Burghley that Langley 'intendeth to erect a niew stage or Theater (as they call it) for thexercising of playes vpon the Banck side', and detailed the usual civic objections to the stage as arguments in favour of the suppression of the project.[1] It is probable that Burghley refused to intervene and that Langley proceeded at once with the erection of the Swan, which may then have been ready for use in 1595. It is impossible, without the Swan, to make up the tale of four 'spielhäuser' seen by the Prince of Anhalt in 1596 (360). To 1596 again is assigned, although with probability rather than certainty, the visit of John de Witt, who not only names but also describes and delineates the Swan.[2] In any case the Swan had already been in use by players before February 1597, when Langley entered into an arrangement for its occupation by Lord Pembroke's men.[3] The terms of the lease provided that he should make the house ready and furnish apparel, which he alleged cost him £300, and should get his return for this expenditure out of the company's moiety of the gallery takings, in addition of course to the other moiety which in accordance with theatrical custom went to him as rent.[4] The enterprise was rudely interrupted by the production of The Isle of Dogs at the Swan itself, and the restraint of 28 July 1597 which was the result. The leading members of Pembroke's company joined or rejoined the Admiral's at the Rose, and became involved in litigation with Langley on account of their breach of covenant.[5] For a time Langley succeeded in keeping a company together, and the Swan remained open.[6] It was perhaps the intention of the Privy Council order of 19 February 1598, against an intrusive 'third company' which was competing with the Chamberlain's and the Admiral's, to close it.[7] If so, Langley may still for a time have found means of evasion, since on the
- ↑ App. D, No. cii.
- ↑ Cf. p. 361, and for the reliability and value of the record as evidence for the structure and staging of theatres, chh. xviii, xx.
- ↑ S. v. L. 352, 'the said howse was then lately afore vsed to have playes in hit'.
- ↑ Ibid., 'the Defendant should be allowed for the true value thereof out of the Complainantes moytie of the gains for the seuerall standinges in the galleries of the said howse which belonged to them'. As 'which' may follow on 'moytie', I see no reason for Wallace's inference (360) that the galleries were structurally divided between the two parties, instead of the takings being shared.
- ↑ Cf. ch. xiv (Pembroke's) and ch. xxii (Nashe).
- ↑ S. v. L. 353 (6 Feb. 1598), 'the said Defendant hath euer synce had his said howse contynually from tyme to tyme exercysed with other players to his great gaines'.
- ↑ App. D, No. cxiv.
