what is known about the architecture of this and the other private theatres, the Blackfriars and the Salisbury Court, remains essentially speculative. Because of the lack of specific internal and external graphic evidence, reconstructions of these theatres have been made from deductions drawn from close readings of play texts. With regard to the Phoenix or Cockpit in Drury Lane, Leslie Hotson laid the foundations for basic research into its reconstruction when, in The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, he wrote up his discovery of documents in the Public Record Office that dealt obliquely with the site on which the theatre was built. However, he was reluctant to accept the contemporary evidence afforded him by Hollar in his View of West London, 1657, [Fig. 26],

Unfortunately we have no graphic information as to the shape and appearance of the Cockpit Theatre, I fully expected to find a clear representation of it in Hollar's Bird's-eye View of West Central London, drawn in 1657, but I was disappointed; unless indeed we are to take a three-gabled structure, which stands where the Cockpit should be, for the theatre.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Spring 1988 , pp. 30 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Hotson, L., The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, 1928, 88–99.Google Scholar

2. op. cit., 91.Google Scholar

3. Adams, J. Q., Shakespearean Playhouses, 1921, 348–67Google Scholar. Bentley, G. E., The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, vol. VI, 1956, 47–77Google Scholar. Wickham, G., Early English Stages, vol. II, pt. II, 1972, 78–89Google Scholar, emphasises throughout the element of conversion rather than reconstruction. Markwood, W. B., ‘A Study of the Phoenix Theatre in Drury Lane, 1617–1638’, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Birmingham Univ., 1953Google Scholar. King, T. G., ‘The Staging of Plays at the Phoenix in Drury Lane, 161 7–42’, Theatre Notebook, vol. 19, 1965, 146–164.Google Scholar

4. Orrell, J., The Theatres of Inigo Jones and John Webb, 1985, 39–77Google Scholar. Mackintosh, I., ‘Inigo Jones – Theatre Architect’, Tabs, vol. 31, 1973, 99–105Google Scholar. Rowan, D. F., ‘A Neglected Jones/Webb Theatre Project’, New Theatre Magazine, vol. IX, No. 3, 1969, 6–15Google Scholar. ‘The English Playhouse: 1595–1630’, Renaissance Drama, IV, 1971, 37–51Google Scholar. Harris, J. & Tait, A. A., Catalogue of the Drawings by Inigo Jones at Worcester College Oxford, 1979. 14–15Google Scholar. Harris dates 78 & 7C 1616 but Orrell, ibid., notes 195, n.11, that R. Higgott prefers 1638 which if substantiated weakens the Jones theory.

5. Orrell, , The Theatres of Inigo Jones, 195–6Google Scholar, ns, 22–26; provide a bibliography concerning cockpit architecture to which no useful additions have been found.

6. Orrell, J., The Quest for the Globe, 1983Google Scholar, analysed the precision of Hollar's representation of the south bank of the Thames.

7. Artisans & Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 40 & 41 Victoria cap CXXXIII.

8. G.L.C.R.O., MBW 1877, Enquiry Proceedings.

9. G.L.C.R.O., 1877 MBW, vol. 5Google Scholar, & Peabody Trust, WIL2, 3, 3, 1880.

10. The Survey of London, vol. V, 1923, 34Google Scholar, cites conveyance Mountjoy & Holford, R., 20 01 1566/7Google Scholar, C54, 9 Eliz, 748 & Inquisitions Post-Mortems (Mdx), 18 Eliz vol. 174(32).

