Theaters

What has been said above regarding the construction of the stage and the theater itself applies particularly to the large "public" theaters. There were Private many "private" theaters, smaller and more "select," and naturally different in many respects. They were roofed over, lighted by candles, and their pits had seats for the gentry. They were probably quicker than the public theaters to take up new ideas. Naturally it was from these, rather than from the public theaters that the drama after the Restoration (Charles II) took its construction and its spirit. (See page 273.)

It is a question whether the acting of the present is better than that of Shakspere's time. It seems certain that the actors for whom such parts as Hamlet and Othello were written must have been worthy of the responsibility laid upon them. It is probable that, in that age, so impetuous and fiery and imaginative, the men who upon that bare stage could thrill and carry out of themselves that restless and crude audience, had powers beyond anything that our stage knows to-day. It is impossible to believe that they could have been inferior.

city proper.

Site of

Many of the theaters stood outside the Theaters were, indeed, regarded with disfavor, not only on moral grounds, but as places likely to spread the plague. Look at the map on page 195

Theaters

and see the different theaters (indicated by circles). Some are across the river, in Southwark, south of London, others are in the fields to the north of the city, outside the old "city walls." In spite of opposition, the theater flourished till the growing bitterness of the Puritans brought all plays to an abrupt close. The Elizabethan drama originated, reached its height and came to its end within a half century.

One must remember that Shakspere's London was not at all like London of to-day! Only the river was the same. Shakspere's It was spanned by a remarkable structure, London London Bridge, lined with tall houses, so that one saw nothing of the water on either side. Shakspere's London was not large, of only a few hundred thousand inhabitants, closely packed into a small space. The citizen might readily on Sundays, or on pleasant evenings, stroll from his home into open fields. In the city itself the streets were narrow, ill-paved, and crooked, overhung by houses that projected at each story till they nearly met overhead. The man of lower rank must yield the wall to his superior and take whatever downpour the heavens or the windows might bestow! A traveller after dark must provide a light and have his sword ready to his hand. The slums, bad as slums are to-day, were worse in crime and license. Actual poverty was perhaps less. It was a time of prosperity, a time of spending and of pleasure, time of progress and excitement and extravagance.

Dress showed a man's class. One could tell the courtier from afar off. He walked bright as a butterfly. The "sober citizen," in contrast, dressed in browns or grays, especially if Puritanically inclined. The craftsmen (like those in Julius Cæsar) carried the "mark of their profes

sion." Shops were small and made up for lack of windowdisplay by the loud cries of the apprentices, whom one could identify by their flat caps and their cudgels.

London lay, for the most part, between the Tower to the east and Westminster to the west, keeping close, as a rule, to the river. Its center was St. Paul's, not the modern cathedral, but the old Gothic church, abandoned in Shakspere's day as a place of worship and used as a "walk," a place where men might meet to confer over business, might read proclamations and hire servants. Here, if anywhere, lay the heart of London.

Little of old London survives. Much was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1665. Old houses have given place to new, streets have been widened and straightened, new avenues have been made. The student should compare a modern map of the city with that on page 195. Try to reconstruct the London that Shakspere knew, the streets he walked, the houses he visited, the theater in which he played. Yet wonderful as the Elizabethan age was, one is hardly tempted to wish to live in it. It is far pleasanter, surrounded by modern comforts, to visit it in imagination.

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

How did the theater of the ancients differ from that of England? Show how the physical form of the English theater evolved from the inn yard.

Describe the construction of the theater itself and explain the circumstances under which plays were given. Look up additional matter if possible. (See Reading List.)

Describe the stage proper, drawing a rough diagram, and explaining the nature and use of the "inner stage."

Explain how the inner stage gradually came to be the whole stage of to-day.

What effect had the absence of a curtain upon beginnings and endings of scenes? How were the "dead" removed? Refer to instances in Shakspere.

What changes have taken place upon the stage itself? in the auditorium?

What were "private theaters"? In what were they in advance of the others?

What use did the Elizabethans make of scenery? How were the actors costumed?

Who acted the parts of women? What reason to think these parts were acted well?

What reason to think that the acting of Shakspere's day was generally upon a high level?

SPECIAL TOPICS

The arrangement and character of the Greek theater.
Report upon a Greek play.

A performance of a play in Shakspere's theater compared with a modern performance.

CHAPTER VII

OTHER DRAMATIC WRITERS OF SHAKSPERE'S TIME AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING

No dramatic writers of his time equalled Shakspere. A number of dramatists, however, while inferior to him, yet show genius, like those foothills that would be mountains were the greater mountains removed.

Of this group the most eminent is Ben Jonson, who was closely associated with Shakspere. (For convenience, all writers of the time of Shakspere, even Ben Jonson though their work continued into the days

of James, or even Charles, will be referred to here as