Prior to world war II live theatre was confined mostly to

In terms of performances and theatres, Roman drama reached its height in the 4th century ce, but it had already encountered opposition that was to lead to its demise. From about 300 ce on, the church tried to dissuade Christians from going to the theatre, and in 401 the fifth Council of Carthage decreed excommunication for anyone who attended performances on holy days. Actors were forbidden the sacraments unless they gave up their profession, a decree not rescinded in many places until the 18th century. An edict of Charlemagne (c. 814) stated that no actor could put on a priest’s robe; the penalty could be banishment. This suggests that drama, most probably mime, had ridiculed the church or that it had tried to accommodate religious sensibilities by performance of “godly” plays.

The invasions of the barbarians from the north and east accelerated the decline of Roman theatre. Although by 476 Rome had been sacked twice, some of the theatres were rebuilt. The last definite record of a performance in Rome was in 533. Archaeological evidence suggests that the theatre did not survive the Lombard invasion of 568, after which state recognition and support of the theatre was abandoned. Theatre did continue for a while in the Eastern Roman Empire, the capital of which was Constantinople, but by 692 the Quinisext Council of the church passed a resolution forbidding all mimes, theatres, and other spectacles. Although the effectiveness of the decree has been questioned, historians until recently used it to signify the end of the ancient theatre.

The assumption now is that although official recognition and support of performances were withdrawn and theatres were not used, some remnants of at least the mime tradition were carried on throughout the Middle Ages. Christian writings suggest that performers were familiar figures. For instance, two popular sayings were “It is better to please God than the actors” and “It is better to feed paupers at your table than actors.” Apart from the mime tradition, one Roman playwright, Terence, retained his reputation through the early Middle Ages, probably because of his literary style.

Howard Bay

Women performers were widespread during the period as jugglers, acrobats, dancers, singers, and musicians. There were women troubadours and jongleurs, and many of the French chansons are written from the point of view of female narrators, notably the chansons de mal mariée, or complaints by unhappily married women. Generations of ecclesiastical authorities protested against the great choruses of women who poured into churches and monasteries on feast days, singing obscene songs and ballads. Complaints are recorded from the 6th century ce to the 14th about women taking part in licentious public performances on festive occasions. Women were also active participants in the later mumming plays; the London Mumming circa 1427 was presented by an all-female cast, while in the Christmas Mumming at Hertford the young king Henry VI saw a performance consisting of “a disguysing of the rude upplandisshe people compleynynge on hir wyves, with the boystous aunswere of hir wyves.”

Medieval religious drama arose from the church’s desire to educate its largely illiterate flock, using dramatizations of the New Testament as a dynamic teaching method. It is doubtful whether there is any connection between the drama of classical times and the new rudimentary dramatizations that slowly grew into the miracle and mystery cycles of plays in the Middle Ages. As early as the 10th century in Switzerland, France, England, and Germany, short and simple dramatic renderings of parts of the Easter and Christmas liturgy of the mass were being performed. As these short scenes grew in number, small scenic structures, called mansions, sedum, loci, or domi (the Latin words for seats, places, and homes, respectively), were placed at the sides of the church nave. At these were acted stories of the Nativity, Passion, or Resurrection, depending upon the particular season of the Christian calendar. At the conclusion of each scene the congregation turned its attention to the next mansion, so following a succession of scenes set out at intervals around the nave. Gradually, the performance of liturgical drama passed out of the hands of the clergy and into those of the laity, probably via the trade guilds of craftsmen, which were also religious fraternities. More and more secular interludes crept into the dramas—to such an extent that the dramas moved out of the church building into the public square. The individual plays became linked in cycles, often beginning with the story of the creation and ending with that of the Last Judgment. Each play within the cycle was performed by a different trade guild. Many of the plays from different cycles have survived and can still be seen in parts of England.

