Download 1 Chapter 6: English Theatre from the Middle Ages to 1642 Because

Chapter 6: English Theatre from the Middle
Ages to 1642
Because of wars and internal strife, England
was scarcely affected by the Renaissance until
the late fifteenth century. Since 1066, when
England had been conquered by the
Normans, its kings had also controlled
extensive territories in France and had intermarried with French ruling families. In 1337
England laid claim to the French throne,
thereby precipitating a lengthy conflict (often
called the Hundred Years' War) that was to
continue until 1453. For a time England
seemed to be winning the struggle, especially
after 1415 when Henry V was named regent
and heir to the French throne. But after his
death in 1422 and the appearance of Joan of
Arc in 1429, the English rapidly lost control.
By 1453 England held only Calais in France.
At about the same time a struggle for the
throne of England (the War of Roses) began
between the rival houses of York and
Lancaster. The conflict continued until 1485
when Richard m was defeated by the Earl of
Richmond, who united the dissident factious
and as Henry VII founded the Tudor line that
ruled England until the death of Elizabeth I in
1603. The Tudors brought political stability
and a strong central government to England.
EARLY TUDOR DRAMA
Although medieval theatrical practices
continued to be dominant, the spirit of the
Renaissance also began to be felt in England
during the sixteenth century; After a few
Italian humamsts came to England at the
invitation of Henry VII, English scholars and
writers began to develop an interest in
ancient literature. The oldest surviving
English interlude, Henry Medwall's Fulgens
and Lucrece, produced at court in 1497, was
written under the influence of humamsm.
The new learmng also began to alter the
morality play; as can be seen in
Medwalls Nature (c.1500), John
Skeltons Magmficence (c. 1516), and John
Rastell's The Four Elements (c.1518), all of
which treat humamst subjects allegorically. . .
The 1580s also brought to a head the religious
and political intrigues that surrounded Mary;
Queen of Scotland. Mary (1542-1587), who
was descended from Henry VII, had been
queen of Scotland (from the time she was one
week old) and briefly of France (in 1559-1560
as wife to Francis n), but had been coerced by
Protestant forces to abdicate the Scottish
throne. In 1568 she fled to England, where
she be-came the focus for intrigues by
Elizabeth's opponents among English
Catholics. Elizabeth eventually agreed to
Mary's execution in 1587. Mary's death and
the defeat of the Spanish Armada made
English Protestantism relatively secure.
But these events did not end religious
controversy; for English Protestants were
divided into many factions. The best
known of the dissident groups were the
Puritans, who thought the official Church
of England adhered too closely to
Catholicism in its ceremonies and
governance. They took an even dimmer
view of the professional theatre that was
beginning to take shape, and launched
attacks on it. The first major assault came
in John Northbrooke's A Treatise Against
Dicing, Dancing, Plays, and
Interludes (1577). This was soon followed
by Stephen Gosson's The School of
Abuse (1579). Both works railed in the
harshest terms against the theatre as an
instrument used by the Devil to en-courage
vice and to take people away from honest
work and other useful pursuits. The attack
was answered by Thomas Lodge in A
Defence of Poetry, Music, and Stage
Plays (1579), and especially by Sir Philip
Sidney in The Defence of Poesy (1583),
which argued that literature is the most
effective instrument for teaching morality
and moving people to virtuous action.
Sidney's treatise is also noteworthy as the
first major statement in English of the
neoclassical ideal. It was to exert a strong
influence on writers of the next generation,
especially Ben Jonson. Although they were
not able to suppress the theatre, the
Puritans voiced the ideas that dominated
the governing councils of many English
169
towns, which for many decades opposed
theatre companies.
These religious and political controversies
affected drama in several ways. Because
drama had been used as a weapon during the
reigns preceding hers, Elizabeth in 1559
forbade playwrights to treat religious or
political subjects. In addition, she demanded
that production of the medieval cycles cease.
Although compliance with the latter edict
came only gradually; it had effectively
silenced religious plays by 1575.
Consequently; drama in general was
secularized, although it continued to support
the belief that a force beyond human control
helped to shape human destiny;
Among the influences on this new secular
drama was humanism as represented by
schools, universities, and the Inns of Court:
Gray's Inn, Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple,
and the Middle Temple. Principally places of
residence and training for lawyers, the Inns
admitted young men, primarily recent
graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, for
further education. These wealthy and
aristocratic students were taught music,
dancing, and other graces, which were
practiced in part through the presentation of
plays. Most performances came during the
Christmas "revels," which extended over a
period of four weeks, but the Inns also
mounted many other elaborate
entertainments to honor their members, or
on such special occasions as royal visits, or
births and marriages in noble families. The
audiences were aristocratic, well educated,
and interested in the latest fashions in drama,
both at home and abroad. The first English
tragedy, Corboduc or Ferrex and
Porrex,written by two students, Thomas
Sackyille and Thomas Norton, was presented
by the Inner Temple in 1561, with Queen
Elizabeth in attendance. The subject, chosen
from the legendary history of England, was
developed in a pseudo-Senecan manner. The
action is divided into five acts and treats the
jealousy aroused between Ferrex and Porrex
when their father, Gorboduc, decides to
divide his kingdom between them. All of the
principal characters eventually are killed, and
their fate is used to point a lesson for England
about the dangers of leaving uncertain the
order of succession to the throne. Although
the play now seems weak, it made such a deep
impression that it had been printed five times
by 1590. During Elizabeth's reign, interest at
universities and schools also shifted from
classical drama to plays based on English
history or recent Italian works. By 1600 the
influence of schools and Inns had waned
considerably; but by that time they had
performed a crucial role by familiarizing
students with plays of other times and places
and with effective dramatic techniques. When
school-educated writers began to work for the
professional troupes, English drama entered
an era of greatness.
