Talk:The Theatre

Newington Butts

Given that Newington Butts may possibly be even earlier than The Theatre, as this article candidly admits, it is surprising that there's still no wiki entry on it. What are we waiting for?--BenJonson (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bears

In all my reading on the Tudor theatre I've never heard of this (extract from article):

In order to make the theatre profitable, it is possible that the stage was removable to allow animal baiting.

It sounds most unlikely. Has anyone got a reference? Colin4C 09:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've read in a number of articles that bear baiting was one of the entertainments on offer, in or adjacent to Elizabethan theatres. Apparently in 1591, theatres were ordered closed on Thursdays - to not interfere with the sport. It maybe that the design of the 'Theatre' was influenced by that of bear and bull pits, rather than Inn yards. There is an argument against baiting taking place in the theatres, though, as they had a cobbled yard, that would have interfered with the sport.

On another matter, we ought to add Bayne and the Red Lion here, and think about details of the original lease. The fact of the lesser being a puritan is a substantive fact that lead to claims that the lease had not been upheld, and its renewal revoked. Kbthompson 11:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine that they would have performing bears ON stage. We know that one of Shakespeare's play's (A Winter's Tale?) has the immortal stage direction: EXIT PURSUED BY A BEAR, but whether the bloody business of baiting a bear with dogs - after having somehow dismantled the stage - was practised I have my doubts. Having attended shows at the new Globe and seen the solidity of the stage there, I somehow find it difficult to believe that it was so easy to dismantle...

I think that the very name 'The Theatre' argues that it was harking back to classical theatre and was a conscious revival of what the Greeks and Romans did. Remember that people of that day were brought up reading classical history and culture in the original Latin and Greek: this indeed was the core curriculum.Colin4C 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be 'exeunt omnes'? Early stages, particularly in Inns and such, were performed on easily dismantled trestles. I agree, there's evidence at the Red Lion, the Theatre and the Curtain for a permanent stage, as there is reference to traps and other special effects it would be difficult to include in a temporary structure. It's the cobbles that the audience stood on, that are the killer ... once slippery with blood, there would be no sport. I suppose they could stick down sand and straw ... I am inclined not to believe it, but, it does seem to be commonly stated (although this was more probably an entertainment going on next door). I also suspect the Globe is 'over-engineered' in comparison to tudor times. As to education, this was for the privileged few, groundhogs were more Baldrick than Blackadder. So, "Exeunt Bears"? Mention it as entertainment that is known to have taken place in locations adjacent to theatres - and indeed more like an Elizabethan theatre than an Inn courtyard ...? Kbthompson 17:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And an obvious point to make about the open space on front of the stage was that it was occupied by the audience: the 'groundhogs' you mention. Having a bear and ravening dogs in there as well would er....not be safe...it would be like putting the audience of the Roman arena in with the lions (and Christians).

Bear-bating was a highly professional, expensive, labour intensive operation with specially built arenas on Bankside. Even the dogs were specially bred in local kennels. This barbaric sport is not to be confused with the 'Simon Smith and his Amazing Dancing Bear' type performances, which I imagine would be shown at the Theatre. Also the 'trestle' and inn-court theory of early theatrical performances is no longer viewed with much favour by theatrical historians. It seems more likely that they would use a large interior room in such an inn. The touring companies of Shakespeare's day and before often used indoor venues such as Guildhalls etc etc. As I stated before, I think it is more likely that the Theatre was a deliberate attempt to recreate the classical theatre (using a copy of Vitruvius as a template?). The very vocal ecclesiastical critics of the Theatre and Curtain seemed to see it that way - as bringing back pagan vice into England's Christian land....The plays themselves had been performed before, it was the theatres themselves which aroused their ire. Even into the 19th century the clergy was still fulminating against theatres...Colin4C 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree. I wasn't suggesting that the groundlings be thrown to the animals! merely that the cobbles the groundlings stood on (most theatres had cobbled yards) would have made their use for the sport impractical. Not an expert on classical styles, but there is certainly evidence within the plays that classical influences had become important to them. I'm still inclined to the theory that the structure of the theatre was influenced by bear baiting - there would have been very few places where a 'pit' could be put in (groundwater), so a structure above an arena makes sense to me. It always seemed to be a bit of a leap from indoors -> fully fledged round theatres, from oblong Inn yards.

The ecclesiastic issue is more complicated, I think. At this time, they were struggling against a new 'literacy'. The bible had just been translated, and until the James authorised (I think, might have been Elizabeth) was banned in English. Mass entertainments were a threat to their authority, particularly if it took away from the spectacle of churches. The later puritan attitude is different again, its just plain wrong - these are the people who banned Christmas. Kbthompson 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree either....its just we couldn't find a suitable pub to have this discussion in....Just to say that the bear-baiting pit has a Roman cognate as well: the ampitheatre...which had a different function from the Roman theatre and a different origin [?].

