CHAPTER 4 ELIZABETHAN AUDIENCE AND DRAMA

Transcription

1 138 CHAPTER 4 ELIZABETHAN AUDIENCE AND DRAMA Without an audience there isn t much point in producing content, so we can start this topic by saying that the audience is crucial. If the content appeals to the audience then it is a successful content. If the audience doesn t respond, then the content has failed. Studying audience is just that studying theories or ideas about audiences. The creation of an atmosphere for the play is left to the descriptive words of the poet, the voice of the actor and the imagination of the audience. It is for the audience that a dramatist writes a drama. In other words, dramas are meant for the audiences and the audiences are meant for the dramas. In Shakespearean dramas, the foolish things were written to please the foolish, the filthy for the filthy, and the brutal for the brutal. The Elizabethan audience, for which Shakespeare wrote his plays, was of a most heterogeneous kind. They may conveniently be characterized as the vulgar and the refined. To the former class belonged all sorts of vulgar and uncultured people like, sailors, soldiers, thieves, pickpockets, cheats and immoral men and women. On the other hand, the audience comprised educated

2 139 men and women, respectable businessmen and public officers, critics and scholars, and at times, members of royal families. Shakespeare and all other contemporary playwrights had to cater to the tastes of both the classes and such different people. The other critics of Elizabethan era has remarked that, "He wrote for the great vulgar and the small in his time, not for posterity. If Queen Elizabeth and the maids of honor laughed heartily at his worst jokes, and the catcalls in the gallery were silent at his best passages, he went home satisfied, and slept the next night well. He was willing to take advantage of the ignorance of the age in many things, and if his plays pleased others, not to quarrel with them himself." 1 To see how the general public of that era loved the play only one and only major form of entrainment we need to discuss the causes of popularity of drama and the formation of theater which was loved but the audiences of that era. The simple cycle of theater grew with the demand of such plays we see that history says: the theatre was a public amusement form of innovation in the social life of the Elizabethans, and it immediately took the general fancy. Like that of Greece or Spain, it developed with amazing rapidity and popularity. London's first theater was built when Shakespeare was about twelve years old; and the whole system of the Elizabethan theatrical world came into being during his lifetime. The great popularity of plays of all sorts led to the building of playhouses both public and private, to the organization of innumerable

3 140 companies of players both layman and professional, and to countless difficulties connected with the authorship and licensing of plays. Companies of actors were kept at the big baronial estates of Lord Oxford, Lord Buckingham and others. At that time many strolling troupes went about the country playing wherever they could find welcome and basically sometimes called. They commonly consisted of three or at most four men and a boy, the latter to take the women's parts. They gave their plays in parade and costume in the open squares of the town, in the halls of noblemen and other gentry, or in the courtyards of inns. The Regulation and licensing of plays or we can say the control of these various companies soon became a problem for the community. Some of the troupes, which had the impudence to call themselves "Servants" of this or that lord, were composed of low characters, little better than vagabonds, causing much trouble to worthy citizens. The sovereign attempted to regulate matters by granting licenses to the high class for the maintenance of troupes of players, who might at any time be required to show their identities. For a time it was also a rule that these performers should appear only in the halls of their patrons; but this requirement, together with many other regulations, was constantly ignored. It was noted that the playwrights of both the Roman and the Protestant faith uses the stage as a sort of forum for the spreading of their opinions; and it was natural that such practices should often result in quarrels and disturbances. During the reign of Mary, the rules were strict, especially those relating to the

4 141 production of few plays which were, on the ground that they encouraged too much freedom of thought and criticism of public affairs. On the other hand, during this period the performance of the mysteries was urged, as being one of the means of teaching true religion. Queen Elizabeth granted the first royal patent to the Servants of the Earl of Leicester in James Burbage and four partners were these "Servants" and they were enabled to play: comedies, tragedies, interludes, stage plays and other in London. They also performed in all other towns in the realm of England except that no representation could be given during the time for Common Prayer and also during a time of common Plague in the city of London. Under Elizabeth the political and religious subjects were forbidden on the stage. There were complaints about the respectable people and officers of the Church who frequently made complaint of the growing number of play actors and shows. They said that the plays were often indecent and disrespectfully even towards religion, that play actors were mostly vagrant, irresponsible, and immoral people. There were disputes because of such people were always found in the neighborhood of the theaters, and that the theater itself was a public danger in the way of spreading disease. The streets were overcrowded after performances were over and then they were other problems such as the beggars and loafers overrun the theater section, crimes occurred in the crowd. Such and other charges were constantly being renewed they were all impart founded. Elizabeth's policy was to compromise she handled it in a very different way she