THE UNIVERSITY WITS
During the 1580s all the strands of drama
began to coalesce, primarily because a group
of educated men, commonly called "the
University Wits," turned to writing for the
public stage. The most important of these
writers were Thomas Kyd, Christopher
Marlowe, John Lyly; and Robert Greene.
Thomas Kyd (1558-1594) is remembered
primarily for The Spanish Tragedy (c. 1587),
the most popular play of the sixteenth
century. Its reception established the vogue
for tragedy; previously given almost entirely
for aristocratic audiences. In telling his
sensational story of murder and revenge, Kyd
places all of the important events on stage.
But while the play ranges freely through time
and place, it uses such Senecan devices as
ghosts, a chorus (one person), soliloquies,
confidants, and division into acts. Most
important perhaps, Kyd demonstrates how to
construct a well-articulated plot to create a
rapid, clear, and absorbing action. Although
lacking in depth of characterization or
thought, The Spanish Tragedy is a
remarkable advance over preceding plays and
established the vogue for "revenge" tragedy;
of which Hamletwas to be the most lasting
example. Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593),
after obtaining a classical education at
Cambridge, wrote a number of plays for the
public theatre, including Tamburlaine, Parts
1 and 2 (1587-1588), Doctor Faustus
(c. 1588), and Edivard n (c. 1592). The focus
in Marlowe's plays is on the protagonist,
around whom an episodic story is organized
170
to illuminate his complex
motivations. Edward n was especially
important in the development of the
chronicle play; for with it Marlowe
demonstrated how to construct a coherent
story out of diverse historical events by
rearranging, telescoping, and altering them to
create a sense of causal relationships. Above
all, Marlowe was a great poet and did more
than any of Shakespeare's predecessors to
perfect blank verse as a medium for drama.
John Lyly (c. 1 554-1606) wrote primarily for
boys' companies catering to aristocratic
audiences. His most characteristic works are
pastoral comedies that mingle classical
mythology with English subjects. His is a
fairy-tale world in which troubles vanish at
the wave of a magic wand. All but one of
Lyly's plays were written in the carefully
balanced, refined, and somewhat artificial
prose for which he was famous. Among his
characteristic works
are Campaspe(1584), Endimion (c. 1588),
and Love's Metamorphosis (c. 1590). These
delicate pastoral works established the
tradition upon which Shakespeare built in As
You Like It.Robert Greene (1560-1592) also
wrote pastoral and romantic comedies, but
his works are more varied than Lyly's since he
crowded many diverse elements into a single
play. In his Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay
(c. 1589) and James IV (c. 1591), stories of
love and pastoral adventures are mingled
with historical materials. Greene is especially
noted for his charming and resourceful
heroines, who, after wandering in disguise
through a series of temptations, are rewarded
with the fulfillment of their fondest desires.
Thus, by 1590, several dramatists who
bridged the gap between the learned and
popular audiences had appeared. Their
successful blending of classical and medieval
devices with compelling stories drawn from
many sources established the foundations
upon which Shakespeare and his
contemporaries built.
SHAKESPEARE AND HIS
CONTEMPORARIES
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is
frequently said to be the greatest dramatist of
all time. Furthermore, as a playwright, actor,
and shareholder in acting troupes and theatre
buildings, he was directly involved in more
aspects of the theatre than any other writer of
his day; Shakespeare is credited with thirtyeight plays, some of which were written in
part by others. Although difficult to date
precisely; the plays have been dated as
follows: Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3 (15901591), Henry VI, Part 1 (1591-1592), Richard
m and Comedy of Errors (1592-1593), Titus
Andromcus andTaming of the Shrew (15931594), Two Gentlemen of Verona, Loves
Labour's Lost,and Romeo and Juliet (15941595), Richard Il and A Midsummer mght's
Dream (1595-1596), King John and The
Merchant of Vemce(1596-1597), Henry
11, Parts I and 2 (1597-1598), Much Ado
About Nothing and Henry V(15981599), Julius Caesar and As You Like It(15991600), Twelfth mght, Hamlet, and The Merry
Wives of Windsor (1600-1601), Troilus and
Cressida (1601-1602), All's Well That Ends
Well (1602-1603), Measure for
Measureand Othello (1604-1605), King
Lear andMacbeth (1605-1606), Antony and
Cleopatra(16061607), Coriolanus and Timon of Athens(16071608), Pericles (16081609), Cymbeline(1609-1610), A Winter's
Tale (1610-1611), The Tempest (16111612), Henry Vm and Two Noble
Kinsmen (1612-1613).
It is impossible to do justice to Shakespeare
in a short space, for no playwright's work has
been more fully studied. Thus, only a few
characteristics of his dramaturgy can be
reviewed here. Shakespeare borrowed stories
from many sources (history; mythology,
legend, fiction, plays) but reworked them
until they became distinctively his own.
Typically; situations and characters are
clearly established in the opening scenes,
and the action develops logically out of this
exposition. A number of plots are usually
interwoven, at first proceeding somewhat
independently of each other but eventually
coming together as the denouement
approaches, so that the resolution of one
leads to that of the others; in this way
apparent diversity is given unity The action
normally encompasses months or years and
occurs in widely separated places. This broad
canvas creates a sense of ongoing life behind
the scenes.
171
Shakespeare's large casts are composed of
well-rounded characters who run the gamut
from the inept and ridiculous to the
commanding and heroic, from the young and
innocent to the old and corrupt. Despite the
enormous range of his characters,
Shakespeare entered into most of them
sympathetically and made them appear to be
living individuals rather than mere stage
figures. His penetrating insights into human
behavior have remained valid. No playwright
uses language as effectively as Shakespeare.
