THE ELIZABETHAN THEATER
In 1575 London had no theaters; that is, no building especially
designed for the acting of plays. By 1600 there were at least six,
among which were some so large and beautiful as to arouse the
unqualified admiration of travelers from the continent. It is the
purpose of this chapter to give in outline the history of this rapid
development of a new type of building; to describe, as accurately as
may be, the general features of these theaters; and to indicate the
influence which these features exerted upon the Shakespearean drama.
But before doing this it is necessary to point out the causes which
made the first Elizabethan theater what it was.
+The Predecessors of the Elizabethan Theater+.[1]--Of these, the most
important was the innyard. As soon as the acting of plays ceased to be
merely a local affair, as soon as there were companies of actors which
traveled from town to town, it became necessary to find some place for
the public presentation of plays other than the pageants of the guilds
or the temporary scaffolds sometimes erected for miracle plays. Such a
place was offered by the courtyard of an inn. The larger inns of {36}
this period were, for the most part, built in the form of a quadrangle
surrounding an open court. Opening directly off this court were the
stables, the kitchen, and other offices of the inn; above these were
from one to three stories of bedrooms and sitting rooms, entered from
galleries running all round the court. When such a courtyard was used
for theatrical performances, the actors erected a platform at one end
to serve as a stage; the space back of this, shut off by a curtain,
they used as a dressing-room; and the part of the gallery immediately
over it they employed as a second stage which could represent the walls
of a city or the balcony of a house. In the courtyard the poorer class
of spectators stood; in the galleries the more wealthy sat at their
ease. These conditions made the innyards much better places for play
acting than were the city squares, while they were given still another
advantage from the actors' point of view by the fact that the easily
controlled entrance gave an opportunity for charging a regular
admission fee--a fee which varied with the desirability of the various
parts of the house. Thus the innyards made no bad playhouses, and they
continued to be used as such even after theaters were built.
They had, however, one obvious disadvantage; their long, narrow shape
made a large number of the seats and a large proportion of the spaces
available for standing room distinctly bad places from which to see
what was happening on the stage. To remedy this defect, the builders
of the theaters took a suggestion from the bull-baiting and
bear-baiting rings. These rings, of which a considerable number
already existed {37} in the outskirts of London, had been built for
fights between dogs and bulls or bears, sports vastly enjoyed by the
Elizabethans. The rings, like the innyards, had galleries in which
spectators could sit and an open yard in which they could stand, and
they possessed the added merit of being round. Very possibly these
rings, like the Cornish rings used for miracle plays, originated in the
stone amphitheaters built by the Romans during their occupation of
Britain, buildings occasionally used, even in the sixteenth century,
for the performance of plays. It is hardly necessary, nevertheless, to
look farther than the bear ring to find the cause which determined the
shape of the Elizabethan public theater.
+The History of the Public Theaters+.--With such models, then, James
Burbage--the father of Richard Burbage, later the great actor manager
of Shakespeare's company--built the first London theater in 1576. It
was erected not far outside the northern walls of the city, and was
called simply the Theater. Not far away, a second theater, the
Curtain, was soon put up, so called not from any curtain on the stage,
but from the name of the estate on which it was built. The next
theater, the Rose, was situated in another quarter, on the Surrey side
of the Thames, where the bear-baiting rings were. This was
constructed, probably in 1587, by Philip Henslowe, a prominent
theatrical manager. Some time after 1594, a second theater, the Swan,
was put up in this same region, commonly called the Bankside. The
suitability of the Bankside as a location for theaters is still further
attested by the removal thither of the Theater in the winter of
1598-1599. The owner of the land on which the Theater had originally
been {38} built had merely leased it to Burbage--who had since
died,--and, when the lease expired, he attempted to raise the rent,
probably believing that the Burbage heirs were receiving large profits
from the building. Being unwilling to pay this increased rent, the
Burbages took down the building, and reerected it on the Bankside, this
time calling it the Globe. The last to be built of the great public
theaters was the Fortune, which Henslowe erected in 1600. The
situation of the Fortune outside Cripplegate, although a considerable
distance west of the Curtain, was, roughly, that of the earlier
theaters, the northern suburbs of the city.
This list does not include all the theaters built or altered between
1576 and 1600, nor did such building stop at the latter date,--the
Globe, for instance, was burnt and again rebuilt in 1613,--but the
sketch is complete enough for our purposes. By the end of 1600 all the
more important public theaters were open, and after that date, so far
as we know, no important changes in construction were made. The next
real step--which was to do away altogether with this type of
theater--did not come until after the Restoration.