5 142 regulated the abuses, but allowed the players prosper. One order which was passed in the year 1576 was to forbidden all theatrical performances within the city boundaries, but it was not strictly followed. The Corporation of London generally stood against the players but the favor of the queen and nobility, added to the popular taste, in the end proved too much for the Corporation. Players were forbidden to establish themselves in the city, but could not be prevented from building their playhouses just across the river, outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation and yet within easy reach of the play going public. Thus making it so clear that the attraction for plays were immense and loved by the audiences of that era such that after all the restrictions also they wanted to attend plays run in theaters. This compromise did not end the criticism of the other public but then it failed also. Regulations and restrictions were constantly being imposed and as constantly broken. In the end this intermittent hostility to the theater acted as a sort of beneficent censorship. The more unprincipled of the actors and playwrights were held in check by the fear of losing what privileges they had, while the men of ability and genius found no real obstruction to their activity. The reason may differ but it's found to be true that, the English stage was far purer and more wholesome than either the French or Italian stage in the corresponding era of development. However the laws were avoided or broken the drama maintained a comparatively manly and decent standard.

6 143 There was no Calandra, no Aretino or Machiavelli of the Elizabethan stage. This outlawry was not a misfortune, but one of the causes of immediate growth. As the people desired and loved plays there was room for a lot of theaters a healthy rivalry was possible, there were competitions for the same. Later the professional actor gained something in the public esteem, and occasionally became a recognized and substantial member of society. Theatrical companies were gradually transformed from irregular associations of men dependent on the favor of a lord, to stable business organizations and in time the professional actor and the organized company became a success completely over the wanderer and the laymen. There were rapid growths of the building of playhouses. The number of playhouses steadily increased. Besides the three already mentioned, there were in Southward the Hope, the Rose, the Swan, and Newington Butts, and the great dramas which were staged on these were: The Jew of Malta, the first Hamlet, The Taming of the Shrew, and Tamburlaine had their premieres. Then there was the Red Bull some of John Heywood's plays appeared there. Built in 1598 most famous of all was the Globe, by Richard Burbage, and the Fortune, built in The Globe was hexagonal without, circular within, a roof extending over the stage only. The audience stood in the yard, or pit, or sat in the boxes built around the walls. Sometimes the young gallants sat on the stage. The first Globe was burned in 1613 and rebuilt by King James and some of his noblemen. It was this

7 144 theater which, in the latter part of their career, was used by Shakespeare and Burbage in summer. In winter they used the Black friars in the city. At the end of the reign of Elizabeth there were eleven theaters in London, including public and private houses. Various members of the royal family were the purported patrons of the new companies. The boys of the choirs and Church schools were trained in acting; and sometimes they did better than their elders thus growing the art of theater. When we talk about the composition and ownership of plays scholars and critics have inherited an almost endless number of literary mystify from the Elizabethan age. A play might be written, handed over to the manager of a company of actors which was produced with or without the author's name. Many a times the author forgot or ignored all subsequent affairs connected with it. If changes were required, perhaps it would be given to some well known playwright to be "doctored" before the next production. Henslowe, who had an interest in several London theaters, continuously employed playwrights, famous and otherwise, in working out new, promising material for his actors. Most dramatists of the time served an apprenticeship, in which they did anything they were asked to do. At times it so happened that they made the first draft of a piece which would be finished by a more experienced hand that was sometimes they collaborated with another writer or they gave the finishing touches to a new play. They sometimes reconstructed a Spanish, French, or Italian piece in an attempt to make it more suitable for the London public. The

8 145 written scripts and plays were the property, not of the author, but of the acting companies. Aside from the costly costumes, they formed the most valuable part of the company's capital. It was so important that ones the parts were learned by the actors and the manuscript locked up. Because, if the piece became popular, rival managers often stole it by sending to the performance a clerk who took down the lines in shorthand. Neither authors nor managers had any protection from pirate publishers, who frequently issued copies of successful plays without the consent of either thus it shows that though it was done so frequently there was no systematic or organized way of doing the same. When such scripts were produced many cases of missing or mutilated scenes, faulty lines or confused grammar were laid to the door of these copy brigands. In addition to this, after the play had a London success, it was cut down, both in length and in the number of parts, for the use of strolling players a fact which of course increased the chances of mutilation. The public performances generally took place in the afternoon, beginning about three o'clock and lasting perhaps two hours. Candles were used when daylight began to fade. The beginning of the play was announced by the hoisting of a flag and the blowing of a trumpet. There were playbills, those for tragedy being printed in red. Often after a serious piece a short comedy was also given and at the close of the play the actors, on their knees, recited an address to the king or queen. There were not for free there was price of entrance which varied with the theater, the play,