His poetic and figurative dialogue not only
arouses specific emotions, moods, and ideas,
it creates a network of complex associations
and connotations that transcends the
immediate dramatic situation. Shakespeare
was by far the most comprehensive, sensitive,
and dramatically effective playwright of his
day; He attempted almost all of the popular
dramatic types and subjects of his time, and
in each instance gave them their most
effective expression. In his own day,
nevertheless,
Shakespeare's critical reputation was lower
than that of Jonson or Beaumont and
Fletcher. His fame began to grow in the late
seventeenth century but it did not reach its
peak until the mneteenth century. Like most
of his contemporaries, Shakespeare gave little
thought to preserving his plays, which in his
time were looked upon as momentary
diversions (much as television dramas are
today). Their survival may be credited in large
part to the desire of Shakespeare's fellow
actors, especially Henry Condell and John
Heminges, to preserve his memory by
publishing his plays. (This original edition,
which appeared in 1623, is usually referred to
as the First Folio.)
Except for Shakespeare, Ben Jonson (15721637) is usually considered the finest
Elizabethan playwright. An actor for a time,
Jonson began writing plays in the mid-1590s
and by 1600 was the acknowledged leader of
those authors who favored conscious artistry
(that is, writing according to a set of
principles or rules). More than any other
English dramatist, Jonson turned attention to
the classical precepts and sought to temper
the excesses of native playwrights by recalling
the practices of the ancients. Nevertheless, he
was no slavish imitator of the past, for he
frequently deviated from or altered classical
principles. Jonson gained the favor of James I
and his court, for whom he wrote more
masques than any other dramatist. His
receipt of a royal pension in 1616 made him
the first "poet laureate" of England. Jonson
also did much to change the English attitude
about drama, previously looked upon
primarily as mere diversionary
entertainment, when in 1616 he prepared for
publication a carefully edited collection of his
plays (a practice which had been reserved by
his contemporaries for poetry).
In many ways, then, Jonson was the most
influential writer of his time. Of Jonson's
twenty-eight plays, the comedies,
especiallyEvery Man in His
Humour (1598), Volpone(1606), The
Alchemist (1610), andBartholomew
Fair (1614), are now best known. The scope of
these works is limited, for Jonson, concerned
primarily with reforming human behavior,
concentrated upon the foibles of
contemporary types. Jonson's comedy is often
de-scribed as realistic and "corrective" since
the characters are supposedly based upon
direct observation and are castigated for their
shortcomings.
Because Jonson does not arouse sympathy for
most of his characters, the plays appear more
harshly moralistic than do Shakespeare's.
Jonson is also credited with popularizing the
"comedy of humours." Since classical times it
had been assumed that there were four bodily
"humours" (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and
black bile) and that health depended upon a
proper balance among them. In Elizabethan
times, this medical concept was extended so
as make them determinants of basic
temperaments. Jonson, in particular,
attributed eccentricities of behavior to an
imbalance of humours and created a wide
range of character types based upon this
scheme. Although the self-conscious use of
humours waned after 1603, it continued as
one basis for characterization until about
1700. Jonson also wrote two
tragedies,Sejanus (1603) and Cariline (1611),
both of which were among the most respected
plays of the century (although they failed in
the theatre). . .
172
GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE
THEATRE
The development of playwriting as a
profession was made possible by the
emergence of a public theatre that constantly
required new plays. In turn, the stability of
the theatre was heavily dependent on
government regulations. When she succeeded
to the throne, Elizabeth was faced with the
challenge of gaining effective control over the
numerous forces that made for divisiveness in
England. During her reign she slowly
consolidated her power to the extent that her
successors, the Stuart kings (beginning with
James I, son of Mary of Scotland) were able
for a time to rule almost as absolute
monarchs. The theatre was among those
activities over which the crown gained
control, and since the court was always more
favorable to professional actors than local
governments were, the growth of the theatre
paralleled the central government s
assumption of authority over performances.
When Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558,
any gentleman could maintain a troupe of
actors. Any actor not employed by a
gentleman was classed as a vagabond or
rogue and was subject to severe penalties.
Since the troupes patronized by gentlemen
were permitted to tour when not needed at
home, actors were not always closely
supervised, and many illegal companies
falsely claimed patronage or performed
partisan plays that aggravated religious
controversy.
These conditions led Elizabeth to take a
number of measures designed to bring order
out of the chaos. In 1559 she banned the
presentation of unlicensed works, forbade
plays on religious or political subjects, and
made local officials responsible for all public
performances in their areas. Since these
regulations were not entirely effective, new
measures were taken in the 1570s. The
religious cycles, which had persisted in a few
places, were now systematically suppressed.
At the same time, actors were brought under
closer supervision. In 1572 it was declared
illegal for any one below the rank of baron to
maintain a troupe. Other companies could
perform by obtaining a license from two
Justices of the Peace, but since this license
was good only in the locality where the
Justices resided, a new license had to be
secured in each town when troupes toured.
On the other hand, the law specifically
absolved licensed actors of vagabondage, the
charge previously used against them. The
overall effect of the law was to reduce the
number of troupes but to extend firm legal
sanctions to licensed companies. The
authority of the crown was extended much
further in 1574 when the Master of Revels, an
official of the royal household, was made the
licenser of all plays and acting companies,
although these duties were not fully
articulated until 1581 in a decree issued to Sir
Edmund Tilney (Master of Revels from 1579
until 1610). This authority was reconfirmed
with each succeeding Master of Revels: Sir
George Buck (who served 1610-1622), Sir
John Astley (who served 1622-1623), and Sir
Henry Herbert (who served 1623-1642).
Techmcally; the decree of 1581 gave the
crown complete control over the theatre, and
any troupe licensed by it had a clear legal
right to perform anywhere in the kingdom.
Many local officials, however, believed that
the crown was usurping authority which
should reside with them, since they were
responsible for health, conduct, and morals in
their communities. Consequently; local
governments found many ways of evading the
licenses held by actors. The most common
reasons used for refusing permission to
perform were the danger of plague, the
rowdiness of crowds, and the drawing of
persons from work or religious services. Even
towns that had supported religious cycles
resisted professional performers, and
consequently; without crown support, the
theatre would have found survival difficult.
