THE CLOSURE OF THE THEATERS
BY THE PURITANS |
THERE
never was such a general passion for dramatic entertainments
as during the Elizabethan period; the art was thoroughly studied
and understood, as how could it be otherwise under the reign
of such dramatists as Jonson,
Beaumont and Fletcher,
and Shakespeare?
The actors lived in their fine old substantial city houses, or
in grand country manors, such as Edward
Alleyn inhabited at Dulwich, esteemed and sought after by
the best people, and if commonly prudent, died rich and honored.
Their worst enemy was the plague; while it raged, and that was
pretty frequently, all theaters were closed, and they had to
migrate into the country, which was not profitable.
But as Puritanism advanced, the prosperity
of the theatrical profession began to decline. In 1622 there
were but four principal companies--the King's, which acted at
the Blackfriars and the Globe; the Prince's, at the Curtain;
the Palgrave's, at the Fortune; the Queen of Bohemia's, at the
Cockpit. 1629 was the first year in which a female performer
was seen in the English theater. The innovation was introduced
by a French company, but the women were hissed and pippin-pelted
off the stage. This was at the new theater just opened in Salisbury
Court. Three weeks afterwards they made a second attempt, but
the audience would not tolerate them. King Charles and his Queen
had a great love for dramatic entertainments; the latter frequently
took part in the Court Masques, which brought down upon her the
brutal language of that canting fellow Prynne. Yet in 1635 Sir
Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels, under whose jurisdiction
all theatrical affairs were then placed, mentions only the King's
company under Lowin and Taylor at Blackfriars, the Queens under
Beeston at the Cockpit, the Prince's under Moore and Kane at
the Fortune; in the next year he adds a fourth, doubtless Salisbury
Court, to the list, which house was probably closed on the previous
date.
On the 6th of September, 1642, the theaters
were closed by ordinance, it being considered not seemly to indulge
in any kind of diversions or amusements in such troublous times.
In 1647 another and more imperative order was issued, in consequence
of certain infractions of the previous one, threatening to imprison
and punish as rogues all who broke its enactments. Close upon
the heels of this second came a third, which declared all players
to be rogues and vagabonds, and authorized the justices of the
peace to demolish all stage galleries and seats; any actor discovered
in the exercise of his vocation should for the first offense
be whipped, for the second be treated as an incorrigible rogue,
and every person found witnessing the performance of a stage
play should be fined five shillings. Verily, the reign of Praise-God
Barebones had commenced. But not even these stringent regulations
were found sufficient, and in the next year a Provost-Marshal
was appointed, whose duty it was to seize all ballad singers
and suppress all stage-plays. It is mentioned in Whitelocke's
Memorials, that on the 20th of December, 1649, some stage players
were seized by troopers at the Red Bull, their clothes taken
away, and themselves carried off to prison. What a change from
the palmy days of Elizabeth and James! Happy were those who had
passed away. The following, from Davies' "Miscellanies,"
is a striking picture of the condition of actors at this time:
"When the civil wars shut the doors
of the theaters, many of the comedians, who had youth, spirit,
and vigor of body, took up arms in defence of their royal master.
When they could no longer serve him by the profession of acting,
they boldly vindicated his cause on the field. Those who were
too far advanced in age to give martial proofs of their loyalty,
were reduced to the alternative of starving, or engaging in some
employment to support their wants. During the first years of
the unnatural contest between King and Parliament, the players
were not unwelcome guests to those towns and cities which espoused
the royal cause; but in London, where bigotry and opposition
to the King were triumphant, they experienced nothing but persecution.
