Perspicacity: Uncovering the Elizabethan Public Stage

Uncovering the Elizabethan Public Stage

Articles

Extensive research is constantly being conducted concerning the facts of the enigmatic Elizabethan playhouses. What caused the break from indoor spaces? Were the playhouses used as performance space alone? What did the theatres look like, and what features did they incorporate into their stage plan? The list of questions is endless.

It is important to note that everything that is known about the Elizabethan stage is based upon speculation and assumptions made after careful study. Much of the information at the heart of the research is made up of sketches, documents, and diary entries that hint at conclusions. Other than these sparse accounts, the most important pool of information stems from the 1989 excavation of the Rose Theatre and part of Shakespeare's famous Globe.

Before the first public theatre was built, plays were produced for public enjoyment in the yards of local inns. Theatre historian Oscar Brockett maintains that at one time at least six London inns were used as theatre spaces. This was of course prior to the 1574 decree that banned London innkeepers from hosting theatrical productions within their establishments without the permission of the mayor and alderman of the city. These inn yard spaces featured a "booth like" stage set in one corner of the yard, not too unlike the platea and pageant wagon of the previous era. The ground around the stage and the windows of the rooms overlooking the yard provided the audience with viewing galleries. Not surprisingly, the partnership between innkeeper and acting company was a purely commercial relationship that proved to be mutually beneficial. If the company was allowed to perform at the inn, the innkeeper's tavern profits increased dramaticaly due to the crowd of theatregoers. Likewise, the theatre company's profits increased greatly when they performed near a tavern.

Many historians speculate that the fore mentioned mayor's decree of 1574 was the event that actually spawned the building of the permanent public playhouses. These historians contend that it was in response to this ruling that two men, John Brayne and his brother-in-law James Burbage, set out to build a public playhouse outside of the jurisdiction of the decree. The historians are divided on the issue of who established his theatre first. Traditionally, James Burbage is considered the designer of the first permanent theatre space in England with his "Theatre," built in the Liberty of Holywell in 1576. However, recent findings, about which Brockett writes, seem to point the honor towards Brayne. According to scholar J.L. Styan, the two men, who were not in competition, began constructing scaffolding for a stage in the Red Lion Inn in 1567. If correct, "The Theatre" would be the first playhouse built solely as a theatre space due to the fact that the Red Lion functioned primarily as an inn not a theatre space. Styan speaks of the Red Lion as an inn while Brockett, based upon legal documents, known as the Red Lion Documents, discovered in 1983, maintains that the Red Lion was never intended for anything other than the production of theatre. The answer resides within whether or not the Red Lion was built as an inn that merely hosted theatre or as a permanent playhouse. Supposing that Mr. Brockett is correct, the Red Lion, built in 1567, predates both Burbage's "Theatre" and the decree of 1574 by nearly a decade. This timeframe sparks questions as to the motive behind the building of the Red Lion.

No matter who was actually first, Burbage's theatre, literally titled "The Theatre," is the first established permanent theatre of which there is substantial documented accounts. The title of the playhouse is seemingly simplistic. However, according to Styan, Burbage was the first to coin the term in reference to a playhouse. The word "Theatre" comes from the Greek word meaning literally "a place of seeing." The Theatre, which opened in 1576, as it was stated before, incorporated a shape reminiscent of the great halls and galleries in which theatre had previously been commonly performed. In addition, some historians believe that the arenas used for the animal baiting rites contributed to the shape. There was also a raised platform on scaffolding set against a wall. The raised stage not only allowed an easier view for the audience, it also allowed for space under the stage to be utilized. The wall behind the stage was covered with a façade that included two entrance doors. Next, behind the doors was the tiring house that offered a "green room " area for the actors as well as storage space. The Theatre was used for at least 20 years. During that time, several companies used the Theatre's stage. Included in the list of companies, is Shakespeare's "Lord Chamberlains's Men."