Around 1597, under pressure from city
authorities, the crown seems to have agreed
to limit the number of troupes, but at the
same time to have become firmer in its
support of those that remained.
The Stuart monarchs, who succeeded the
Tudor line in 1603, were strong believers in
the divine right of kings and insisted on
exerting authority more blatantly than
Elizabeth had thought wise. During the reigns
of James I (ruled 1603-1625) and Charles I
(ruled 1625-1649) all companies in London
173
were licensed to members of the royal family.
The licenses also specified the theatres in
which troupes could play; a provision which
London officials seem to have accepted. Until
1608 all of the permanent theatres of London
were outside the city limits, but after the
crown assumed the right to specify playing
places, companies began to move into the
city, where at least five theatre buildings had
been erected by 1642.
The Master of Revels, who supervised the
theatre, collected such handsome fees that the
office became a coveted one. These fees
increased over time, and by the 1630s Sir
Henry Herbert was receiving two pounds for
each play licensed, three pounds a month for
each theatre licensed, and two annual benefit
performances from each London troupe; he
estimated the annual income from these fees
to be 4,000 pounds, an enormous sum for the
time.
ACTING TROUPES
Although there were many acting troupes in
England before the 1570s, little is known of
them. For example, at least twenty different
companies played at court between 1558 and
1574, but little beyond the bare mention of
the performances is recorded. In these early
years, patrons probably paid their actors a
fixed yearly sum and allowed them to give
public performances to earn additional
money; But, since the number of days upon
which troupes could play varied with the
place and season of the year, the actors led an
uncertain existence. During the 1570s,
conditions for actors became more favorable
after the crown sanctioned daily
performances. The increased stability
probably stimulated the building of theatres
in London and the assembling of larger
companies. The first important troupe was
the Earl of Leicester's Men, licensed in 1574.
It was headed by James Burbage (1530-1597),
who was also to be a major builder of
theatres. The next important troupe dates
from 1583, when the Master of Revels chose
twelve actors from several companies to
create the Queen's Men. This troupe was
considered the best in England until 1593.
The great plague of 1592-1593 forced many
companies to dissolve or to amalgamate with
others. Our of this crisis emerged two
companies who thereafter were to vie for
preeminence: the Lord Admiral's Men, under
the leadership of Edward Alleyn and with the
financial backing of Philip Henslowe; and the
Lord Chamberlain's Men, a cooperative
venture of the Burbage family and the leading
actors of the company;
When James I came to the throne in 1603, the
latter company was renamed the King's Men,
a title which it retained through the reigns of
James I and Charles I. In London between
1603 and 1611 there were three adult troupes
and thereafter four or five. Some of these
were reconstituted under new names, but all
remained under the patronage of some
member of the royal family; Royal patronage
increased in still other ways after 1603.
Elizabeth had seen an average of about five
professional productions each year, for each
of which she paid the companies a fee of
about ten pounds. Although the Stuart kings
usually paid the same fees, James I saw an
average of seventeen and Charles I an average
of twenty-five productions each year. Thus,
the income derived from performances at
court greatly increased during the
seventeenth century. Each shareholding actor
in the royal companies was also paid by his
patron a yearly fee and he was given
allowances for food, light, and fuel.
Occasionally patrons gave the troupes
additional sums to buy new costumes or to
tide them over during times when playing for
the general public was impossible. In return,
actors were called upon to help out with the
court masques and to perform on special state
occasions. Most court performances by
professional troupes were given in the
evening to avoid interfering with the public
performances, which took place in the
afternoons. Thus, the troupes benefited
considerably from their attachments to the
royal household. Since the plays given at
court were usually those played for the
general public, there was not that sharp
division between the court and public
theatres that characterized the Italian stage.
On the other hand, some critics have
suggested that increased concern for the taste
of the court was partially responsible for the
174
decline in vigor of the English drama after
1610.
Despite court patronage, companies relied
primarily upon the public for support. But
production required considerable financial
resources. Most of the acting companies in
the years between 1558 and 1642 were
organized on the sharing plan, under which
financial risks and profits were divided
among those actors who had become part
owners of the company by buying shares in it.
To become a shareholder, an actor had to put
up a sizable sum of money; when he retired or
died, the actor or his heirs were paid by the
company for his share. Not all actors were
shareholders and nor all owned equal shares,
but those considered especially valuable to
the company were encouraged to become
shareholders since this ensured their
continued service and loyalty.
The shareholders formed a self-governing,
democratic body that selected and produced
plays. Each shareholder also probably had
some additional responsibility within the
company; such as supervision of properties or
costumes, business management, acting, or
writing plays. It is difficult to estimate the
income of a sharing actor, for financial
practices were complex. After each
performance, the shareholders divided the
money left after meeting all expenses (which
included payments to authors, "hired men,"
and the fund out of which the "common
stock" of costumes, properties, and other
materials was purchased). In a court suit of
1635 one witness stated that shareholders in
the King's Men earned about 180 pounds
annually; although the actors themselves
estimated their earnings at 50 pounds. Even
the latter figure, however, is about twice the
amount earned by schoolmasters at this time.
Undoubtedly the King's Men was the most
affluent company; but so long as
performances were not interrupted by forced
closures, the sharing actors in all companies
were probably reasonably well off.
The nonsharing adult members of the
company; the "hired men," did not fare so
well. They were not accorded the privileges
given the sharing actors by their royal patrons
since they were considered to be hirelings of
the shareholders. They worked under contracts which promised them a weekly wageranging from five to ten shillings per week,
although records show that they frequently
were not paid the full amount. Thus, most
were poor. The major roles were played by
sharing actors; the hired men played lesser
roles and also served as prompters, wardrobe
keepers, stage keepers, musicians, and
janitors. The company was further
augmented by four to six boys apprenticed to
well-established adult actors. It is usual to
assume that boys played all of the women's
roles, although this is by no means certain.