9 146 and the actors. The house itself was not unlike a circus, with a good deal of noise and dirt. Servants, grooms, other workers and mechanics squeezed each other in the pit. There were also women of respectability but were few, yet sometimes they did attend; and if they were very careful of their reputations they wore masks. On the stage, which ran far out into the auditorium, would be seated a few of the early gallants, playing cards, smoking, waited upon by their pages; and sometimes eating nuts or apples and throwing things out among the crowd. At first there was little music, but soon players of instruments were added to the company. The stage was covered with straw or rushes. There may have been a painted wall with trees and hedges, or a castle interior with practicable furniture. A placard announced the scene. Stage machinery seems never to have been out of use, though in the early Elizabethan days it was probably primitive. The audience was near and could view the stage from three sides, so that no picture was possible, as in the tennis-court stage of Paris. Whatever effects were gained were the result of the gorgeous and costly costumes of the actors, together with the art and skill with which they were able to invest their roles. The inn court type of stage required a bold, declamatory method in acting and speaking; and these requirements were no doubt speedily reflected in the style of the playwrights. The growth and desire of theater and drama were in focus thus it increased rapidly. "It was also seen that England was the last of the European countries to accept women on the stage. In the year 1629 a visiting

10 147 company of French players gave performances at Blackfriars, with actresses. An English writer of the time called these women "monsters"; and the audience would have none of them. They were hissed and "pippin-pelted" from the stage" 2.Though boy actors were immensely popular, and the schools were actually the training ground for many well known comedians and tragedians. The stigma of dishonor rested, however, upon the whole profession, playwrights, players, and on the theater itself. The company in the pit was rough, likely to smell of garlic and to indulge in rude jests. The plays were often coarse and boisterous, closely associated with bear-baiting and cock-fighting. Playwrights and actors belonged to a bohemian, half-lawless class. The gallants who frequented the play led fast lives, and were constantly charged with the corruption of innocence. Comparison between an Elizabethan and an Athenian performance affords interesting contrasts and similarities. The Athenian festival was part of an important religious service, for which men of affairs gave their time and money, with their personal interest. Every sort of government support was at its disposal, and manuscripts were piously preserved. This shows the importance and popularity if drama in general thus the view and form of audiences were so important it was not merely the form of entertainment but also a good business deal loves and appreciated by the people for the people. All this was contrary to the practice of the Elizabethans, who tried to suppress the shows, lost many of their most precious manuscripts, and banished the plays to a place outside the

11 148 city walls. In both countries, however, the audiences were made up of all classes of people who freely expressed their liking or disapproval. In each country the period of dramatic activity followed close upon the heels of great military and naval victories; and the plays of both countries reflect the civil and national pride. The popularity of revenge plays took a boost as it was very much a part of the cultural activity of that era. To understand a general view of the Shakespeare's stagecraft, it is important to understand the architecture of the space in which Shakespeare and his company were working. The standard Elizabethan theatre included a very large wooden platform which was used as the stage. It is likely that this platform was not permanent and could be moved if the arena were being used. The building had no roof and was surrounded by galleries for spectators that provided most of the building's height. Around the platform was a yard for spectators, largely utilized by the "groundlings". The ground in the yard was made of either small cannon or ground hazelnut shells mixed with ash. The back of the platform was a tiring house for the actors, where they could go to change costumes or wait for an entrance. These parts of the theatre, as well as the stage, were covered by a roof. Theatres often had a structure at the back of the auditorium to house the lifting and lowering machinery. Additionally, the raised platform would allow for a trapdoor through which the actors could ascend, and the first-level gallery would likely circle the entire building and stretch behind

12 149 the stage. This would allow for both seating and use as a balcony in plays such as Romeo and Juliet. There were then costumes, props and scenery used in a play for the stage performances to create a certain atmosphere of the play. Things like thrones, rocks, and tombs could be used as set pieces, but elaborate sets with backdrops and moveable pieces were not the convention in Shakespeare's time. Props, however, were much more common. Props were the easiest way for an actor to set the scene. Props were so common that Shakespeare even wrote specific props into his plays, such as Richard II's mirror speech. Costumes were one of the most important features of stagecraft for Shakespearean actors. The Elizabethan audience was accustomed to lavish, magnificent costumes, though historical and national accuracy were almost completely ignored. Shakespeare likely had very little control over the actual selection of the costumes apart from the specifics he wrote into his plays, such as Shylock's "Jewish gabardine" or Hamlet's "inky cloak". However, costumes in particular created some controversy. In a society where clothing was regulated by law, the ability of one person to become a different social class or even a different gender by putting on different clothing created a stir. Though most of the population could accept this temporary upset in the natural order there was a small but vocal minority that saw theatre as a source of social unrest. For as important as these things were, however, to the Elizabethan audience, it was costumes and actors that were important over scenery and settings.