11. P.R.O., C54/3060/23, Holford & Stratton.

12. Principal documents relating to plots north of the Cockpit site from north to south; 155–151 Drury Lane including 45–46 Queen St. & 1–4 Gt Wild St., 110′, P.R.O., C54/3060/23, (1635) & C54/3984/10, (1654); 148–150 DL & 5–8 Gt WS, 52′6″, G.L.C.R.O., C/82& Stevens, (1651), C/82/257–298, (1651–1883); C/82/242, (1664), notes the Holford-Burton-Best leases of this plot and that Rolleston had lease of a plot on Gt WS, adjacent to Higgins, see Hotson, ibid, 97; 147–145 DL & 9–11 Gt WS, 48′, P.R.O., C54/3060/25, Holford, & Lee, , (1635)Google Scholar; 144–141 DL & 12–1461 WS, 78′, Richard Ockonald cited in previous lease, vestryman 1617 & churchwarden 1620, Holburn Public Library, St. Giles Parish Vestry Minutes 1618–1719; 140–139 DL, 15–16 Gt WS, 1–4 Wild Passage, 32′, G.L.C.R.O., MDR 1715.3.158, reference to 1635; 138DL-17 Gt WS, 21′, G.L.C.R.O., MDR 1880.4.574 & MDR 1880.7.818 & MDR 1880.9.786; 137 DL-18 Gt WS, 23′, MDR 1877.36.243, Chadwick.

13. P.R.O., C54/3680/40, Holford & Seagood & G.L.C.R.O., C/82/241, Holford & Stevens.

14. P.R.O., C2 Chas I H 44/26, 9 07 1647.Google Scholar

15. ibid.; C2 Chas I H 44/26 & G.L.R.O., C/82/242.

16. P.R.O., C2 Chas I H 44/26.

17. G.L.C.R.O., Chadwick & M.B.W., MDR 1877.36.243, 23′ × 113′. Jones & M.B.W., MDR not found in search.

18. op. cit., Salaman & M.B.W., MDR 1879.21.595, 16′ × 48′ + 92′; Lewin & M.B.W., MDR 1880.18.95, Chichester and Webber & M.B.W. not found in search but MDR 1712.3.141 Taylor & Thorpe 6 Jan 1712 refers to conveyance Holford, & Raydell, , 25 09 1674Google Scholar when property clearly included all the above, describing two houses and gardens which had recently been redeveloped to include the property in Drury lane as well as 8 houses built on the previous gardens and house and another house in Wild St., This formed the lane known as Holford or Coulson Court named after the owners. Hollar shows position of one of the original houses in the centre of the site running N-S.

19. G.L.C.R.O., MDR 1721.5.299 Thurland & Smith, refers to leases Holford & A. Busby 1680–2 which suggest that earlier the plot noted n. 19 was the northern boundary of this plot which extended south to the northern side of Princes St., The remainder became the Stewart property down to 1880. No MDR of that date found but G.L.R.C.O., MBW 1887, Provisional and Final Awards of the Arbitrators, Great Wild Street Scheme, 1877, 2–3Google Scholar. states £20,000 paid for Stewart property.

20. Hotson, , op. cit., 94–98.Google Scholar

21. P.R.O., C2 Chas I H44/66, 9 07 1647Google Scholar, Hussey Complaint.

22. op. cit., C2 Chas I H28/26, 4 11 1647Google Scholar, Rolleston Answer.

23. op. cit., C2 Chas I H28/26, 8 11 1647Google Scholar, Kirkes Answer.

24. G.L.R.C.O., M.B.W. Plan No. 3, supra, n. 11.

25. op. cit., Haincs & M.B.W., MDR 1877.36.243, 136 DL, 16′/20′ × 56′ + 30′ for plot 506 & 135 DL, 20′ × 56′. Simes & M.B.W., MDR 1878.4.615, 134 DL, 18′ × 74′. Haines & M.B.W., MDR 1880.9.721, 133 DL, 20′ × 50′ + 24′. The latter deed does not mention Rolleston by name but the conditions regarding an existing lease of 99 years to expire on the same date as the previous deeds suggests that the lease was held by Robert Rolleston.

26. op. cit., Tubbs & M.B.W., MDR 1880.3.822, (Compulsary purchase, no dimensions given).

27. op. cit., MDR 1722.2.67, Rolleston & Bollen.