Older women, especially the comic ones, may
have been played by men. Little is known
about the apprentices. The age of beginning
has been estimated variously as from six to
fourteen years, and the length of the
apprenticeship from three to twelve years.
The apprentices lived with their masters, who
trained, fed, and clothed them. The masters
were paid from three to seven shillings per
week by the company for the boys' services.
Some of the apprentices went on to become
adult actors, but many followed other
professions upon reaching maturity The
companies varied in size, but a company of
twenty-five would have been considered
large. Consequently the doubling of roles was
common. Usually fewer than half the
members were shareholders. In the King's
Men the number of shareholders varied from
ten to twelve. Most London troupes sought to
acquire a permanent home, and after 1603
most succeeded in doing so. Before that time
and during forced closures, many had to tour.
The theatres in London were closed at least
fourteen times between 1590 and 1642 for
periods ranging from three weeks to eighteen
months. companies often went bankrupt
during closures, or, if they survived, they
frequently did so only by selling some or all of
their plays to publishers or by mortgaging
their costumes. Touring entailed many
problems, for there were no permanent
theatres outside of London. Thus, though it
might have a license to perform, a troupe
could be deemed the right to play on the
grounds that there was no suitable place, that
the danger of plague was too great, or for
other reasons.
175
Upon arriving in a town, a company
presented its credentials to a magistrate or
the mayor, who usually requested that a
performance be given before the council and
other important per-sons. If the local group
was pleased, it rewarded the actors with a
payment from the council's funds and
authorized additional performances for the
public. Often the city hall was used for
playing, but if refused its use, the troupe
might perform in an inn or some other public
place. In some cities, actors were welcomed,
but in others they were paid not to perform.
From surviving records we know the names of
more than 100 troupes that toured the
English provinces between 1590 and 1642. A
number of troupes also toured on the
continent during closures, and it is from these
itinerant English companies that the
professional theatre in Germany is
descended. Since companies both in and out
of London changed their bills daily; they
needed a sizable repertory; A writer seeking
to sell a play was asked to read part or all of it
to the shareholders. Once purchased and
produced, plays were retained as long as they
drew audiences and might be revised when
they declined in popularity. The demand for
new works made companies seek liaisons
with dependable dramatists, some of whom
worked under contract. Until about 1603 the
average payment for a play was six pounds,
but by 1613 the price had risen to ten or
twelve pounds. . .
Since few of the acting companies had
sufficient capital to build their own theatres,
most borrowed money to do so or rented
theatres from those who had built them as a
form of speculation. The most important and
successful of these speculators was Philip
Henslowe, builder of The Rose, The Fortune,
and The Hope. Henslowe not only built
theatres, but often loaned money to the
companies who played in them, and his
surviving records of financial transactions
contain much of our principal evidence about
the operation of Elizabethan theatres. The
King's Men was the only company that owned
its own theatre. Others leased theatres from
the owners, or "householders," who were
responsible for the upkeep of the building,
payment of the rent on the land occupied by
the building, and the salaries of those who
collected entrance fees. Although
arrangements may have varied from one
theatre to another, the following arrangement
is usually taken as typical: the acting
company received all money collected for
admission to the yard, while fees for
admission to the galleries were divided
equally between the company and the
householders. Additional income was derived
from renting the theatre to amateur actors,
fencers, tumblers, and miscellaneous
entertainers, and from the sale of various
articles in the auditorium during
performances. A major source of revenue for
most theatres was a taphouse which
dispensed beer, ale, and wine. The
householders, and sometimes the acting
company; shared this additional income.
THE PRIVATE THEATRES
Although historians have usually treated the
public theatres as those most typical of preCommonwealth England, it is likely that more
performances were given indoors than
outdoors in the years between 1558 and 1642.
Many of these indoor productions were
staged in manor houses, town halls, inns, or
at court, but those at "private" theatres are of
primary interest. Many explanations have
been offered for applying the term private to
theatres open to the public. None is entirely
satisfactory; but deviations from conditions at
the public theatres help to clarify the usage:
the theatres were roofed; they accommodated
about one-fourth as many spectators and
charged considerably higher admission than
did public theatres; they provided seats for all
spectators; and they were lighted by candles.
Other distinctions, based on location and
troupes, may be of even greater importance.
All of the early private theatres were located
in the "liberties" of London. These areas-the
principal ones were Blackfriars and
Whirefriars-had originally belonged to
monastic orders, but had been confiscated by
the crown when the orders were dissolved in
1539. Al-though much of the property was
later ceded to private individuals, the crown
retained jurisdiction over the areas until
1608. Thus, though surrounded by the city of
London, the liberties were not under
municipal control. Furthermore, within the
176
liberties the first theatres were set up in
private dwellings, which were exempt from
injunctions against playing. Perhaps most
important of all, until 1608 the private
theatres were used by children's companies,
who were technically amateurs and free from
the stigma attached to professional actors.
The more sophisticated playwrights, such as
Lyly; Jonson, Chapman, and Marston,
preferred to write for the boys' companies.
Generally; then, the private theatres were
more refined, exclusive, and expensive than
their public counterparts.
The first private theatre, the first Blackfriars,
was opened in 1576, the same year in which
The Theatre was built. At that time the boys'
companies were still preferred by courtly and
aristocratic audiences, perhaps because the
adult companies had nor yet attracted
outstanding dramatists. Before 1576 the boys
had usually given only one or two
performances of each play; it was probably
because of the desire to attract the relatively
large audience of sophisticated Londoners
that the Blackfriars theatre was built. Since
Blackfriars was one of the most fashionable
residential areas, it was a logical choice for
Richard Farrant, choirmaster of the Chapel
Royal at Windsor, when he planned a theatre.