13 150 When we talk about a stage performance the actors played a major role in the performance William Shakespeare himself played a lot of characters written by him as well as others though much of Shakespearean stagecraft is very similar to modern theatre conventions, one major difference is the all male cast that made up the company. All male casts are a commonly accepted convention in Shakespearean theatre, but for modern audiences it may be hard to understand the logistics. The roles that were written for men (such as Macbeth or Hamlet) would be played by the older men in the company that is, men who were well past puberty. The female roles would go to younger men and boys, who might go on to play male roles as they matured. This, of course, meant there was a fair amount of cross-dressing, but, unlike modern perspectives on cross-dressing, there was nothing inherently comical about it. This is due in large part to Shakespeare's beautifully crafted female roles, written such that each character is doubtlessly female. Many of Shakespeare's female characters (such as Juliet and Lady Macbeth) are just as impressive as his male characters; so, the young actors in the company had to be just as impressive to be able to convincingly play female. One Shakespearean convention that has persisted in theatre is that of theatre and acting companies. In Shakespeare's time, acting companies and theatre ownership could work in a couple ways that was that one person owned the theatre, which he then rented to companies for performances, such as Philip Henslow's Rose Theatre; or members of the company could front some money

14 151 and each have a share in the theatre, which they would then use whenever and however they please such as the Globe, which Shakespeare's company owned. However, there existed the possibility that the company would have to perform at Court, guildhalls, or great halls for patrons, and temporarily abandon their stage. Additionally, since actors were generally considered little more than migrant, it would benefit a company to gain the protection of a wealthy patron. In the case of Shakespeare's company, they were first the Lord Chamberlain's Men, and, once King James took the throne, they became the King's Men. This was the discussion on the history of the emerging of theater and its popularity. Coming to the audience, the audience of those days must certainly be supposed to have been more susceptible to the message to the ear, and less to deficiencies in the message to the eye, than that of our own time; but, while taking into account the larger part played by the Elizabethan drama in intellectual life, we must be careful not to credit the spectators with a much greater earnestness in the playhouse. "Abundant evidence proves that what with the throng of groundlings in the yard, intent mainly on the fighting and the broader humors; what with the gallants making their way through the tire house and lying or sitting on stools on the stage" 3, usually smoking the pipes and intent on displaying themselves rather than on listening to the play, with the women of the town and their admirers in the galleries; with here and there a comical satire ready to brawl at any moment the Elizabethan audience, whether

15 152 in a public or in a private playhouse, was not the rapt body of enthusiasts which later times have been tempted to imagine it. When most people probably think of theatre or live acting, they typically think of a very wealthy audience. However, this really was not the case back during the Elizabethan period. In fact, you would find an Elizabethan audience ranged from a lot of commoners to several of the wealthy people in attendance. This is significant because our understanding of the convention during the early modern period is tightly connected to the practice of spectatorship. It included refined and intellectual admirers of the drama, and their numbers must have exceeded those of the Sidney's who scoffed and of the Northbrook's who were very noisy. It is impossible to reconstruct past acting; but it is safe to conclude that the players whose duty it was to embody the creations of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, to the satisfaction of the best intellects of the reigns of Elizabeth and James, with practically no scenic illusion to aid them, must have cultivated to a high degree the arts both of declamation and of expressing character. The improvement in the drama consequent on the coming of university wits probably called forth a corresponding improvement in the actor s art, and there is some evidence that a decline in acting followed or accompanied the decline of the drama in the seventeenth century. That declamation was often attended by its besetting sin of rant is recorded in Hamlet s advice to the players as well as in various passages of other

16 153 contemporary writers, which imply that the actors of the Fortune the Red Bull and the Cockpit were great offenders in this respect, and that the evil grew during the latter half of the period. As we talk about the audiences the accessibility to watch these wonderful dramas were not so pricing, it was allowed for everyone who wanted to come and see these wonderful performances that were written by great writers such as William Shakespeare. The pricing was not determined by who you were or what you did for a living. Nor did it always have to do with how close you were to the performers. Instead, it was primarily based upon how comfortable the seating was. Most of the commoners would pay only 1d to enter the theatre. This was typically a standing room only placement in the theatre. This area was commonly referred to as the "theatre pit". Still, the commoners enjoyed watching the lengthy performances even though they were required to stand the entire time. During Elizabethan times, audiences of all social and class backgrounds intermingled with one another when attending Shakespeare s plays. It has even been recorded that Elizabeth I herself attended the theatre on several occasions. "The populace in Elizabeth s grade (e.g. gentry, knights, elected representatives) mostly likely paid the three-penny (or more) admission to get the best seat in the house, which meant the most comfort and finest location in the galleries. Two penny admission was most likely paid by citizens in the upper middle class like artisans or other actors. They were seated just like

