The Discovery of Rose Theatre
Introduction
The Rose Theatre which originally known as the Rose Playhouse Theatre was built in the year 1587. It was among the five theatres built in London and also the first in Bankside to be built in the course of that year. The theatre was commonly used for vacation attractions which included gaming dens, brothels, as well as bull/bear-baiting arenas. The theatre had been built near Thames, on land which has been recently regained by the river. The land had been initially leased to Philip Henslowe, who was a developer in the year 1585, and in 1587, he had the theatre built on the land by carpenter John Griggs. The paper will consequently delve deeper into the history of the theatre, before finally focusing on the discovery of the theatre.
The history of the theatre had not been recorded until 1592, when Henslowe began keeping a record which he had inherited from his brother. In the same year, Edward Alleyn an actor by profession, married Henslowe’s step daughter, and from that point onwards, the actor associated himself with the theatre and its fortunes. The theatre was octagonal in shape, and was partly thatched, and was also made of timber and plaster on a foundations of bricks. Lord Strange’s men accompanied by some of the Admiral’s men as well as Alleyn the actor resided in the theatre. While residing in the theatre, they presented a number of plays, which included the following, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay by Robert Greene, The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas kyd, The Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe, and Henry VI Part 1 by William Shakespeare (The Rose Playhouse, n.p). Sussex’s men resided in the theatre for a year while giving the Titus Andronicus as they first performance by Shakespeare.
In 1600, Rose theatre was facing a stiff competition from the newly built Globe Theatre, while it was in a bad condition, which required renovations. Henslowe had moved north of the city by this time where he had constructed a new theatre which was popularly known as the Fortune. On the other hand, Rose theatre remained operational until the expiration of Henslowe’s lease in the year 1605, whereby it was demolished afterwards (The Rose Playhouse, n.p). After the demolition of Rose theatre, much of its story was somehow forgotten and until the construction of the Dulwich College, when the recorded materials were discovered. It was not until 1989 when the remains of the theatre were discovered.
Alleyn would later on in 1619 found the College of God’s Gift which is currently known as Dulwich College, where most of Henslowe’s papers as well as accounts had survived. The book provides details of the expenses of constructing the theatre from 1592 (The Rose Playhouse, n.p). In addition, it also provides details of the plays afterwards staged there, of the audiences that they fascinated and even buttresses and costumes. Together, the Dulwich records comprise a uniquely rich source for study of the Elizabeth stage, enabling the establishment of the history of the theatre in far and also greater facet as compared to any other current playhouse.
The discovery of the well preserved archaeology was exposed in1989 in the course of a routine fact-finding excavation held in the intermission between site clearance and re-development of an office block. This led made the theatre a significant international news story, and the site also led to the attraction of thousands and thousands of visitors. A campaign dubbed ‘Save the Rose’ and safeguard it from revitalisation was hurled with enthusiastic support intellectuals, the members of the public, as well as most popular artists including the likes of Lord Olivier, who gave his final speech on behalf of the theatre. Following improvement up to the 1950s was adequately non-intrusive to allow a remarkably high degree of archaeological existence, in spite of the comparatively flimsy nature of the theatres construction, the location of the theatre which was near a marshy river helped in preserving the theatre organically.
The “save the Rose” campaign was endorsed by the acting theatre community who believed and wished the Rose theatre needed to be preserved (Trueman, n.p). Actors such as Sir Laurence Olivier gathered support from renowned actors all over the world in a bid to campaign for the area to be considered an archaeological site. In addition, Dustin Hoffman an American actor also flew to London from the US in order to witness the excavation of the Rose and to also offer his support. The acting community has been strongly advocating for the site to be preserved as an archaeological site, hence the site should not be used for other purposes rather than for the remembrance of the theatre as a historical site.
The government has the authority to stop the development and preserve the Rose through asserting it a reserved ancient monument. Nonetheless, this is not the case, based on the amount of money which will be required to compensate the developer, making it to reconsider its move. Originally, archaeologists had been given small extensions to carry on with the excavations. From time to time, campaigners would gather outside the site of the building, closing with all-night watch in 1989 as a means of turning away building service providers (Trueman, n.p). The campaign’s efforts proved successful and archaeologists were given six more months to continue with the excavation, whereby the new building which was to be erected was halted in order to allow for the preservation of the Rose underneath, where people are able to visit and see it up to date.
The developer together with the government had spent more than £11m on additional archaeological examination and reshaped the new building to house the theatre (Trueman, n.p). As most archaeologists had noted, if a valuation had taken place before planning authorisation was approved, the contractor could have made plans for the archaeological work and possible building modifications. After a year, the government came up with new planning direction, which essentially changed the role of archaeologists. Under the first-hand regulation together with its ensuing replacements, archaeology became part of the planning process. Site valuations by archaeological professionals before the planning permission became the norm.
The part of the site was available for investigation in the year 1988, following the demolition of the Southbridge House which had been built in the 1950s. The archaeologist has consequently discovered three quarters of the of the theatres ground foundation in May 1989, the archaeologist were from the Museum of London (Trueman, n.p). The discovery signposted that the Rose which had been built in 1587 was slightly smaller, and irregular in structure based on a fourteen sided polygon geometry. The foundation of the theatre which was composed of chalk and stone for both inner and outer walls survived as well as some parts of brickwork. The theatres yard was composed of a mortar flow which slanted down towards the stage, apparently to enable audiences at the back an unhindered view and to enable drain since the theatre had been built on a wet area which was frequently covered in water from the river.