In leasing the property he stared that it would
be used in preparing the children for their
appearances before the queen; no mention
was made of public performances. Farrant's
concealment of his real intentions led to a
series of lawsuits that put an end to the
theatre in 1584.
By that time, a number of different
combinations of boys from various choir
schools had performed there under a series of
managements, Farrant having died in 1580.
Although boys' companies continued to play
elsewhere, no other "private" theatre existed
until 1596. By far the most important private
theatre was the second Blackfriars, built in
1596 by James Burbage, whose lease on the
site of The Theatre was due to expire in 1597.
Though Burbage converted his newly
acquired buildings in Blackfriars into a
playhouse, the residents of that area secured
an injunction against its use by an adult
company; When Burbage died in 1597, he
willed the Blackfriars to his sons, who were
later to build The Globe. In 1600 the
Burbages, unable to use the Blackfriars,
leased it for twenty-one years to Henry Evans,
who, in alliance with the master of the Chapel
Royal, opened the theatre with a boys'
company in that year. In 1604, after the
accession of James I, this troupe was given
the title "Children of the Revels of the
Queen:" Between 1600 and 1608 the
Blackfriars troupe was one of the most
popular and successful in London, seriously
challenging the adult companies. The
willingness of the residents of Blackfriars to
accept a boys' company after rejecting an
adult group says much about the disparity in
contemporary attitudes toward the two types
of troupes.
Though popular, the Children of the Revels
were frequently in trouble with the crown,
usually for performing unlicensed, politically
offensive plays. In 1608 James I became so
enraged that he ordered the company
disbanded. As a result, the Burbages (along
with the King's Men) regained possession of
Blackfriars. When the king's anger with the
boys cooled, they were permitted to resume
performances. They moved into a theatre that
had been erected in Whirefriars for another
boys' company; They played there until 1614,
and then moved into a new theatre in
Blackfriars, Porter's Hall, even though they
had been forbidden to do so. Probably
because of this defiance, the troupe was
disbanded in 1617. No more boys' companies
were seen in London until 1637-1642, when
Christopher and William Beeston ran a
training company for youngsters (usually
referred to as Beeston's Boys). The private
theatres, then, were used exclusively by boys
until 1610. After this time, the popularity of
the children faded and the private theatres
passed into the hands of adult troupes.
The first important change came when the
Burbages reclaimed the Blackfriars in 1608.
James I now authorized the King's Men to
play there, although because of a plague they
did not begin until 1610. Their success led
several other adult companies to acquire
private theatres. In 1616 Christopher Beeston
converted a cockpit in Drury Lane into a
private theatre. Burned shortly afterward, it
was rebuilt as The Phoenix. Occupied
177
successively by Queen Anne's Men, the
Prince's Men, Lady Elizabeth's Men, Queen
Henrietta's Men, and Beesron's Boys, it
continued in use until the Restoration. The
Salisbury Court Theatre, built in 1629, was
used by the King's Revels, Prince Charles's
Men, and the Queen's Men. In addition, in
1629 Charles I had Inigo Jones convert the
Royal Cockpit into a permanent theatre for
the use of professional companies when they
played at court. . .
The private theatres eventually became the
primary homes of the adult troupes. The
King's Men played from nnd-Ocrober to midMay at the Blackfriars and for the remaining
five months at The Globe. Since the
Blackfriars brought the company about two
and one-half times more income at each
performance than The Globe did, it is nor
surprising that the company preferred
playing at the indoor theatre. As other private
theatres were built, the public playhouses
declined in importance although they were
still regularly used during the summer
months. Because of its length of service and
its association with Shakespeare's company;
the second Blackfriars is by far the most
important of the private theatres and until
recently was the subject of most extensive
study.
This theatre was created within a room
measuring approximately 46' wide by 66'
long. The theatre had two or three galleries,
some private boxes, and a pit with seats. The
stage platform was raised (estimates range
from 3' to 4'6" above the pit floor). The stage
was open, having neither a proscenium arch
nor a front curtain. Estimates of the
dimensions of the stage range from 18'6"
deep by 29' wide to 25' deep by 46' wide,
although the first set of dimensions is now
favored. Most scholars, though they differ on
derails, agree that the stages in private
theatres were similar in all important respects
to those in public playhouses, since the
companies moved productions freely from
one type of theatre to the other. Although
scholarly interest in private theatres has long
centered on the second Blackfriars, it has
begun to shift to two others: The Cockpit in
Drury Lane (1616), and The Cockpit in Court
(1629-30).
The Cockpit in Drury Lane was converted into
a theatre by Christopher Beeston in 1616. A
set of plans by Inigo Jones has been
conjecturally identified as those for this
theatre. (It must be noted, however, that not
all scholars accept this identification.) These
plans show the dimension of the theatre to be
40' by 55' externally; The stage, raised 4', is
24' wide and 15' deep. The stage background
has three doors on the stage level (a large
central doorway and two smaller side doors).
On the second level, there is one opening
located immediately above the stage's central
doorway; The auditorium, containing two
levels of galleries, is elliptical in shape with
seating continuing all the way to the stage
facade on either side of the playing area. The
Cockpit in Court was converted into a theatre
in 1629-30 by Inigo Jones to accommodate
professional companies when they performed
plays at court. Most scholars now accept that
an existing set of plans are those made by
Jones for this conversion, although this is not
entirely certain. The Cockpit in Court was
approximately 60' square; inside, the gaming
area was octagon-shaped, and three sides of
this octagon were converted into the stage.
The king's box was located directly opposite
the center door of the facade; other seats were
placed in the pit and in two galleries shaped
to follow the octagon. The stage was a
semicircle, approximately 34 feet wide by
16'6" feet deep. It was backed by a two-storied
facade stylistically remimscent of the Teatro
Olimpico, which had been designed by
Palladio, an architect much admired by
Jones. At stage level, there were five
entrances; the largest, located up-stage
center, was arched and about four feet wide.