17 154 the wealthy, but the best places weren t reserved for them. Also, both of these admissions prices provided a canopy from different weather conditions". 4 On the other hand, people who paid the one penny admission were inclined to all weather conditions because the yard or pit, as the central area in front of the stage was called, had a completely open roof there was no shelter. These people were called groundlings and they were the apprentices, farmers, or blacksmiths basically low class or below middle class people. Groundlings had to stand in mud when it was raining and seats weren t readily available. They did not attend the theatre often because of their low incomes, but they certainly attended when they had collected up enough money for their entertainment. In regard to certain endeavors during the course of the play, we can imagine that the reactions of the different classes were boundless. Certainly, we can presume that many of the groundlings yelled comments during the production because they lacked proper theatre etiquette much like some of the movie theatre audiences today. And maybe it is an urban myth, but the stories of throwing items like food at a bad performer was instigated by the groundlings. It's so clear the frankness and freedom of expressing openly in public. The other attendees the upper middle class and the so-called decent crowd most likely had a better idea how to behave, but that is not to say they never yelled out comments either. It is likely that the upper class cheered for an upper class character and the lower class cheered for a lower class character if ever two characters should happen to duel. If the protagonist and the antagonist

18 155 fought, the audience, we could just hope that it would have rooted for the protagonist. Or if any malicious jokes were directed at a particular group, they wouldn t find it exactly as funny as the others. Women probably played the traditional female role and screamed or gasped when something frightening or horrible occurred in the production, while men probably played the traditional male role and comforted the women. It includes refined and intellectual admirers of the drama, and their numbers must have exceeded those of the Sidney's who scoffed and of the Northbrook's who railed. It is impossible to reconstruct past acting; but it is safe to conclude that the players whose duty it was to embody the creations of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, to the satisfaction of the best intellects of the reigns of Elizabeth and James, with practically no scenic illusion to aid them, must have cultivated to a high degree the arts both of declamation and of expressing character. The improvement in the drama consequent on the coming of university wits probably called forth a corresponding improvement in the actor s art, and there is some evidence that a decline in acting followed or accompanied the decline of the drama in the seventeenth century. Typically, we will begin with a short gallop through the history of audiences and the media. The Elizabethan audience was fond of unusual spectacle and brutal physical suffering. They liked battles and murders, processions and fireworks, ghosts and insanity. They expected comedy to abound in beatings, and tragedy in deaths. While the audience at the Globe expected some of these sensations

19 156 and physical horrors, they did not come primarily for these. (Real blood and torture were available nearby at the bear baiting, and public executions were not uncommon.) Actually, there were very few public entertainments offering as little brutality as did the theatre. Elizabethans attended the public playhouses for learning. They attended for romance, imagination, idealism, and art; the audience was not without refinement and those looking for food for the imagination had nowhere to go but to the playhouse. There were no newspapers, no magazines, almost no novels, and only a few cheap books; theatre filled the desire for story discussion among people lacking other educational and cultural opportunities. As for the wealthier, who would typically pay 5d to see the performance? The wealthy would generally have seating room and normally it was simple cushions that they would sit down on. It probably was not comfortable in comparison to today's standards. To top it off, these were normally held during the middle or later evening before dusk. It could have been very warm or sometimes cold but this was a sacrifice made because there was very limited artificial lighting available at this point in history thus natural lighting was required. While many wealthy people did attend to see performances in amphitheatres, royalty such as Queen Elizabeth I likely never attended any of them here. Generally, she would likely have had private performances which were specially preformed for her. It is likely that extended family or close people to Queen Elizabeth I would have been invited to these private performances held somewhere other than the local

20 157 amphitheatre. Also, another notable thing you may have seen among the audience of an amphitheatre would be masks. Women who would be in the audiences during Elizabethan times often wore masks to cover their identity. The most remarkable case of Shakespeare's theatre filling an educational need is probably that of English history. The growth of national patriotism culminating in the English victory over the Spanish Armada gave dramatists a chance to use the historical material, and for the fifteen years from the Armada to the death of Elizabeth, the stage was deluged with plays based on the events of English chronicles, and familiarity with English history became a cultural asset of the London crowd, Law was a second area where the Elizabethan public seems to have been fairly well informed, and successful dramatists realized the influence that the great development of civil law in the sixteenth century exercised upon the daily life of the London citizen thus it changed the general public. In this area, as in others, the dramatists did not hesitate to cultivate the cultural background of their audience whenever opportunity offered, and the ignorance of the multitude did not prevent it from taking an interest in new information and from offering a receptive hearing to the accumulated lore of lawyers, historians, humanists, and playwrights. The audience was used to the spoken word, and soon became trained in blank verse, delighting in monologues, debates, puns, metaphors, stump speakers, and sonorous declamation. The public was accustomed to the acting of the old religious

