+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 n.o.bility, 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 c.o.c.kpit, 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 pa.s.s 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 pa.s.sages 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 n.o.bles, 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 quant.i.ty. As a result, a law was pa.s.sed in 1572 which required that {48} all companies of actors should be under the definite protection of some n.o.ble. 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 a.s.sociated 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 cla.s.ses: 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 cla.s.ses 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 cla.s.ses 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 a.s.sumed 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 Buhne_ (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 Sch.e.l.ling referred to in the preceding chapter.
[1] Another predecessor, the great hall of a n.o.ble 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}
CHAPTER IV
ELIZABETHAN LONDON
Shortly after Shakespeare came to London, England demonstrated her new greatness to an astonished world; by the defeat of Spain"s greatest fleet, the "invincible Armada," England showed herself as no longer a small island nation, but as Mistress of the Sea. In this victory culminated the growth which had begun under Henry VII, first of Tudor sovereigns. Naval supremacy was, however, but a sign of a much greater and more far-reaching transformation--a transformation which had affected science, literature, and religion, and one which filled the men of Shakespeare"s time with such enthusiasm for the past, such confidence in the present, and such hope for the future, as has hardly been paralleled in the world"s history.
During the century which had elapsed since 1485, Copernicus"s discovery that the sun and not the earth was the center of our universe, had revolutionized the map of the heavens, as Columbus"s discovery of America had revolutionized the map of the world. Thus stimulated, scientific investigation started afresh, working in accordance with the modern methods formulated by Francis Bacon, while voyage quickly followed voyage, each new discovery adding fuel to the fire of enthusiasm. Wonderful tales of new lands and unimagined wealth spread from mouth to mouth. The voyages {52} of Martin Frobisher, Anthony Hawkins, and Francis Drake opened new worlds, not only to English imagination, but also to English trade. It was they and men like them who gave to England her unexpected naval and commercial supremacy.
The latter was partly a result of the former. Elizabeth"s victories over foreign enemies strengthened her power at home, and a.s.sured that freedom from internal discord which is essential to commercial prosperity. No sovereign distracted by danger from without could have mastered the factions which had sprung up within. The great religious movement known as the Protestant Reformation had not stopped in England with the separation of the English from the Roman Church under Henry VIII. It had brought into existence the Puritan, austere, bigoted, opposed to beauty of church and ceremonial, yet filled with superb moral and religious enthusiasm. It had brought about the persecution of Catholics and the still more merciless persecution of Protestants during the Catholic reaction under Queen Mary. Its successes, which began again with Elizabeth"s reign, gave occasion for continual intrigues of Catholic emissaries. It all but plunged the nation into civil war, a war averted only by the victory over Spain and by the statesmanship of Elizabeth. Freed from the fear of war, however, Puritan and Churchman, each in his own way, could apply his enthusiasm to the works of peace.
With the return of peace and security, moreover, England first felt the full effect of the literary Renaissance. The revival of cla.s.sical learning had already transformed the art and literature of the continent, {53} especially that of Italy. When, therefore, England turned again to the cla.s.sics, it turned also to the Italian culture and literature to which the Renaissance had given birth, and from these sources English literature received new beauty of thought and form.
It was, then, in a new England that Shakespeare lived, an England intensely proud of the past which had made the present possible, an England rich enough and secure enough to have leisure and interest for literature, an England so vigorous, so confident, that it could not fail to bring out all that was latent in its greatest genius.
+The City of London+.--All this enthusiasm and activity reached its highest point in London. Even more then than now, London was the center of influence, the place to which the greatest abilities were irresistibly attracted, and in which their greatest work was done. But the London of Shakespeare"s time was vastly different from the London of to-day. On all sides, except that washed by the Thames, the mediaeval walls were still standing and served as the city"s actual boundary. Outside them were several important suburbs, but where now houses extend for miles in unbroken ranks, there were then open fields and pleasant woods. The total population of the city hardly exceeded a hundred thousand, while that of the suburbs, including the many guests of the numerous inns, amounted to perhaps a hundred thousand more.