None could be characterized as an "inner
stage," although all could have served as
"discovery spaces from which properties or
relatively small set pieces could be thrust our.
The second level had only one opening
(directly above the central doorway) that
could be used as an acting space. Since most
of the productions given at The Cock-pit in
Court were imported from public and private
theatres of the rime, the features of this
playhouse must have corresponded in all
important respects with those found in other
theatres. Consequently; some scholars have
argued that Jones's drawings are among the
178
most reliable evidence we have for
reconstructing all theatre buildings and stage
practices of the period between 1567 and
1642. If this is true,
The Cockpit in Court constitutes a serious
argument against the notion that the
Elizabethan theatre had an inner stage and a
sizable acting area on the upper level. Along
with the evidence from The Rose excavations,
it also supports the case for a relatively
shallow acting area.
SCENERY, PROPERTIES, SPECIAL
EFFECTS, AND MUSIC
Although historians usually assume that the
stage facade provided the background for all
plays in this period, scenic practices are by no
means clear. The principal sources of
information about scenery are the play
scripts, the accounts of the Master of Revels,
and Henslowe's papers. A number of scholars
have analyzed the plays for scenic
requirements, but their results conflict
because they begin with different premises.
One group assumes that the players relied
primarily upon "spoken decor" (that is, they
believe that places are mentioned only when
dramatically relevant and because they were
nor scenically represented). Another group
assumes that the audience would expect the
things mentioned in the dialogue to be
physically represented by some scenic piece.
Probably neither of these views is correct.
Reynolds's study of staging at The Red Bull
concludes that the troupes were very
inconsistent in their practices and varied
them in accordance with available means
rather than consistent theory. Nevertheless,
all scholars agree that if scenic devices were
used, they more nearly resembled medieval
mansions than Italian perspective settings. A
study made by T. J. King of all plays staged
be-tween 1599 and 1642 shows that the
following items were used on stage: tables,
chairs, and stools; beds; car-pets and
cushions; hangings, curtains, and traverses;
thrones; tents and canopies; altars and
pulpits; stocks, scaffolds, and gibbets; biers,
coffins, dead bodies, and litters; barriers and
lists; chariots and vaulting horses; banks and
caves; arbors, trees, bushes, boughs, and
flowers. The Master of Revels' accounts of the
late sixteenth century record items used for
performances at court. When professional
troupes played before the queen, the Revels
office prepared a hall and supplied the
necessary scenery; The items listed in the
accounts include rocks, mountains,
battlements, trees, and houses, all of which
suggest that medieval-like mansions were in
use. Numerous hangings, cloths, and curtains
are also mentioned, although the majority of
these were probably used to decorate the hall.
Thus, it appears that staging at court was
probably more elaborate than in the public
theatres, but the specific differences between
them are unclear. From the available
evidence, however, it seems probable that
Elizabethan scenic practices were adapted
from medieval conventions. The main acting
area was essentially a plateau, the identity of
which could be altered by several devices.
Most often treated as a neutral place, it could
be localized either by the dialogue or by the
use of set pieces such as arbors, tents, tombs,
prison bars, beds, and thrones. Some scenic
devices were so cumbersome that they were
set up on the main stage, where they
remained through-out the performance,
ignored except when relevant to the action.
Other heavy pieces were probably revealed in
or thrust forth from a discovery space.
Smaller articles were brought on and off stage
by servants as needed. Reynolds suggests that
the number of set pieces employed in each
play depended both upon the company's
stock and the sequence of scenes, for the
troupes suited their practice more to
convenience than to principle.
Neither audiences nor actors seem to have
been bothered by inconsistencies. The
theatres retained and stored all scenic pieces,
most of which could be used in a number of
plays. There seems to have been no
systematic attempt to increase the stock,
articles being added at random. Thus,
Henslowe's accounts show no regular
payments to painters or carpenters. The scene
stock was looked after by "stage keepers" who
were also responsible for the scenery;
properties, and sound of each production. As
the lowliest of the hired men, the stage
179
keepers performed many miscellaneous
functions: as janitors, bill posters, and extras
in productions. Emphasis on spectacle
increased after 1603 as the influence of the
court grew. The actors could hardly have
escaped knowledge of the Italianate
conventions of the court masques, for
professional troupes appeared at court on an
average of from seventeen to twenty-five
times yearly between 1603 and 1642, and
individual actors were often called upon to
perform speaking roles and to aid in the
staging of the court masques. The boys'
companies began to emphasize masque-like
elements around 1605, and the adult troupes
continued this trend when they took over the
private theatres.
The results were evident primarily in more
elaborate set pieces, in the increased use of
special effects, music, and dance, and in the
more gorgeous costumes. But evidently there
was no attempt to copy the perspective
settings used for the masques. Additional
court influences are evident in the in-creased
frequency with which characters were flown
during performances and in the increased use
of figures drawn from classical sources. The
direction of change may be seen by
comparing an early work by Shakespeare
(such as A Midsummer Night's Dream) with
one of his late works (such as The
Tempest). Music played a very large part in
English theatrical production from the
beginning and was especially prominent
during the years between 1558 and 1642.
Most actors had to be able to sing, as the
number of incidental songs in plays was large.
Most performances concluded with a "jig" or
some other arraignment involving music and
dance. The permanent theatre orchestra was
composed of about six instrumentalists. In
addition, there were trumpeters and
drummers who were nor members of the
orchestra. Trumpets sounded flourishes
before entrances or to introduce
proclamations, drums added sound in the
battle scenes, and background music
accompanied many episodes. The children's
troupes offered concerts, up to one hour in
length, before performances, a practice taken
over by the adult troupes when they moved to
the private theatre. Dance had a similar
history. In the early days it was designed to
appeal primarily to the popular audiences
and then became more sophisticated as the
influence of aristocratic audiences increased.