+The Buildings+.--Before describing the buildings themselves, it is
necessary to make one qualification. It is impossible to speak of the
'Elizabethan theaters' or of the 'Elizabethan stage' as if there were
one type to which all theaters and stages conformed. The Fortune was
undoubtedly a great improvement over the Theater, the outcome of an
evolution which could be traced through the other theaters if we had
the necessary documents. If the various theaters did not differ from
each other as some of our modern theaters do, they {39} still did
differ in important points. For example, while the Globe and the
Curtain were round, other theaters were hexagonal or octagonal, and the
Fortune was square. Likewise, there were certainly differences in
size. In spite of these facts, it is, however, still possible to
describe the theaters, in general terms which are sufficiently accurate
for our present purpose.
An Elizabethan theater was a three-story building of wooden or
half-timber construction. The three stories formed three galleries for
spectators. The first of these was raised a little above the level of
the ground, while the yard, or 'pit,' in which the lower class of
spectators stood, seems to have been somewhat sunken. The galleries
were supported by oaken columns, often handsomely carved and
ornamented. They were roofed and ceiled, but the yard was open to the
weather. Although we know that the Fortune was eighty feet square
outside, and that the yard within was fifty-five feet square, we are
left in uncertainty about the seating capacity. From fifteen hundred
to eighteen hundred is, however, the most convincing estimate. There
were two boxes, or 'gentlemen's rooms,' presumably in the first balcony
on either side of the stage. Besides these, there were other, cheaper
boxes, and the rest of the balcony space was filled with seats. The
better seats were most comfortably cushioned, and the whole theater
anything but the bare rude place which people often imagine it.
Coryat, a widely traveled Englishman of the period, writes of the
theaters which he saw in Venice that they were "bare and beggarly in
comparison of our stately playhouses in England; neither can their
actors compare with us for stately apparel, {40} shows, or music."
That this was no mere British prejudice is shown by the similar
statements of foreigners traveling in England.
The most striking difference between Elizabethan and modern theaters
was in the position of the stage, which was not back of a great
proscenium frame, but was built out as a platform into the middle of
the yard. At the Fortune, the stage was forty-three feet wide,--wider,
that is, than most modern stages.[2] Jutting out from the level of the
top gallery, and extending perhaps ten feet over the stage, was a
square structure called the 'hut,' which rose above the level of the
outside walls. Built out from the bottom of this, a roof, or 'shadow,'
extended forward over a large part of the stage. The front of this
'shadow' was borne, in the better theaters, on two columns. The shadow
and the hut, taken together, are often referred to as the 'heavens.'
+The Stage+.--When we turn from these general features of the theaters
to the stage, we shall find it convenient to speak of a front and a
rear stage, but this does not imply any permanent line of demarcation
between the two, or that they were not often used together as a single
field of action. The rear stage is simply that part of the stage which
could be shut off from the spectators by curtains; the other, that part
which lay in front of the curtains. In other words, the front stage is
that portion of the stage which was built out into the yard, for the
curtains continued the line made around the rest of the house by the
front {41} of the galleries. In both front and rear stages were traps
out of which ghosts or apparitions could rise and into which such
properties as the caldron in _Macbeth_ could sink. From the 'heavens,'
actors representing gods or spirits--as Jupiter in _Cymbeline_ or Ariel
in _The Tempest_--could be lowered by means of a mechanical contrivance.
======================================================================
[Illustration: TIMON OF ATHENS, v, 4. OUTER SCENE.
_Trumpets sound. Enter Alcibiades with his
Powers before Athens._
_Alc_. "Sound to this Coward, and lascivious
Towne. Our terrible approach."
_Sounds a parly. The Senators appeare upon the Wals._
Reproduced from _The Shakespearean Stage_, by V. E. Albright, through
the courtesy of the publishers, the Columbia University Press.]
======================================================================
The arrangement of the rear stage may have differed considerably in the
various theaters, but the typical form may best be described as an
alcove in front of which curtains could be drawn. This alcove was by
no means so small as the word may seem to imply, but must have been
about half as wide as the front stage and perhaps a quarter as deep.