28. op. cit., Counter-part indentures for this 1721 transaction are all dated 23 December 1721 and are tripartite revealing the way in which the John Rolleston estate was divided among his children. Joshua Rolleston held three houses in Cockpit Alley occupied initially by Stratford, John Le Hunt and John Wilson and later respectively by Richard Butler, Mary Londe and George Bradshaw, (MDR 1722.2.68). Mary Rolleston held ‘all those two several messuages fronting Wild Street in the several tenures of William Bridgewater and Anthony Aldin now John Price and Mary Morton with several yards lying behind the same’, (MDR 1722.2.69). John Eliot and Sarah his wife youngest daughter of John Rolleston held ‘all that messuage or tenement lately erected or built by John Rhodes fronting Wild Street with yard or garden in the tenure of John Patten now James Lodge and all that other messuage or tenement fronting Wild Street in the tenure or occupation of George Alwell now James Thompson with yard behind’, (MDR 1722.2.70). Although it is not altogether critical in this area, [Fig. 29], these houses ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘K’ and ‘L’ in Wild Street have been ascribed according to the way in which they were linked by ownership. Evidence regarding the size of these house may be deduced from the G.L.C.R.O., Hearth Tax Returns, 1664, MR/TH/2; Add Tax 1669–70, MR/TH/8 & 1671–2, MR/TH/21, make no specific mention of Cockpit Alley or the theatre but note the presence in 1664 of an Elizabeth Hutchinson, the ‘owner of an empty house’ with 7 hearths and William Land, (8 hearths); in 1671, Aldwell(Alwell?, 9), Moore(9), Wm Lande(Londe?(9) & John Willson (12). All are entered in close proximity under Weld Street Side not Drury Lane.

29. G.L.C.R.O., MBW 1838, pt. 7, Gilbert an objector to the M.B.W. Scheme at the enquiry but ultimately sold his property later than others and possibly for this reason the conveyance has not been found in the MDR.

30. op. cit., Drew & M.B.W., MDR 1878.30.246, 22 G.W. St., 14′ × 60′; 23 G. W. St., 14′ × 65′.

31. op. cit., Flemming & M.B.W., MDR 1880.1.755.

32. The deed Flemming & M.B.W., MDR 1880.1.755 notes an indenture of 4 September 1819 between William Railton and Richard Fleming reciting,

All those four messuages situate on the south side of Pitt Place Drury Lane Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and also one other messuage on the north side No 6 which five messuages were formerly four messuages and numbered 3, 5, 6 and 7 and called Cockpit Alley but were then converted into five by pulling down and rebuilding and then in the tenure of Richard Flemming which said five tenements were more particularly described in the plan and ground plot drawn in the margin of the lease now in recital were demised unto the said Flemming, Richard 25 12 1818Google Scholar for a term of seventy years at £30 p.a. (No plan was transcribed).

No. I was a house with a yard, and Nos 2, 3 and 4 had become a registered lodging house. The two remaining houses, 5 and 7 Pitt Place, were respectively in the ownership of Oppenheimer and Smith. The Oppenheimer plot No. 5, indenture 25 April 1878, (MDR 1879, 37, 690), cites a mortgage between J. C. & Oppenheimer, J. M. and Mullinger, George which was registered 10 01 1860Google Scholar. This document has not been traced. The indenture notes the will of George Mullinger, died 13 April 1878, by which he bequeathed his property to an Anne Charlotte Andrews. The only details regarding No. 7 are as follows, Rev. Smith, Ralph Colley on 3 05 1880Google Scholar, (MDR 1880.16.527), conveyed to the M.B.W. all that messuage No. 7 formerly No 2 situate on the north side of Pitt Place which he possessed under a twenty one year lease from June 1873 from one Michael Duggan. The plot 506 which had previously been an open space was leased to Alfred Augustus as an extension to 136 Drury Lane. Augustus managed a brass foundry under the name of Wicks and Herbert. The information in the Railton-Flemming indenture is confusing for it is unclear how the four houses that became five had been laid out on the site.

33. See Wickham, , E.E.S., vol. II, pt. II, 87 & 88Google Scholar, the Roxana & Messalina vignettes for speculative representation of the interior of the Phoenix Theatre.

34. Orrell, , The Theatres of Inigo Jones, 46–50.Google Scholar