“A POOR PLAYER THAT STRUTS AND FRETS HIS HOUR UPON THE STAGE…” THE ENGLISH THEATRE IN TRANSITION A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Christin N. Gambill May, 2016 “A POOR PLAYER THAT STRUTS AND FRETS HIS HOUR UPON THE STAGE…” THE ENGLISH THEATRE IN TRANSITION Christin N. Gambill Thesis Approved: Accepted: _______________________________ _______________________________ Advisor Dean of the College Mr. James Slowiak Dr. John Green _______________________________ _______________________________ Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School Mr. Adel Migid Dr. Chand Midha _______________________________ _______________________________ Faculty Reader Date Dr. Hillary Nunn _______________________________ School Director Dr. J. Thomas Dukes ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. “THIS ROYAL THRONE THIS SCEPTERED ISLE…” THE THEATRE OF THE ENGLISH RENAISSANCE ............................................................................................... 1 II. THE COMING STORM .............................................................................................. 14 III. THE AXE FALLS ...................................................................................................... 29 IV. UNDER THEIR NOSES ............................................................................................ 42 V. THE NEW ORDER ..................................................................................................... 53 VI. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 69 APPENDIX: “THE HUMOUR OF SIMPLE” ................................................................. 76 iii CHAPTER I “THIS ROYAL THRONE THIS SCEPTERED ISLE…” THE THEATRE OF THE ENGLISH RENAISSANCE It is a significant irony of cultural history that the two great ages of theatre, the theatre of the Classical world (5th Century BCE - 5th Century), and the theatre of the English Renaissance (1556 - 1625), were both abruptly terminated by socio/political upheavals completely outside of the realm of performing arts. Rather than building upon their pasts to lay foundations for their futures, both the Classical theatre and the theatre of the English Renaissance were brought to a close by official political decrees. While much is written about the end of the Classical theatre, comparatively little scholarship is devoted to the equally abrupt termination of the theatre of the English Renaissance. Indeed, Oscar Brockett in The History of the Theatre (Brockett 202), devotes less than one page to the closing of the most vibrant professional theatre of the Renaissance. After examining the rise of the theatre of the English Renaissance, this paper will explore the circumstances leading to the official end of that theatre. Additionally, attention will be paid to the impact that the banning of performing had on the theatre of the Interregnum (1649-1660) as well as the theatre of the Commonwealth (1653-1659). The study will conclude with commentary on the impact that the emerging patent companies, had on the reestablishment of theatre during the Restoration. 1 It is difficult to assess the impact the closing of the English theatre had on the society at large. According to one historian, “…the closing of the theatres by Parliament is perhaps the best-known fact in the history of English drama” (Heinemann 5). While it is arguable whether or not the Parliamentary action of September 1642 deserves to be considered the “best known” fact in English theatre history, the significance of the closing of the theatres in the early days of the English Civil War provides a decisive and absolute date for the end of what is identified as “the great and popular entertainment of the age” (Baruch). Like theatre of any age, the Elizabethan theatre did not exist in a vacuum. It both reflected and affected the society in which it existed. As a commercial enterprise, it was subject to the ebb and flow of public tastes and such tastes, throughout the early Tudor dynasty (1485-1547), were inexorably tied to a government struggling to balance myriad factions. A contemporary description of 16th century London is reflected in a pamphlet, entitled “The Seven Deadly Sins of London,” by Thomas Dekker: Carts and coaches make such a thundering din as if the world ran on wheels; at every corner men, women, and children meet in such shoals that posts are set up to strengthen the houses lest with jostling with one another they should shoulder them down. Besides, hammers are beating in one place, tubs hooping in another [the noise made by coopers or barrel makers], pots clinking in a third, water- tankards running at tilt in a fourth. Tradesmen, as if they were dancing galliards are lusty at legs and never stand still. When reflecting upon British dynastic history, one might certainly be skeptical regarding the Tudor’s potential to rule. Beginning with Henry VIII’s ill-fated effort to find a suitable wife, through the short tragic reign of Edward VI, continuing through the brief controversial nine-day rule of Jane Grey, and culminating in the purges of Mary I, 2 by the time Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1558 the Tudors had not proven themselves to be among the more politically astute of ruling families. In the span of less than half-a- century England had gone through four rulers and two major changes of religion. Given the numerous political upheavals and the resulting chaos in the fundamental fabric of society, there was scant encouragement for anyone to pursue significant art. Whether actor or portrait painter it was uncertain if either the religion or the ruler that was in place when one went to bed would still be in place the next morning. When measured against the reigns of the earlier Tudors, from the outset Elizabeth I managed to bring a modicum of stability to a religiously and economically fragmented nation. Freed from the excesses of her father and the religious zealotry of her sister, Elizabeth managed to project at least the appearance of tolerance. Despite her position as “Supreme Head of the Church,” Elizabeth did not set forth any specific dictates for the church that she nominally headed. Many of the clergy maintained altars and images and they refused to destroy the instruments needed for Mass. Many in the general population frequently referred to the “old religion” and senior church bishops of the reform church faced a very difficult task in stamping out support for Catholic practices (Trueman). Despite her tolerance and lack of overt persecution, Elizabeth was excommunicated by Pope Pius V, who also encouraged all Catholic kings and subjects to work to assassinate the English queen and overthrow her regime (Larque). In addition, the on-going conflict with her brother-in-law, Phillip II of Spain, took on added significance when the attempted invasion of England by the Spanish Armada in 1588 was blessed by the Pope (Larque). 3 While she did not hesitate to make public examples of blatant actions that contradicted the government’s official Protestant views, Elizabeth chose not to interfere actively with personal religious practices. Despite the Reformation that had swept the country, it is significant that throughout Elizabeth’s reign, a considerable number of her subjects privately retained their Catholic allegiance, much as they had for nine centuries. Gradually, however, by the time of Elizabeth’s death, the nation had become more overtly Protestant, and by 1616, when William Shakespeare died, the country was well on the way to becoming Puritan. By the first quarter of the 17th century the Protestant Reformation had worked nearly its full course of revolution in ideas, habits, and beliefs and the authority once-claimed by the Roman Church had been replaced by that of the Bible (Neilson 22). Despite the absence of purges that had characterized much of the early 16th century, Elizabeth I ruled a nation in a perpetual state of flux throughout her 45 year reign. From a population of 70,000 when Henry VII ascended the throne in 1485, London’s population exploded to nearly 200,000 by 1600 (Ross). With the expanding commerce of the Renaissance, London became recognized not only as a trading and industrial center, but it was at the heart of the new and highly profitable trade with the Indies. England’s traditional social and economic hierarchy had been rooted in inherited wealth and titles since the time of William the Conqueror. While family titles and estates remained important, many of the successful merchants were suddenly wealthier than the nobility. Throughout the first half of the 17th century, the merchant class was the engine that drove the English economy and, by lending money to 4 both the Crown and the nobility, the position of the middle-class increased in both power and prestige (Heinemann 4). While the economy of London boomed, the resounding success of the merchant class was not without consequences. Smaller craftsmen became increasingly dependent on merchants for materials and were often forced into debt. Journeymen found it increasingly difficult to acquire necessary start-up funds forcing them to abandon their aspirations to become masters. The wealthy merchant, despite his material gains, often found himself confronted with hostility both from the financially-strapped gentry and the struggling