In its rear wall was a door through which the actors could enter
without being seen when the curtains were drawn, and it seems to have
had side doors as well. To the right and left of it were doors for
such entrances to the front stage as could not properly be made through
the curtains. This part of the stage was used for such scenes as the
caves in _Cymbeline_ or _The Tempest_, for the tomb in _Romeo and
Juliet_, and for scenes in which characters concealed themselves behind
the arras, as in _I Henry IV_ or _Hamlet_. Since the front stage could
not be concealed from the spectators, most heavy properties were placed
on the back stage, so that this part of the stage was generally used
for scenes which required such properties. For many of these scenes,
however, both parts of the stage were used, the actors spreading out
over the front stage soon after the beginning of the scene.
The space between the top of the back stage and the {42} heavens formed
a balcony, like the balcony already described as part of the stage as
arranged in the inn-yards. This balcony could also be curtained off
when occasion required. To the right and left of it, over the doors
leading to the front stage, some of the theaters had window-like
openings, which were probably not in line with the balcony, but, like
the doors below them, projected at an oblique angle. At one of these
windows Jessica appeared in the second act of _The Merchant of Venice_;
from the balcony Romeo took leave of Juliet. Thus the Elizabethan
dramatist had three fields of action--a front, rear, and upper
stage--which he could use singly, together, or in various combinations.
+Settings and Costumes+.--In order to understand the way in which this
stage was utilized, the student must dismiss from his mind two
widespread errors. The Elizabethan stage was by no means a bare,
unfurnished platform, nor did the managers substitute for a setting
placards reading "This is a Forest," or "This is a Bedroom." The
difference between that age and this is not one between no settings and
good ones; it is even possible to doubt whether Shakespeare's plays
were not put on more effectively then than in most of our modern
theaters. The difference is one of principle, and even this difference
may easily be exaggerated. When we say that Elizabethan stagings were
'symbolic,' whereas ours are pictorial, we mean that on the former the
presence of a few selected objects suggested to the mind of the
spectator all the others which go to make up the kind of scene
presented. When a few trees were placed upon the stage, the audience
supplied in {43} imagination the other objects that belong in a forest;
when a throne was there, they saw with the mind's eye a room of state
in a palace. But our modern stage also demands the help of the
imagination. It is very far from presenting a completely realistic
picture. We see three sides of a room and accept the room as complete,
although none of us live in rooms which lack a side. We see a great
cathedral painted on a back drop, and are hardly disturbed by the fact
that an actor standing near it is twice as high as one of the doors.
The difference between the two stages really simmers down to this: our
symbols are of painted canvas, the Elizabethans' were of another sort.
It is extremely unlikely that the Elizabethans used painted scenes in
their public theaters. If they ever did, such 'painted cloths' were of
the simplest sort, and not pictures painted in perspective. Instead,
they relied for their effects upon solid properties--sometimes quite
elaborate ones--such as trees, tombs, wells, beds, thrones, etc.
These, as has been said, were usually set on the rear stage, although
some of them, such as couches and banquet tables, were occasionally
brought forward during the course of a scene.
There were, however, scenes which were acted without any setting. The
Elizabethans did not feel it necessary to have every scene definitely
localized. Consequently, many scenes which are described in our modern
editions of Shakespeare as 'A Street,' 'A Place before the Castle,'
etc., were not definitely assigned to any place, and were usually acted
without settings on the front stage before the closed curtains. In
order that no time should be lost while properties were {44} being
changed, such scenes were commonly inserted between scenes requiring
properties, so that a certain alternation between set and unset scenes
resulted. The fourth act of the _Merchant of Venice_, for example,
begins with the court-room scene, which demanded the whole stage, the
properties for the court-room being set on the back stage, with perhaps
some moved toward the front. The fifth act takes place in Portia's
garden, which also took up the whole stage, with garden properties set
on the rear stage. Between these two scenes comes the one in the
street, which was acted before the closed curtains and required no
properties. The arrangement is somewhat like that followed in many
modern melodramas, where a scene not requiring properties is acted in
front of a drop scene while scenery is being set behind. The raising
of the drop--which corresponds to the opening of the Elizabethan
curtains--not only reveals the setting behind, but also makes the whole
stage, including that part which was in front of the drop, the scene of
the action which follows.[3]
======================================================================
[Illustration: TIMON OF ATHENS, v, 3. INNER SCENE.
_Enter a Souldier in the Woods, seeking Timon._
"_Sol_.--Timon is dead, who hath out-stretcht his span,
Some Beast reade this; There do's not live a Man.
Dead sure, and this his Grave, what's on this Tomb."