A few of the nobility, indeed, who loved the amusements of the
stage, encouraged the players to act in their houses privately;
but the watchful eyes of furious zealots prevented all public
exhibitions, except, as the author of Historia Histrionica
asserts, now and then such as were given with great caution and
privacy. Some time before the beheading of the unhappy Charles,
a company of comedians was formed out of the wreck of several,
who played at the Cockpit three or four times; but while they
were acting Fletcher's Bloody Brother, the soldiers rushing
in, put an end to the play, and carried the actors to Hatton
House, at that time a sort of prison for royal delinquents; where
they were confined two or three days, and, after being stripped
of their stage apparel, were discharged. Much about this time,
Lowin kept the Three Pigeons at Brentford, where he was attended
by Joseph Taylor. Here they lingered out an uncomfortable existence,
with scarce any other means of support than those which they
obtained from the friends of royalty, and the old lovers of the
drama who now and then paid them a visit and left them marks
of their bounty. Upon these occasions Lowin and Taylor gave their
visitors a taste of their quality. The first roused up the spirit
and humor of Falstaff. Again the fat old rogue swore that he
knew the Prince and Poins as well as he that made them. Hamlet,
too, raised the visionary terrors of the ghost, and filled his
select auditors with terror and amazement. To entertain their
guests we must suppose they assumed various personages, and alternately
excited merriment and grief. How often were those honest fellows
surprised into a belief of the good news that the King and Parliament
had come to treaty, that peace would be restored, and the King
return to his capital in triumph. How would their countenances
then be lighted up with joy, the glass cheerfully circulate,
and the meeting be dismissed with: 'The King shall have his own
again.' Their honest friend and associate, Goff, the actor of
women's parts at Blackfriars and the Globe, was the usual jackall
to summon the scattered comedians together, that they might exhibit
at Holland House, or some nobleman's seat, within a few miles
of the capital."
But not even "the saints" were
immaculate; one Robert Cox found means to bribe the officers
appointed to look after such affairs, and gave short interludes
and "drolls" at the Red Bull to crowded houses, under
the guise of rope-dancing entertainment. It was vile buffoonery,
and could scarcely be dignified by the title of dramatic performance,
and was therefore more likely to be tolerated by their saintships
than the noble productions of Shakespeare and Beaumont; and therein
they are closely followed by the Mawworms of the present day,
who grin at the dreary and doubtful jokes of a circus clown,
and gaze approvingly at the lightly-skirted young ladies with
one toe on the bare-backed steed and the other in a horizontal
line, but would consider it sinful to listen to the noble with
of Touchstone, and highly indelicate to look upon Rosalind in
her forester's dress. With a company consisting only of himself,
a man, and a boy, Robert Cox contrived, in spite of ordinances,
to travel all over the country, to perform at the Universities--which,
for want of better things, eagerly welcomed his--and to make
a large fortune by his mummeries.
But even the partisans of the Commonwealth
were beginning to grow a little weary of the Cimmerian gloom
and intellectual paralysis in which they lived, and having obtained
the countenance of Whitelocke, Sir John Maynard, and other persons
of distinction, Davenant,
in 1656, opened a sort of theater at Rutland House, Charterhouse
Yard, where he began with the representation of what he called
an opera ("The Siege of Rhodes"). This was followed
by other works of a similar kind. In 1658 he went a step farther,
and opened the Cockpit with a performance he described as "The
Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, expressed by instrumental and
vocal music, and by the art of perspective in scenes, at the
Cockpic in Drury Lane, at three in the afternoon." We see
he carefully avoided the word "play," that red rag
of bull-headed fanaticism. It is said that Cromwell's hatred
of the Spaniards, who in this piece were held up to execration,
had much to do with my Lord Protector giving his consent.
Two years afterwards came the Restoration,
and a new order of things dramatic. Theaters began to revive,
and plays were openly performed at the Red Bull, the Cockpit
in Drury Lane, and the theater in Salisbury Court.
This article is reprinted
from English Actors: From Shakespeare to Macready. Henry
Barton Baker. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1879. pp. 27-35.
RELATED WEBSITES
- Condemnation of the Elizabethan Theater - An examination of attempts by the Church and
the London Corporation to shut down the theaters, as well as
the royal protection which allowed the theaters to thrive.
- Elizabethan Playhouses, Actors, and Audiences - An overview of Elizabethan theatre; covers regulation
and licensing of plays, objections to playhouses, companies of
actors, and composition and ownership of plays.
- Restoration Drama
- An overview of Restoration theatre; includes information on
the appearance of women on the English stage, the persistance
of Elizabethan plays, parody of heroic drama, the nature of Restoration
comedy, women playwrights, and Collier's attack on the stage.
- Find more articles on Elizabethan theatre
- Purchase books on Elizabethan theatre
- Search eBay! for theatre collectibles
Find more articles on ELIZABETHAN THEATRE: |
|
|