in Bath.[99] If Burbage was a member of the troupe,
he certainly did not accompany them on their extended tours; and when
they played in London, if they used the Theatre, they must have used
it jointly with the Queen's Men.
[Footnote 98: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 11.]
[Footnote 99: Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_, I, 321.]
Late in 1585 the Theatre was affiliated with the adjacent Curtain.
Burbage and Brayne made an agreement with the proprietor of that
playhouse whereby the Curtain might be used "as an easore" [easer?] to
the Theatre, and "the profits of the said two playhouses might for
seven years space be in divident between them." This agreement, we
know, was carried out, but whether it led to an exchange of companies,
or what effect it had upon the players, we cannot say. Possibly to
this period of joint management may be assigned the witticism of Dick
Tarleton recorded as having been uttered "at the Curtain" where the
Queen's Men were then playing.[100] It may even be that as one result
of the affiliation of the two houses the Queen's Men were transferred
to the Curtain.
[Footnote 100: _Tarlton's Jests_, ed. by J.O. Halliwell, p. 16.
Tarleton died in 1588.]
In 1590, as we learn from the deposition of John Alleyn, the Theatre
was being used by the Admiral's Men.[101] This excellent company had
been formed early in 1589 by the separation of certain leading players
from Worcester's Men, and it had probably occupied the Theatre since
its organization. Its star actor, Edward Alleyn, was then at the
height of his powers, and was producing with great success Marlowe's
splendid plays. We may suppose that the following passage refers to
the performance of the Admiral's Men at the Theatre:
He had a head of hair like one of my devils in _Dr.
Faustus_, when the old Theatre crackt and frightened the
audience.[102]
[Footnote 101: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 101, 126.]
[Footnote 102: _The Black Booke_, 1604.]
Late in 1590 the Admiral's Men seem to have been on bad terms with
Burbage,[103] and when John Alleyn made his deposition, February 6,
1592, they had certainly left the Theatre. Mr. Greg, from entirely
different evidence, has concluded that they were dispersed in
1591,[104] and this conclusion is borne out by the legal document
cited above.
[Footnote 103: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 101.]
[Footnote 104: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, II, 83. The Admiral's Men
were reorganized in 1594, and oc
|