Reproduced from _The Shakespearean Stage_, by V. E. Albright, through
the courtesy of the publishers, the Columbia University Press.]
======================================================================
The costumes on Shakespeare's stage were very elaborate, but there was
no desire to make them characteristic of any historical period.
Indeed, the striving after historical accuracy of costume is so much a
modern notion that it was nearly two centuries later when Macbeth and
Julius Caesar began to appear in costumes appropriate to their
respective periods. On the other hand, there probably was some attempt
to distinguish the dress of different nationalities. Some notion of
how elaborate the costumes of Elizabethan actors were is given by the
fact that Henslowe's {45} diary[4] has an entry of L4 14s. paid for a
pair of hose, and L20 for a cloak. In connection with this it must be
remembered that money was worth then about eight times what it is now,
and that a playwright of the time rarely received more than L8 for a
play. Another indication is given in Henslowe's list of the costumes
belonging to the Lord Admiral's men, which included some eighty-seven
garments, for the most part of silk or satin, ornamented with fringe
and gold lace.
+The Private Theater+.--In the preceding sections the type of theater
described has been referred to as 'public.' This has been done to
distinguish it from the 'private' theater, a type which, although
similar in so far as the general principles of staging employed are
concerned, differed from the public theater in important particulars.
The private theater is so called because it originated in the
performances given before the invited guests of royalty, the nobility,
or the universities. Since these performances were given in great
halls, the type of theater which resulted was completely roofed, was
lighted by candles, and had seats in the pit as well as in the
galleries--when there were galleries. As soon as such theaters were
built, admission was, of course, no longer by invitation, but the
prices were so much higher than those of the public theaters that the
audiences remained much more select. The first of these theaters was
the Blackfriars, the remodeled hall of the former monastery of the
Blackfriars, done over by Burbage in 1596. Others {46} were those in
which the 'Children of Paul's' acted, the Cockpit, and the Salisbury
Court. The Blackfriars was at first under royal patronage, the actors
being the 'Children of the Chapel Royal.' These choir boys were
carefully trained in acting and dancing as well as singing, and were
subsidized by royalty, so that their performances tended to be much
more spectacular than those of the public theaters. The performances
at the Blackfriars seem to have retained this characteristic even after
1608, when Shakespeare's company took over the theater. Probably
because of the patronage and interest of royalty, it was in the private
theaters that painted scenes, already used in court masques, were first
introduced. Thus these roofed theaters are really the forerunners, so
far as England is concerned, of our modern playhouses.
+Effect of Stage Conditions on the Drama+.--When studied in the light
of Elizabethan stage conditions, many characteristics of the plays
written by Shakespeare and his contemporaries cease to be surprising or
puzzling. A complete conception of all the effects which these
conditions had upon the drama can only be gained by a careful study of
all the plays. Here, moreover, we are obliged to pass over many points
of more general character, such as the impossibility of representing
night by darkness when the performances were given by daylight in a
theater open to the sun. Two or three are, however, especially
important. For instance, since it was possible to leave many scenes
indefinitely localized, and since there was no necessity of long pauses
for the change of heavy scenery, the dramatists were not limited as
ours are to a {47} comparatively small number of scenes. This was an
advantage in that it gave great freedom and variety to the action; but
it was also a disadvantage in that it led to a scattering of effect and
to looseness of construction. So in _Antony and Cleopatra_ there are
forty-two scenes, some of which are only a few lines long, and in
consequence the play loses the intense, unified effect which it might
otherwise have produced. Again, the absence of a front curtain made it
impossible to end an act or play with a grand climax or an impressive
tableau. Instead, the scenes gradually die away; the actors leave the
stage one by one, or go off in procession. Whether this was gain or
loss is a debatable question. At any rate, this caused the Elizabethan
plays to leave on the spectator an impression totally different from
that left by ours. Finally, the absence of pictorial scenery forced
the dramatists to use verbal description far more than is customary
to-day. To this fact we owe some passages of poetry which are among
the most beautiful in all dramatic literature.