21 158 dramas which were based on morality teaching, and the new acting in which the spoken words were listened to catch on rapidly and there was so much new to see openly. The new poetry and the great actors who recited it found a sensitive audience. There were many moments during a play when strange, brutality, and action were all forgotten, and the audience fed only on the words. Shakespeare and his contemporaries may be deemed fortunate in having an audience essentially attentive, alert and eager for the newly unlocked storehouse of secular story, and possessing the sophistication and interest to be fed richly by the excitements and inclination on the stage. Attendance at the theatres was astonishingly large. There were often five or six theatres giving daily performances, which would mean that out of a city of one hundred thousand inhabitants, thirty thousand or more spectators each week attended the theatre. When we remember that a large class of the population disapproved of the theatre, and that women of respectability were not frequent patrons of the public playhouses, this attendance is remarkable. The Arrangements for the comfort of the spectators were meager, and spectators were often disorderly. Playbills seem to have been posted all about town and in the theatre, and the title of the piece was announced on the stage. These bills contained no lists of actors, and there were no programs, ushers, or tickets it was all unsystematically produced. There was usually one door for the audience, where the admission fee was deposited in a box carefully watched by the money taker, and additional sums

22 159 were required at entrance to the galleries or boxes. There were announcements for the beginning of a performance, the assembled audience would have been amusing itself by eating, drinking, smoking, and playing cards, and they sometimes continued these as occupations during a performance. Pickpockets were frequent, and, if caught, were tied to a post on the stage. Disturbances were not infrequent, sometimes resulting in general rioting. When we talk about Shakespeare, he did not live to see these events. The only audience he ever wrote for was the many headed monster of the Globe, for this was the only atmosphere in which his genius could fully breathe. Thus many of the blemishes of Shakespeare s plays were imposed upon him, by the tastes and habits of the primitive theatre. But Shakespeare did not merely write down to the tastes of his audience, he also elevated and refined it. It goes much to the credit of the world s immortal dramatist that, working under such adverse circumstances, he could create beautiful works of art which remain unsurpassed till this date. Theatres were very much in vogue in the Elizabethan England. For the spectators, in general, theatres were not merely places of amusement and entertainment but also of social gathering and instruction. The theatres served the purpose of newspapers, magazines and journals."the Elizabethan dramas, being the mirror of the age, exhibited to the public what was going on in England and abroad. What Francis Bacon said of Studies he might well have said of the dramas of his age, as serving or delight, for ornament and for ability" 5. It would be wrong, therefore, to think of Shakespeare s audience as a

23 160 rough set of groundlings. They were very imaginative and cooperative as well they had a strange hunger for art and literature with the dramatist. Thus if Shakespeare was a great artist, it was partly because of his audience every man and woman, not just a section of them. They demanded it thus Shakespeare and other writers of that era produced such plays of violence as well as romance. That was the glorious past of the English Drama and the audience. Right from Shakespearean times till some time ago, say half a century or more from now, the drama on the page as well as state was not only flourishing but also occupied a very prominent place in the minds of the readers, listeners and the audience as well. Thus, it would be true to say that the audiences of Elizabethan plays included almost every stratum in the population of England. The Shakespearian audiences include all kinds of people. Besides grounds the pick pockets, thieves, slaves and all the other low-life characters, and there was also the audience who were so intellectual in themselves. For these intellectuals Shakespeare provided some characters for e.g. Hamlet and Lorenzo in The Merchant of Venice. London the larger town of England, were continually drawing people from the country, and even the remote country. The only people not to be found there would be those who objected to play going on religious grounds. Audience from the countryside, where there were no theatres, would know folk-plays, would have seen processions and shows, and would have taken part in games and festivities which had a markedly dramatic character.

24 161 Certainly the London theatre was a new thing because it was one of the sights of the town which visitors from Europe had to see. What the countryman would see there would be different from what he already knows. As to the quality of the character acting, the elegy on Richard Burbage shows how vivid this was at its best; though, of course, it is impossible to tell how deeply, even under Shakespeare s guidance, Burbage penetrated into the significance of the characters he played. The evidence of Flecknoe, who, in his Short Discourse of the English Stage (1664) praises Burbage for a delightful Proteus that maintained his character throughout, even in the tying house, must represent a tradition and an ideal rather than the statement of an eyewitness. That "the female characters were all played in the playhouses by boys, youths, or young men, generally implies, to modern minds, incongruity and poor acting; but the popularity of boys companies goes to show that boys when thoroughly trained can do better than we give them credit for to-day. The spectacle, at any rate, must have been pleasanter than that of women playing male parts, and squeaking Cleopatra may have boyed her greatness with better artistic effect than some actresses have achieved" 6. Thus we can see the deep involvement of the actors who indulge themselves completely in the play and give their best performance. To begin with, extant historical responses by those who attended the theatre inform our notion of how cross-gender casting was understood at the time.

