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 inter-married 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 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 Hamlet was 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 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 thirty-eight 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 (1590-1591), Henry VI, Part 1 (1591-1592), Richard m and Comedy of Errors (1592-1593), Titus Andromcus and Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594), Two Gentlemen of Verona, Loves Labour's Lost, and Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595), 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 (1598-1599), Julius Caesar and As You Like It (1599-1600), 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 Measure and Othello (1604-1605), King Lear and Macbeth (1605-1606), Antony and Cleopatra (1606-1607), Coriolanus and Timon of Athens (1607-1608), Pericles (1608-1609), Cymbeline (1609-1610), A Winter's Tale (1610-1611), The Tempest (1611-1612), 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.

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 (1572-1637) 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, especially Every Man in His Humour (1598), Volpone (1606), The Alchemist (1610), and Bartholomew 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). . .

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 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 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 con-tracts which promised them a weekly wage-ranging 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.

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 pre-Commonwealth 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 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 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 mid-May 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 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 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 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 500-750. 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 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. . .