The stage’s position had been clearly demarcated and a large timber box-drain which was essential for carrying water away to the north of the theatre had also subsisted. In addition, the remnants of a tiled floor from a smaller distinct building were also found in the southwest corner of the site. This seemed to have been an existing site which had been initially mentioned in a catering contract of the year 1587 (Foakes, n.p). Which had been planned by John Cholmley who was a grocer, for the purpose of serving his catering operations. Similarly, evidence of considerable later modifications to the stage and the northern half other theatre, extending the shape of the amphitheatre to take a flat oval shape in the plan.
All the small objects discovered which were than 700 in number, from the Rose theatre have been stored in the Museum of London in innumerable stages of preservation and display (Trueman, n.p). These objects included jewellery, tokens, coins, and wreckages of the moneyboxes which were used in the collection of money at the entrance from the audience. Nonetheless, the remaining third which was on the eastern side could not be explored in 1989 owing to the fact that it had been occupied by the City of London’s Technical Service Depot. When Rose court was constructed over the site of the theatre, the devoted underground room space offered for the future display of archaeology of The Rose that protracted eastwards so as to integrate the supposed area of the theatre itself. Nonetheless, it did not consist of the original eastern borderline of the Little Rose Estate, which is situated within the space between the eastern wall of the display space and the western side of the Southwark bridge approach ramp, inside the remaining area of the city’s Storehouse. A trial which was undertaken in the year 2001 by the RTT in collaboration with the city and financed by English Heritage exposed a share of the original border ditch and recommended that the level of the archaeological survival on this side of the theatre site up to and also including the trench is a as complete and possibly as important as the existence to the west designated by the 1989 excavation (Fitzpatrick, n.p). English Heritage is however on the lookout for the enlargement of the perimeter of the Scheduled Monument to integrate this area.
At the moment, the theatre can offer the visitor with a lot of information concerning its life in the ages of between 1587 and 1603. Red rope lights on the site are significant for the indication of the size of the theatre, as well as its courtyard and the location of the two stages. The lights also provide a viewing platform, this display is not only about the rose but also it is also about the area of the Bankside which it had occupied later in 1959 to early 1600s (Foakes, n.p). The site provides inspiration to actors in the same way as it did for more than four hundred years ago. There are significant events together with performances all through the year that are responsible for making use of the theatres unique space.
The discovery of the Rose theatre is not only significant to actors but also to the general public. In as much as contemporary constituents in an inner city may not see the need of preserving ruins, the runs are of great importance. The theatre symbolizes the ancient culture of the United Kingdom, through the way they carried out different roles through the plays which were acted in the theatre. Moreover, it also encourages young actors to remain focused on their course, for the reason that their talent may be of help to them in the near future. On the other hand, a lot of information concerning the culture in London in 15th century, since recorded information about the flow of events while the theatre was in operation were discovered. The discovery of the theatre also showed its links to Shakespeare, even though the site hand lost sight for more than 350 years after its construction (Trueman, n.p). Most of the things discovered from the excavation were taken to the museum, where they will be used to tell future generations about the past events, how the culture changed, and how it relates to the current culture. The Rose theatre is also believed to be the fifth purpose stage to be built in London and where a number of performances took place. This information was also discovered from the remains of the recorded information which made it easier to understand what transpired in the early years.
In as much as the site is maintained as a historical site, the site is still in danger of being developed. The proposed neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill could be the reason for the development of the site. The bill advocates for the construction of 250,000 new homes each year, as a means of speeding up the planning process through reducing delays occasioned by pre-commencement planning conditions (Morris,, n.p). As a matter of fact, if the bill is passed into law, the archaeological site will be in danger of construction, and all the efforts put by the campaigners would be in vain. The developers would also lose a lot of money, since they had already invested huge amounts of money in order to aid in the excavation.
Conclusion
The discovery of the Rose theatre offers a significant source of information concerning the activities which place in London in the periods of between 1500s-1600s. Moreover, the site is also significant as it aids in understanding the events which took place in the theatre. The theatre also explains the significance of actors and how they dominated London through different plays. The theatre which was majorly managed by Alleyn also featured Shakespeare’s play among other plays. The competition between theatres in the UK was also stiff, since Rose theatre faced competition from Globe Theatre, which meant that acting was a major form of entertainment during that people in England, and through acting actors could be able to showcase their prowess.
Work Cited
The Editors Encyclopaedia Britannica. Rose Theatre: Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. March 30 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rose-Theatre-London
Fitzpatrick, Tim. Playwright, Space and Place in Early Modern Performance: Shakespeare and Company. , 2016. Internet resource.
The Rose Playhouse. In its Prime: The Rose Playhouse Banksides first Tudor Theatre. 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.roseplayhouse.org.uk/discover/the-history/
Foakes, R.A. 'The Discovery of the Rose Theatre: Some Implications.' Shakespeare Survey 43 (1990): 141–8.
Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.
Trueman, Matt. Elizabethan Rose theatre set to bloom again: The Guardian. 2016;. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/jul/16/rose-theatre-redevelopment-plans
Joffie, Linda. Defending the Rose, Where Shakespeare Acted – Maybe: The Christian Science Monitor. 1989. Retrieved from: https://www.csmonitor.com/1989/0606/lrose.html
Morris, James. Archaeologists saved Shakespeare's Rose theatre – but planning reform could threaten future discoveries: City Metric. 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/archaeologists-saved-shakespeares-rose-theatre-planning-reform-could-threaten-future