25 162 Additionally, along more theoretical lines, audiences, in the act of engaging the convention, helped to construct its meaning. By the theatre studies, we needn't invoke Barthes's notion of the "death of the author" to acknowledge the importance of audiences to the making of meaning in a performance. We plan briefly to survey the responses to cross-gender casting and the evil and the dark mentality of the audience that came out of the period. We wish to reflect upon the nature of the available thought process and mentality of the crowd of that particular era. Finally, we hope to consider how audience responses shaped the experience of revenge play when it was employed in performances of early modern English drama. One of the aspects involved n influential in the performance of plays was the practice of having boys play the women's roles actually elicited very little commentary at the time. In his book Playgoing in Shakespeare's London, Andrew Gurr attempts to record all of the significant comments on the theatre that survive from the period. Among the wide variety of references to Playgoing Gurr has unearthed, discussion (or even mention) of the ubiquitous practice of having boys play the women's parts is almost conspicuously absent. That stated, the convention did elicit responses, rather strong ones, from a particular demographic: individuals who found the practice opprobrious. Antithetical writers published a number of tracts during the early modern period that attacked the institution of theatre, and some of them specifically mention the iniquity of transvestite drama in the theatrical enterprise. "The commentaries these writers offer on the theatrical

26 163 practice of cross-gender casting are not identical, but share the general opinion that the convention breaks with religious orthodoxy and inappropriately inspires lust in the observer Gosson, for instance, in Plays Confuted in Five Actions (1582) first invokes the argument from Deuteronomy" 7. By knowing that fact that men use to play women's character one can imagine the dark side of explorations which would have accrued and by which a new sight to drama opened. It was a kind of vagarious and exaggerated drama. But this was due to the demand of the same, such extravagant thought were loved by the people. It was the class of the vulgar which formed the bulk of the audience in public theatres. They generally stood in the pit round the stage or sat in the gallery above. They were the noisiest persons whom even the actors were afraid of. The frequenters of the pit, with their coarse boisterousness, were the terror of the actors. They all had to stand, coal-heavers and bricklayers, dock labors, serving men and idlers. Refreshment sellers moved about among them, supplying them sausages and with apples and nuts. They ate and drank, drew corks, smoked tobacco, fought with each other, and often when they were out of humor threw fragments of food and even stones at the actors. Now and then they would come to loggerheads with fine gentlemen on the stage, so that the performance had to be interrupted and theatre closed. Their sanitary arrangements were of the most primitive description, and the groundlings resisted all attempts at reform on the part of the management. When the evil smells became intolerable, juniper berries were burnt by way of refreshing the

27 164 atmosphere. The refined gentry usually sat on the chairs close to the stage and sometimes upon the stage itself. There were special boxes for very high officials and public men. Ladies usually came with silken masks drawn over their faces. Foppish and very fashionable ladies generally occupied the first row. But the Elizabethan theatre was usually a scene of most boisterous action and obscene remarks; and therefore, highly respectable ladies did not usually visit public theatres. There were private theatres to cater to the demand of this class of the Elizabethan audience. Most of these members of the audience would have been illiterate. Some of them would be there not so much to see the play, as to take advantage of the chance to ply their trade among the crowds drawn to the theatre-pickpockets, thieves, prostitutes and all the other low-life characters. In short, theatre going was popular or indeed universal entertainment in the Elizabethan Era in all spears of life. As there are no statistics available we cannot say what proportion of the population went to plays 350 or 400 years ago. The closing of the theatres in 1642 after the Puritan revolution is an indication of their hold on the populace, and their threat to the moral order which Puritanism was determined to maintain. Elizabethan audience was both educated and uneducated. For education, at the times of Elizabeth, printed books were not readily available and knowledge was communicated orally, and it depends upon the student s power of speaking, arguing, disputing and persuading. At the time, in European universities the degree of doctor was not awarded until the graduate was questioned in public on his thesis. Books were