It would be nice if we knew a bit more about James Burbage. A mercenary capitalist-entrepreneur or a visionary?

As for the theatres vs churches there is one fascinating piece of invective from an ecclesiatic which compares one of the Tudor theatres (probably The Theatre) to the 'Chapel of Satan'. There were also complaints that as the theatres opened at 2pm they would distract apprentices from going to work and beget a new class of 'idlers'. I think this last bit of polemic on the gospel of work must have hit home cos today virtually all theatres are geared to open after the 9 to 5 cycle of work-slavery. Colin4C 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and you know I often don't) Burbage started life as a carpenter, and became a player at an early age. Then eased into management, apparently with Brayne and the Red Lion (determined to get the RL into every conversation). The other thing of note, is all the early impresarios seem to be married to each others' sisters. I think the theatre times were tagged onto the Defence of the Realm act along with pub opening hours, although it's much the same schedule in North America, so probably more a social reality than a definitive law. Much earlier than the 1700's, and you'd be playing in the dark. Now where's that pub, or perhaps a music hall? Kbthompson 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Red Lion

With reference to this extract from the article:

John Brayne, originally a carpenter and one of the partners in The Theatre, had built an earlier playhouse in Mile End, called the Red Lion, in 1567. It was not a success, and little information about it survives. (Gurr, 1992, pp. 30, 247). The playhouse was a receiving house for touring companies, whereas The Theatre accepted long term engagements, essentially in repertory. The former was considered a continuation of the tradition of playing at inns, the later a radically new form of theatrical engagement

Is this not all conjecture? As far as I'm aware all that we know about the Red Lion is that there is a building contract for it. There is no historical record of any performances there. Maybe it closed after a week for all we know, when they found they had problems with the drains, or nobody turned up, or the authorities wouldn't give it a license (as in the case of 'The Swan' on Bankside). I say this cos the deafening silence which greeted this venture puzzles me when compared with the massive chorus of complaint which followed the construction of the Theatre and Curtain. Cuthbert Burbage asserted that his father James Burbage was 'the first builder of theatres', not Brayne, and I guess he knew what he was talking about....Colin4C 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was kinda waiting for it to turn up, anyway. I added to the footnote, as I thought the original text would mislead people about the nature of the Red Lion. Yes, I think much of it is conjecture. The main evidence for the structure is a lawsuit between Brayne and his builder, and it is just before Brayne decamps to Shoreditch - the builder complains that he was due a share of the continuing profits, and he didn't expect the theatre to close.

I'm away for much of this weekend, but I'll have a go at producing an evidential article on my return. You know I've wanted to, for some time, but evidence for the Red Lion, is, as you say, slim ... Kbthompson 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved the footnote to its own para, re-referenced Egan, he specifically states there is no evidence it survived beyond one season (ie it was temporary). This is not surprising as The Theatre cost 1000 marks to build, the Red Lion nearer 20. My tortured prose probably needs editing, there's also a Red Lion article you may wish to take a look at, and correct, as necessary. I hope this addresses your concerns, Colin. Kbthompson 11:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Therefore it was something of a 'white elephant' (I think that's the phrase). Therefore how much of the following, from the article, can be true?:

It appears to have been a success, but scant information about it survives. (Gurr, 1992, pp. 30, 247).

The Red Lion was a receiving house for touring companies, whereas The Theatre accepted long term engagements, essentially in repertory. The former was considered a continuation of the tradition of playing at inns, the later a radically new form of theatrical engagement. Colin4C 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it started with Ugajin adding the Gurr reference. One of the articles referenced for Red Lion quotes city father's disapproval, but I've seen that quote so often, I'm not absolutely certain it applied to the Red Lion, so I removed part of it (the ref didn't cite an original source, so it was useless). The Egan seems the most balanced article on the subject, so I've used that as primary ref for this and Red Lion article. Most other refs on the subject are in 'paid' journals, so essentially useless here.

While interested in the Red Lion, I didn't want to write anything about it, until I knew more, but Ugajin jumped the gun. So, I apologise if evidence and organisation is not all it could be ... I do think the Red Lion should be both mentioned, and put in context.

Don't you think one of the major contributions of The Theatre was that it had companies based there, who played in rep? That really was a significant innovation. As with previous discussions, we'd be much better off bashing this out in the pub!