George C. Izenour Clive Barker

King Lear, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, Tamburlaine, Doctor Faustus, the works of arguably the two greatest Elizabethan writers of drama, William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, still survive today and enjoy immense popularity. With very little effort it is easy to imagine the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage; to visualise their costumes and hear the voices of long dead actors, perhaps even to hear the roar of laughter at the antics of Puck or Stephano, or feel the tense silence as Lear emotionally holds his dead daughter Cordelia. All this is possible, and yet the audience, those who filled up the auditorium, those who the actors performed too, and the playwrights wrote for, remain but a ghostly substance, shrouded in the mystery of time. Where they; "...ignorant or intelligent, riotous or refined, libertine or law-abiding, plebian or privileged?" (1) Penetrating this distant world is far from easy and discovering the true nature of the Elizabethan, Jacobean audience perhaps impossible. Yet fragments of this lost world remain, and although many pieces may be lost, it is possible to put the rest together again and thus get some idea of what the whole looked like. When trying to determine the nature of plebian play going in England before the Civil War, it is perhaps necessary to concentrate on the period 1576 to 1642. Before 1576 there were no great "public" theatres as such, the first being built in 1576. Before then, players performed where ever they could, in streets or in halls. One rather overwhelming problem that immediately arises for the historian when trying to learn about the play going activities of those below the elite, is the sheer lack of sources for those areas outside London. This means that most studies of the theatre in this period are confined to this city. Therefore, it must be remembered that it is always a small percentage of the entire population of England that is being referred to. There were theatrical activities outside London, but London was the centre - it still is today. In this respect therefore, London was unique, and this form of Popular Culture only accessible to those within easy distance of the city. Neither are the London masses typical of the masses in general, for the Capital was economically, as well as culturally, ahead of the provincial counties. The difficulty for the historian does not lie so much in the lack of references made to the theatre audience, they are plentiful indeed, as Alison Cook states; "A wide assortment of sermons, official complaints, regulatory documents, diaries, letters, and foreign travellers accounts, as well as passages from plays and other works of literature, all refer to the audiences." (2) And some things such the cost of entry and how it depended on where one desired to sit (or stand) can more or less be taken as fact, but these sources give very little insight into the actual "experience" of play-going, especially for those below the social elite. Indeed this is not a problem exclusive to studies of play going, it is very difficult for the historian to learn about plebian lifestyle in general. Perhaps this proliferates the problem. Such sources do not reveal why people went, what they actually got out of the plays, what the environment was really like, or the frequency of visits. For such information, diaries are invaluable, as Gerald Eade Bentley states; "One of the most promising sources of information about Elizabethan theatrical history is the private diaries and letters which have survived the house clearing raids of three centuries." (3) But as this suggests, such sources are rare, and where they do exist, they usually refer to the play going of the elite rather than the masses. Not necessary because the masses were all illiterate, but simply because Popular Culture did not embrace diary writing. Such conclusive evidence is so scanty that it cannot even be said with any degree of certainty that the masses did actually attend plays. This is certainty an ongoing debate amongst historians of this period. Alison Cook argues that play going was an activity belonging largely to the "upper levels of the social order" (4). She argues that family incomes in the last decade of the sixteenth century were barely enough to provide the essentials of life, let alone the penny or so needed for entry. She states; "On the surface it might appear that almost anyone could afford to spend a penny for two or three hours of amusement at the playhouse. Yet in view of the cost of basic necessities - food, shelter, clothing and fuel - it seems doubtful that even so much as a penny could often be spared from most pockets. " (5) And concludes that; "...the social and economic realities or renaissance London decreed an audience more privileged than plebian" (6) This is certainly plausible considering the heavy demands laid on the people by the war with Spain, the succession of bad harvests, and high inflation, and would certainly explain why only an estimated three out of twenty five Londoners attended the theatre (7). However Alfred Harbage states; "...if the penny spent on food meant only an additional cucumber or two, one might as well squander it on a play." (8) If living standard were harsh in the late sixteenth century, as historians generally agree, perhaps the truth is that the lower classes could not really afford to go, but that they went anyway. Henry Crosse in his Vertues Commonwealth; or Highway to honour (1603) states: "...many poore pincht, needie creatures, that live of almes, and that have scarce neither cloath to their backe, nor foode for the belley, yet wil make shift but they will see a play, let wife and children begge." (9) However, contemporary opinions such as Crosse's need to be treated with caution. With any type of primary evidence, there are necessary questions to ask. Before one can begin to assess the value of the information given, it is perhaps necessary to establish who wrote the piece and why. People generally write for a reason. Either because they want to remember a particular event; because they want to inform someone of something; because an unusual occurrence has taken place, or because they think that what they have to say is significant or interesting. Establishing the author can reveal a lot about the validity of the source. It should be noted that men such as Henry Crosse were men of fervent religious zeal. They were one of many of the religious to be concerned about the play going activities of the citizens of London. They therefore may have presented a distorted picture of reality. Their aim, more often than not, was to discourage people from going to the playhouse by stressing the dishonour and immorality of the activity and it is likely that self interest also played a part. Preachers wanted to be heard, and the theatres were, if not literally, giving them a run for their money; "More have recourse to playing houses than to praying houses." (10) Similarly, it may have been in the interest of the middle classes to encourage this immoral image of the playhouse, as it would perhaps discourage their employees from skipping the afternoon to attend a play. Also, considering that after the 1590's competition was rife between the different companies and theatres, it would perhaps be in the interest of one to discredit the other. Cook's argument receives support from Evans, but historians in general seem to agree that plebians were regular playgoers. Holsey states; "The audience itself would seem to have been composed of just about every class, with the possible exception of the highest nobility." (11) And Harbage; "...Shakespeare's audience was a large receptive assemblage of men and women of all ages and of all classes." (12) It is also difficult for the historian to determine whether the lower classes confined their play going activities to the large Amphi-theatres, or whether they also frequented the more expensive, private playhouses. Traditionally historians have advocated that the so called "Public" and "Private" playhouses were most certainly divided along class lines. It was a common assumption that the lower classes went to the outdoor playhouses such as The Swan or The Globe, whereas the middle classes went to the private, indoor playhouses such as Black Friars. However, Andrew Gurr has recently challenged this assumption. He does not deny that the lower classes, because of their financial situation, had to restrict themselves to the cheaper Amphi-theatres, but he argues that the amphi-theatre also attracted the wealthy. He argues; "The rich and poor audiences were not mutually exclusive; rather the rich went to public and private playhouses alike, the poor more exclusively to the public." (13) Neither does he exclude the possibility that the lower classes also occasionally visited the more 'elitist' Black Friars. There are just too few documents shedding light on such matters.

Bibliography & Endnotes

Essays