28 165 part of education in the century. The classical authors were read, and their modes of writing were formally studied. The educated of the Age would also have read poetry, sermons, philosophy, translations from the classics and from contemporary European languages, especially Italian, history, the records of voyages, and some miscellanea. The uneducated Elizabethan was much more dependent on the spoken word than his educated counterpart. The life Shakespeare lived gave the Elizabethan some training in the ability to listen to words and to be interested in their use. Information, controversy, political opinions and philosophical speculations were transmitted through the spoken word in public square, pulpit and theatre. Thus, all the classes of people of that era enjoyed theater. In the Elizabethan theatre the direct and outspoken criticisms were a part of the largely good humored, give and take exchanges between the actors and their audience. There was an obvious undercurrent of seriousness in the appeal to the well disposed majority of the audience against the disorderly and exhibitionist elements, but it is likely that the systematic denigration of the spectators taste and intelligence was a standing joke which the spectators expected and enjoyed. Thus the Elizabethan audience was in all respects remarkably homogeneous. Although we may see hat class divisions were marked and jealously guarded, they were found together by unity of culture that made these divisions in the last analysis merely formal.

29 166 The Elizabethan audience, in general, reveled in boisterous scenes of murders, bloodshed, vengeance, oppressions and atrocities. They patronized what we call melodramatic plays. This explains the recurrence of too many melodramatic scenes like the ones in Shakespeare s tragedies. They were also interested in super-naturalism. The ingratitude of Macbeth, the frailty of Hamlet s mother, the suspicious nature of Othello, the inhumanity of Regain and Goneril and so many other scenes of murder, bloodshed and battles, were not repulsive to most of the Elizabethan audience. They highly appreciated Marlowe s Timberline which is nothing but a long succession of inhuman murders and battles. The tastes of the Elizabethan audience had far reaching influence on the stagecraft of Shakespeare. He was a popular dramatist and it was essential that his plays should be successful on the public stage. He, therefore, often wrote down to the play-goers and gave them what they wanted. Most of the Elizabethan audiences were crude and unrefined; they came to the theatre to have a good laugh at the antics of the clown, or to enjoy scenes of bloodshed and violence. Hence we find that in Shakespeare s plays, even in his tragedies, the clown or the Fool makes frequent appearances. The grave-diggers in Hamlet, the drunken porter in Macbeth, the clown in Othello etc, are his concessions to the public taste. Much of the inequality in the plays of Shakespeare, as well as of their popularity during his lifetime, can be explained by the consideration that he wrote for a mixed audience, and succeeded in pleasing all. The appeal of

30 167 his plays to the best intellects of the time needs no showing. For the more intelligent of the common spectators, in whose lives the drama filled the place now occupied by the lending library, the press and, to some extent, the pulpit, there was not only the strong story but the expression of comment and criticism on many aspects of life and on facts of the varied world, some of them only remotely connected with the actual plot. For lovers of sport and action, there were exhibitions of swordplay, wrestling and so forth, which the drama had woven into its own texture, besides battles, murders, and other incidents which, as St. Evremond noticed a century later, the English public liked to see on the stage." For all amateurs of wit, there were exhibitions or contests in punning and mischievously another form of entertainment which the drama, to a great extent, absorbed into itself ranging from the keen wordplay and literary parody to the gross joke or hint for the groundlings" 8. That Shakespeare would willingly have dispensed with the latter, we know from the passage in Hamlet referred to above. The gag of the clown must have been the more annoying because it was the common practice to conclude a performance, and sometimes to interrupt it, with a so called jig, performed by art lovers or some other fool an indispensable member of every company answering to the laughable farce which followed the tragedy until days within the memory of living men. To the possible attractions of the playhouse must be added music, played both during and between the acts. That at Black friars was especially esteemed, as was, naturally, that of the children s companies, and public theatres

31 168 attempted to emulate their success in this matter. "Where the noise, or orchestra sat, is not certain; it was not till after the Restoration that it was placed between the stage and the audience, and, in the period under notice, it probably occupied in some playhouse the space marked orchestra in the drawing of the Swan, perhaps on both sides of the stage. The occurrence of songs in plays is well known; and we read that in the country, at any rate, the music was more popular than the play itself" 9, but in this respects, he rose to the occasion, and much refined the clown and made him an integral part of the drama. Elizabethan audiences were very fond of music and song. We find a large account of songs and music in Shakespeare s plays. They delighted in exhibitions of juggling, tumbling, fencing and wrestling and these were also provided by the dramas of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is profuse in his concessions to the athletic interest. The Wrestling-match in As you Like It, the rapier duels in Romeo and Juliet a riot in Julius Caesar and in Hamlet, the sword fight in Macbeth these were real displays of skill by practice combatants. There was a great deal of action which must have been both exciting and dramatically important. The plays were full of duals. Ghosts and supernatural were other elements which must have appealed strongly and the audiences were accustomed to believe them because their taste was also the same. They willingly suspend their disbelief so as to make that element realistic. From Titus Andronicus to Henry VIII Shakespeare uses the opportunities provided for solemn and dignified