To summarise, I think the Red Lion is worth the mention (a sort of £20 mention?), and I think it should be put in context. I don't think it undermines the primogenitor status of The Theatre. Kbthompson 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The tour/rep distinction is a fine one. Even Shakespeare's Company went on tour: and quite frequently. Touring was the primal and probably normal state for a Company. The greatest pre-Shakespearian Company, the Queen's Men, was almost constantly on tour. The latest conjectures about the subject I have read is that the greater audience of London eventually encouraged certain Companies to linger there a bit longer, presumably at the Theatres built for that purpose: though they also still played at certain inns in the City. If we had a full documentary record we could say for certain what was going on: however we don't....

There's a lot of info on The Theatre and the possible playing companies who might have played there in E. K. Chambers standard (but dated) multi-volume book on the Elizabethan theatre. If I have the time or the energy I might photocopy the relevent pages from the local reference library. However as far as I can recall most of the info on which particular Company was playing where in the 1570's and 1580's is just Chamber's conjecture. For the most part there are no actual documentary records of the Companies - just some isolated records of particular plays and particular actors. Thus we know that the 'Ur-Hamlet' ('the ghost that wailed so piteously at the Theatre') was performed there and that the great comedian Tarleton played there. And as the latter actor played for the Queen's Men it presumably means that the latter company must have played the Theatre. A pity that we don't have the same records for Burbage's enterprise as we do for Henslowe at the Rose. Colin4C 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The impression I got was that the established companies preferred to play the houses; but that their residency was frequently halted by plague, riot and insurrection (on the part of the city authorities). They were then forced to seek quieter times in the provinces ... I'm reading the Ackroyd Shakespeare at the moment, so maybe I am to affected by his certainty on matters of conjecture. Kbthompson 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It all becomes clearer in the 1590's with the Chamberlain's men based at the Theatre and the Admiral's men a fixture at the Rose: before that, however, its mostly guess-work which Shakepearian biographers like Ackroyd, Michael Wood and Greenblatt are pretty proficient at - which I don't mind, as long as the guess work is clearly distinguished from the documentary record. Recent research has uncovered a lot of provincial records which indicate that touring, for whatever reason, was what a lot of the Companies did a lot of the time. One also has to bear in mind that theatres could be used for fencing exibitions, dancing bears, performing monkeys etc.....Colin4C 10:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that Burbage was the first to actually obtain a license for theatrical performances; before that they were supposed to keep themselves to their 'sponsors' halls, but the odd public performance was tolerated, as long as it didn't actually end in a riot. We need to get more of a timeline into these articles, to show the development of the art.

I'm not saying Burbage wasn't talented, but it seems to me, there's only ever two ways to get on the stage: work cheap, or own the theatre. It's also rather artificial the way we 'moderns' have created a separation between venue, players, text and performance. Kbthompson 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Companies still had to have an aristocratic or royal sponsor: up to the time of Charles I at least. The trend was for closer and closer control by the court. Burbage himself (rather than the venue) had to prove, on one occasion, that he had a noble patron. Sponsorship all started as a type of get-out clause from Good Queen Eliza's Statute on Vagabonds (which latter were liable to a whipping by parish authorities): by showing a certificate from a noble patron itinerant actors could show that they were not part of the shifting raggle-taggle mob of ne'er do wells. Actors were licensed to perform (often in local guildhalls) at the say so of the local authorities: providing they could prove they had a noble or royal sponsor. Actors would wear the livery of their noble sponsors - which I guess was another way they could be distinguished from vagabonds. Colin4C 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

and I thought it was to differentiate them from mime artists (to be shot on sight) ... if you can think of a better way to put the Red Lion stuff, then please go ahead - or, we could ask the Elizabethan project. The article is getting a bit messy and probably needs tinkering anyway. Removing the Red Lion, is, I don't think an option. There's too many references out there, and most of them are wrong, better to try to get it right. I think early beers tonite. Kbthompson 14:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Oh Why?

I notice that this article uses both footnotes and the Harvard system of references. Wouldn't it be more logical to have one or the other, rather than both??? We could even have a vote on which one to use if necessary...Colin4C 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You picking a row again? Why not? The article could do with a copyed, it's got a little untidy. I'd be happy to change all the Harvard to footnotes 8^). It's less messy, but it's important to retain the page number refs in the text. Kbthompson 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff Colin4C 21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the reason for late construction of theaters?

if building theaters in london did not occur till the 1500's AD why did it take so long. greeco roman civilization thousands of years ago is acredited with the first theaters in europe. and london ,england was a roman settlemet called londinium. why did the romans not build theaters? im looking for a reason why the first theaters in the 1500s is such a historical oddity. 69.221.172.106 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)