The writings of John de Witt are among the most important sources for theatre historians concentrating on the Elizabethan era. He writes about three other public theatres that were built in the style of The Theatre not long after 1576. The Curtain was first in 1577. Clearly, the Curtain was the rival for the Theatre. It was located just north of Burbage's playhouse. Interestingly, the playhouse's name is not derived from a theatrical curtain. The title stems from the word "courtine," meaning a small court. Next, the Rose, owned by Phillip Henslowe, was built in 1587 for the "Admiral's Men." The Rose was located on the south bank of the Thames in the Liberty of the Clink. The Rose was a highly successful theatre that hosted over 200 plays between 1594 and 1597. That works out to roughly 67 plays per year. If it is figured in that this type of open-air theatre was only active during the warm months of the year, it is clear that the Rose was an incredibly profitable and busy theatre. Finally, the Swan, built by Francis Langley opened in 1595 to the west of the Theatre. Later, there were two other important public playhouses that were built. First, the first Globe was built in 1598. One source speculates that Richard Burbage, son of James Burbage, built the Globe from the timbers of the Theatre. The Globe is the most famous of all of the public playhouses due mainly to the fact that Shakespeare and his company made the playhouse their home. Next, the Fortune was built in 1599 to the North in the Liberty of Finsbury. The Fortune was the first of the public playhouses to be square as opposed to the more rounded shape.

The public playhouses incorporated a few common elements. First, all but the Fortune, as it was noted, were round or "polygonal" in shape. Historians speculate that this is due to the influence of "Bear Baiting" and "Bull Baiting" arenas. After the 1989 excavation, historians surmised that the Rose was polygonal, probably having as many as 14 sides. It is further speculated that many of the stages in the playhouses were removable so that they could be used for such animal baiting if need be.

Next, the theatres were quite intimately spaced. The smallest of the known theatres was the Rose. Its outside diameter was a mere 72 feet. The inside diameter was only 49 feet 2 inches (Post 1989 figure). Interestingly, it is now known that the Rose's floor sloped gradually towards the stage. According to Phillip Henslowe's building contract with Peter Street, the Fortune's inside diameter was similar to that of the Rose, but the outer diameter was 80 feet. The largest of the known playhouses was the Globe. Inside, the diameter was an "outrageous" 75 feet. The outer diameter of the Globe was 100 feet. The figures for all of the theatres except the Rose are speculations based on sketches and various documents. While the Globe was partially excavated in 1989, the Rose is the only playhouse that has been excavated enough to measure its dimensions.

Third, each of the playhouses used a seating layout inspired by the inn yard days of theatre. Situated around the stage was an open floor space where the "groundlings" stood. Aside from that, there were three gallery levels that increased in price from bottom to top. The seating capacity of the theatres is virtually unknown. However, it is known that the Swan theatre could hold 3,000 people at maximum capacity according to de Witt's calculations.

Finally, the acting space itself was a platform inspired by the platea and pageant wagons of the medieval era. The stage jutted out into the audience nearly halfway. Until the 1989 excavation of the Rose and partially of the Globe, it was thought that the stage came exactly halfway into the viewing area. However, it is determined that the stage falls just short of half by 5 feet 10 inches in the Rose. The excavation taught archeologists that the Rose's stage was 36 feet nine inches wide and only 16 feet 5 inches deep when it was completed in 1587. The stage was moved slightly in 1592 during an enlargement of the theatre. However, the actual dimensions were not altered much. The stage grew only in depth to 18 feet 4 inches deep. The Rose's stage was indeed the smallest. The difference becomes clear in the wake of the Fortune's 27 feet 6 inch deep stage and the Globe's 27 feet 8 inch deep stage. However, the deepest stage was the Red Lion's. The Red Lion Documents, discussed earlier, report that the stage was a full 30 feet deep. The stages in all of the playhouses were raised by about 5 feet off of the floor.

One of the major debates about the stage concerns the existence of a trapdoor. Historian T.J. King believes he has proved the trap door's existence. As evidence, he cites sketches as well as stage directions contained within original texts of plays. According to King, the texts refer to the opening as "a ditch, a well, a pit, a vault, or a grave" when they call for the trap door's use. Specifically, in Shakespeare's Hamlet the following stage direction was included, "Ghost cries under the stage." Furthermore, a prompter's warning from Shakespeare's As You Like It reads as follows, "Gascoine and Hubert below: Ready to open the Trap doore for Mr. Taylor." If those textual facts are not convincing enough, King points to an etching from the title page of Messalina (1640). The picture shows clearly a rectangular shape drawn on the stage floor. King concludes by explaining that sight lines did not demand the stage to be elevated. He maintains that the stage was elevated for no other reason than to make room below the stage.

The public theatre houses of Elizabethan England are truly a mystery that scholars are far from fully unlocking. As it was stated before, there are countless unanswered questions that remain. Perhaps in time more evidence will be discovered. Perhaps more excavation sites will be opened. Until that time, theatre historians must continue to make their assumptions based upon what little fact there is.