Hence, although there undoubtedly was crowding in the poorer quarters, London was a much more open city than it is to-day. The great houses all had their gardens, and a few minutes walk in any direction brought one to open country.
{54}
Westminster, now well within the greater London, was then only the most important suburb. Here was the Hall in which Parliament met, and, not far away, Whitehall, the favorite London residence of the Queen.
Attracted by the presence of royalty, many of the great n.o.bles had built their houses in this quarter, so that the north bank of the Thames from Westminster to the City was lined with stately buildings.
The Thames was London"s pleasantest highway. It was then a clear, beautiful river spanned by a single bridge. If one wished to go from the City to Westminster, or even eastward or westward within the City itself, one could go most easily by boat. The Queen in her royal barge was often to be seen on the river. The great merchant companies had their splendid barges, in which they made stately progresses. One went by boat to the bear gardens and theaters on the south bank. Below the bridge, the river was crowded with shipping. At one of the wharves lay an object of universal interest, the _Golden Hind_, the ship in which Drake had made his famous voyage round the world.
Within the city, most of the streets were narrow, poorly paved, and worse lighted. Those who went about by night had their servants carry torches, called "links," before them, or hired boys to light them home.
Such sanitation as existed was wretched, so that plagues and other diseases spread rapidly and carried off an appalling number of victims.
The ignorance and inefficiency of the police is rather portrayed than satirized in Shakespeare"s Dogberry and Verges. Such evils were common to all seventeenth-century cities, but these cities had their compensations in a freedom {55} and picturesqueness which have disappeared from our modern towns.
+The Citizens+.--In Elizabethan London, as in every city, the men who represented extremes of wealth and poverty, the courtiers and their imitators, the beggars and the sharpers, are those of whom we hear most; but the greater part of the population, that which controlled the city government, was of the middle cla.s.s, sober, self-respecting tradespeople, inclined towards Puritanism, and jealous of their independence. Such people naturally distrusted and disliked the actors and their cla.s.s, and used against them, as far as they could, the great authority of the city. In spite of court favor, the actors were compelled by city ordinances to build their theaters outside the city limits or on ground which the city did not control. Several attempts were made to suppress play acting altogether, ostensibly because of the danger that crowded audiences would spread the plague when it became epidemic. In spite of this official opposition, however, the sober citizens formed a goodly part of theater audiences until after the accession of King James, when the rising tide of Puritanism led to increased austerity. At no time were the majority of the citizens entirely free from a love for worldly pleasures. They swelled the crowds at the taverns, and their wives often vied with the great ladies of court in extravagance of dress.
+St. Paul"s+.--The great meeting place of London was, oddly enough, the nave of St. Paul"s Cathedral. This superb Gothic church, later destroyed by the Great Fire, was used as a common pa.s.sageway, as a place for doing business and for meeting friends. In {56} the late morning hours, the men-about-town promenaded there, displaying their gorgeous clothes and hailing those whom they wished to have known as their acquaintances. If a gallant"s cash were at low ebb, he loitered there, hoping for an invitation to dinner. If he had had a dinner, he often came back for another stroll in the afternoon. At one pillar he would find lawyers standing; at another, serving men seeking employment; at still another, public secretaries. Here one could learn anything from the latest fashion to the latest political scandal.
Meanwhile, divine worship might be going on in the chancel, un.o.bserved unless some fop wished to make himself conspicuous by joking with the choir boys. Thus St. Paul"s was a school of life invaluable to the dramatist. We know that Ben Jonson learned much there, and we can hardly doubt that Shakespeare did likewise.