COSTUMES
Because scenery and properties were used
sparingly and because the actor was always of
primary concern, costume was probably the
most important visual element in the
Elizabethan theatre. Nor only was it an
integral part of each individual performer's
appearance, it was crucial in such mass
scenes as processions, battles, ceremonies,
pantomimes, and masques. The conventions
that governed costuming between 1558 and
1642 differed little from those in effect during
the Middle Ages. Most characters, regardless
of the historical era in which they supposedly
lived, were clothed in Elizabethan garments.
Thus, by far the majority of costumes were
contemporary dress such as was worn by
persons in real life.
Other kinds of costumes were used sparingly;
The deviations from contemporary dress may
be divided into five categories: (I) "ancient,"
or out-of-style clothing, used to indicate
unfashionableness, or occasionally, to suggest
another period; (2) "antique," consisting of
drapery or greaves added to contemporary
garments, used for certain classical figures;
(3) fanciful garments used for ghosts, witches,
fairies, gods, and allegorical characters; (4)
traditional costumes, associated with a few
specific characters such as Robin Hood,
Henry V. Tamburlaine, Falstaff, and Richard
m; and (5) national or racial costumes, used
to set off Turks, Indians, Jews, and
Spaniards.
Although some of these costumes were
conventionalized versions of garments from
past periods, they were not historically
accurate. With rare exceptions, even the
'history plays" were costumed in Elizabethan
dress. Since costumes were seen at close
range, the companies used authentic
materials and fashions insofar as their
finances permitted. Contemporary accounts
mention the costliness and elegance of the
players' costumes, and Henslowe's papers
record numerous loans for the purchase of
180
costumes, such as seven pounds for "a
doublet of white satin laid thick with gold
lace" and nineteen pounds for a cloak. The
troupes bought most of their costumes.
Sometimes noblemen gave them garments,
and frequently servants who had been willed
their masters' wardrobe sold it to the actors.
Occasionally the royal family made grants to
the troupes to replenish their wardrobes.
Since the actors relied heavily upon costumes,
the acquisition and maintenance of a sizable
wardrobe was important. A few records from
the period refer to tiremen (wardrobe
keepers), some of whom apparently had been
trained as tailors, although there is little
specific information about what they did for
the companies.
AUDIENCES
In the early part of Elizabeth's reign, the days
upon which actors were permitted to perform
varied considerably from one year to another.
Then, in 1574, a royal decree proclaimed the
right of companies to perform daily; This
ruling remained in force until 1642 except for
one modification-James I forbade playing on
Sundays. But, even though it was legally
possible for companies to play at almost any
time, the actual number of performances
given annually was considerably curtailed by
forced closures attributable to plague,
officially decreed mourning, certain religious
observances, and unseasonable weather. It
has been estimated that during the early
seventeenth century performances were given
on approximately 214 days each year (a total
equivalent to about seven months).
Numerous devices were used to advertise
plays. Posters were being set up within
London as early as 1563, and handbills were
in use by the seventeenth century;
Occasionally a procession with drums and
trumpeters advertised performances, but this
practice was largely restricted to touring
outside London. Flags were flown above the
roofs of London's theatres on the days when
performances were to be given, and
announcements of coming attractions were
made from the stage during performances.
The capacity of the public theatres was large.
Contemporary estimates suggest that about
2,500 persons was the average capacity. The
private theatres probably seated around 500750. Prior to 1603, there were usually two
companies playing in London; after 1603
there were usually three, but occasionally four
or five. Between 1558 an 1642, the population
of London increased considerably-from about
100,000 to around 400,000. Of this number,
however, relatively few were regular
theatregoers. To maintain their appeal, the
companies changed bills often, usually daily;
and added new plays regularly; Henslowe's
accounts for 1592-1603 show that the
Admiral's Men produced a new play about
every two and one-half weeks. In the l690s a
new play was performed once and then placed
in the repertory; where it rotated with others
until its popularity waned; the average
number of performances given each play was
ten.
After 1610 a number of new plays were given
several consecutive performances initially
before being placed in the rotating repertory;
The longest consecutive run, nine
performances, was achieved by Middleton's A
Game of Chess in 1624-25. After 1610, the
demand for new plays lessened because
companies had accumulated a sizable
repertory; By 1641 the King's Men owned
about 170 plays from which to draw; even
though after 1622 it had acquired an average
of only four new plays each year. Nor all the
plays owned by a company were in the active
repertory at any time. In 1640, a troupe's
active repertory included about forty-five
plays.
In 1574, a government decree declared that
performance should begin at 2 P.M. and end
between 4 and 5. Thus, performances
probably lasted from two to three hours. At
the public theatres, plays were performed
without intermissions, but at the private
theatres there were intermissions between
acts filled with music while the candles were
trimmed or replaced. Wine, beer, ale, nuts,
apples, cards, tobacco and play-books were all
on sale, and the vendors of these items
circulated freely during performances in
public theatres but in private theatres
confined their activities primarily to the
intermissions. The theatres had no box office,
tickets, or reserved seats. "Gatherers" (at least
some of whom were women) collected money
181
at the entrance to each of the three principal
divisions of the auditorium: pit, public
galleries, and private boxes (or lords' rooms).
In the public theatres, the cheapest section
(the pit or yard) was closest to the stage. The
private theatres altered this arrangement by
making the cheapest section (the upper
balcony) the furthest removed from the stage.
Possibly as early as the l570s, but certainly
after 1610, some spectators were allowed to
sit on the stage itself at the private theatres.
Some scholars have argued that after 1610 the
private theatres catered to a sophisticated
audience and that the public playhouses
sought to attract a less refined group. The
decline of vitality in dramatic writing is
sometimes attributed to the companies'
increased concern for the taste of those who
attended the private theatres. But if the
troupes expended their primary efforts on the
indoor theatres, they did not abandon their
concern for the public at large. The popularity
of the theatre continued unabated until the
playhouses were forcibly closed in 1642….
182