+Theatrical Companies+.--During Shakespeare's lifetime there were in
existence more or less continuously some twenty theatrical companies,
at least four or five of which, during the greater part of this period,
played contemporaneously in London. We have already seen how great
nobles, before the end of the fifteenth century, maintained small
companies of men as players of Interludes. When not wanted by their
patrons, these men traveled about the country, and their example was
followed by other groups whose legal position was a much less certain
quantity. As a result, a law was passed in 1572 which required that
{48} all companies of actors should be under the definite protection of
some noble. As time went on, this relation became one of merely
nominal patronage, but the companies continued to be known by the name
of their patron. Thus the company to which Shakespeare belonged was
known successively as Lord Strange's, the Earl of Derby's, first and
second Lord Hunsdon's (or, because of the office which the Hunsdons
held, as the Lord Chamberlain's), and as the King's company. At
various times it appeared at the Theater, the Curtain, the Globe, and
the Blackfriars, its greatest triumphs being associated with the Globe.
By 1608, if not before, it was unquestionably the most successful
company in London. It had the patronage of King James, and it
controlled and acted in what were respectively the most popular public
and private theaters, the Globe and the Blackfriars. When not acting
in London, it made tours to other cities. Its number included several
actors of well-known ability, among them Richard Burbage, the greatest
tragic actor of the time.
The most formidable rivals to this company were the Admiral's men and
the children's companies. The former company was managed by Richard
Henslowe; had, after 1600, a permanent home in the Fortune theater; and
included among its number Edward Alleyn, next to Burbage the most
famous Elizabethan actor. The two great children's companies were
those made up of the choir boys of the Chapel Royal and of St. Paul's.
The former had begun to give dramatic performances as early as 1506.
They were well trained, had the advantage of royal patronage, and were
{49} extraordinarily popular, becoming very serious rivals of the men's
companies. The performances of the Children of the Chapel Royal at the
Blackfriars between 1596 and 1608 were the most fashionable in London.
The children's companies were finally suppressed about 1609.
The members of the men's companies were divided into four classes:
those who had shares in the house and in the company, those who had
shares only in the company, hired actors, and apprentices. The third
of these classes received a fixed salary, the last were cared for by
the individual actors to whom they were apprenticed. The profits of
the theaters were derived from entrance money and the additional fees
received for the better seats. All of the first and half of the second
was divided between the members of the first and second classes of
shareholders. The members of the first received in addition shares in
the other half of the additional fees.[5]
Because female parts were always taken by men or boys, it is sometimes
assumed that Elizabethan acting must have been crude. On the contrary,
we have every reason to believe that most parts, particularly the less
important ones, were acted better than they are usually acted to-day.
Some of the actors, such as Burbage and Alleyn, were undoubtedly men of
great genius. All of them had the advantage of regular and consistent
training--a thing only too often lacking in these days when an actor of
ability is almost immediately made a 'star,' although he frequently
knows pitifully little of the art of acting. One of the most
interesting testimonies to the ability of Elizabethan actors is Ben
{50} Jonson's tribute to the memory of the boy actor, Salathiel Pavy:--
"Weep with me, all you that read
This little story;
And know, for whom a tear you shed
Death's self is sorry.
'Twas a child that so did thrive
In grace and feature,
As Heaven and Nature seem'd to strive
Which owned the creature.
Years he number'd scarce thirteen
When Fates turn'd cruel,
Yet three fill'd zodiacs had he been
The stage's jewel;
And did act (what now we moan)
Old men so duly,
As sooth the Parcae thought him one,
He play'd so truly.
So, by error, to his fate
They all consented;
But, viewing him since, alas, too late!
They have repented;
And have sought, to give new birth,
In baths to steep him;
But, being so much too good for earth,
Heaven vows to keep him."
Many of the points discussed in this chapter are still the subject of
controversy. The theories of the stage adopted here are, in general,
those of V. E. Albright, _The Shakespearean Stage_ (Macmillan, 1909).
Among the numerous books and articles on these topics, the most useful
are: G. F. Reynolds, _Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging_ (_Modern
Philology_, Vols. 3 and 4); Brodmeier, _Die Shakespeare Buehne_ (Weimar,
1904); Fleay, _Chronicle History of the London Stage_ (London, 1890);
Henslowe's _Diary_, ed. by W. Greg (London, 1904); and the works of
Creizenach and Schelling referred to in the preceding chapter.
[1] Another predecessor, the great hall of a noble or a university, is
mentioned in the section on the private theaters.
[2] In at least some of the theaters, the stage seems to have narrowed
toward the front.
[3] With this whole paragraph, cf. Albright, pp. 81 ff., and 104-105.
[4] This memorandum book of Philip Henslowe, the great manager, is one
of our chief sources of information about the Elizabethan theater.
[5] For Shakespeare's share, cf. p. 15.
{51}