+The Taverns+.--Another center of London life was the tavern. The man who would now lunch at his club then dined at an "ordinary," a _table d"hote_ in some tavern. Men dined at noon, and then sat on over their wine, smoking or playing at cards or dice. In the evening one could always find there music and good company. One tradition of Shakespeare tells of his evenings at the Mermaid tavern. "Many were the wit-combates," writes Fuller, "betwixt him [Shakespeare] and Ben Jonson, which two I behold like a Spanish great gallion, and an English man of War; Master Jonson (like the former) was built far higher in Learning; Solid, but Slow in his performances. Shake-spear, with the English man-of-War, lesser in bulk, but lighter in sailing, could turn with all tides, {57} tack about and take advantage of all winds, by the quickness of his Wit and Invention." Francis Beaumont, the dramatist, wrote the following verses to Ben Jonson:--
"What things have we seen Done at the Mermaid, heard words that have been So nimble, and so full of subtle flame, As if everyone from whence they came Had meant to put his whole wit in a jest, And had resolved to live a fool the rest Of his dull life; then when there hath been thrown Wit able enough to justify the town For three days past; wit that might warrant be For the whole city to talk foolishly Till that were cancelled; and when that was gone, We left an air behind us, which alone Was able to make the two next companies (Right witty, though but downright fools) more wise."
+At the Theater+.--Having dined, the Elizabethan gentleman often visited one of the numerous bookshops, or else went to the theater, perhaps to the Globe. In the latter case, since this theater was on the south bank of the Thames, he was most likely to cross the river by boat. A flag, floating from a turret over the theater, announced a performance there. The prices paid for admission varied, but the regular price for entrance to the Globe seems to have been a penny (about fifteen cents in the money of to-day). This, however, gave one only the right to stand in the pit or, perhaps, to sit in the top gallery. For a box the price was probably a shilling (equivalent to two dollars), the poorer seats costing less. At the aristocratic Blackfriars, sixpence (one dollar) was the {58} lowest price. At this theater, the most fashionable occupied seats on the stage, where they were at once extremely conspicuous and in the way of the actors; but this custom probably did not spread to the Globe before 1603. At the Blackfriars, too, one could have a seat in the pit, while at the Globe the pit was filled with a standing, jostling crowd of apprentices and riffraff. In the theater every one was talking, laughing, smoking, buying oranges, nuts, wine, or cheap books from shouting venders, just as is done in some music halls to-day. Once the trumpet had sounded for the third time, indicating the beginning of the performance, a reasonable degree of quiet was restored, until a pause in the action let the uproar burst forth anew. At an Elizabethan theater there were no pauses for shifting scenes. Consequently the few introduced were determined either by convention or by breaks in the action. At the Blackfriars and more aristocratic theaters, there was music between the acts, but at the Globe this was not customary until a comparatively late date, if ever.
An audience like that at the Globe, made up of all sorts and conditions of men from the highest n.o.bility to the lowest criminal, was, quite naturally, not easy to please as a whole. Yet, after all, the Elizabethans were less critical in some respects than we are. Although many comparatively cheap books were published, reading had not then become a habit, and a good plot was not the less appreciated because it was old. The audiences did, however, demand constant variety, so that plays had short runs, and most dramatists were forced to pay more attention to quant.i.ty {59} than to quality of production. The playwrights had, nevertheless, one great advantage over ours. Since the performances were given in the afternoon, and since theaters like the Globe were open to the weather, these men wrote for audiences which were fresh and wide-awake, ready to receive the best which the dramatist had to give.
It was under such conditions as these that Shakespeare worked. He wrote for all cla.s.ses of people, men bound together, nevertheless, by a common enthusiasm for England"s past and a common confidence in England"s future; men who were constantly coming in contact with persons from all parts of Europe, with sailors and travelers who had seen the wonders of the New World and the Old; men so stimulated by new discoveries, by new achievements of every sort, that hardly anything, even the supernatural, seemed for them impossible. Outside of ancient Athens, no dramatist has had a more favorable environment.
The best books on this subject for the general reader: Sir Walter Besant, _London in the Time of the Tudors_ (London, 1904); H. T.
Stephenson, _Shakespeare"s London_ (Henry Holt, 1905); T. F. Ordish, _Shakespeare"s London_ (The Temple Shakespeare Manuals, 1897).
{60}
CHAPTER V