One of the earliest references to the recently built theatres was made by Thomas Wilcox, a notorious divine, on December 9th, 1576, whose life will be found in the Dictionary of National Biography. He referred to the Theatre and the Curtain as “those sumptuous theatre houses.”
The earliest references to The Theatre, by name, is mentioned in an order of the Privy Council, dated 1st August, 1577, “for the avoiding of the sickness likely to happen through the heat of the weather and assemblies of the people of London to plays,” measures should be taken that “such as are and do use to play without the Liberties of the City ... as the theater and such like, shall forbear any more to play until Mighelmas be past.”
After an interval of one year from the Rev. Northbroke’s outburst another preacher mounted the pulpit, delivering a vigorous sermon in denunciation of “The Theatre.” This divine was a schoolmaster named Stockton, headmaster of Tonbridge School, where he held indisputable sway, widely known as a severe disciplinarian, and a writer of many devotional works. The following is an extract from a sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cross: “Have we not houses of purpose built with great charges for the maintenance of them, and that without the Liberties, as who shall say ‘There let them say what they will we will play.’ I know not how I might with the godly learned especially more discommend the gorgeous playing places erected in the fields than term it as they please to have it called a Theatre. Will not a filthy play with a blast of a trumpet sooner call thither a thousand than an hour’s tolling of the bell bring to a sermon a hundred? Nay, even here in the City, without it be at this place and some other ordinary audience where you shall find a rehearsal of company, whereas if you visit to the Theatre the Curtain and other places of players in the City you shall on the Lord’s Day have their places with many other that I cannot reckon so full as possible they can throng.”
In most ages, even the present one, the clergy have persistently set their faces against play acting without sufficiently analysing the reasons for their embittered attacks, therefore their testimony must be accepted as prejudiced partisans, which neither voice the view of the populace nor of the cultured classes. Contemporary records afford ample proof that the stage was frequented by all sorts and conditions of people, the rowdy section seeming to predominate, only the puritanical section, chiefly composed of the middle classes, kept aloof. The popularity of the drama, acclaimed by the upper classes, saved it from complete annihilation, otherwise the authorities would have banished every player beyond the City walls. The sole cause of hatred against the players can only be accounted for by the strong puritanical feeling existing in the breasts of the City Fathers, which expressed itself in denouncing with unseemly rage and bitterness any kind of entertainment in which the citizens evinced the slightest pleasure. Any pretext, however flimsy, was seized upon with avidity, thereby exhibiting their petty spite against the players. When the plague raged the theatres were closed. If any act of disturbance occurred the theatres were closed. On Saints’ days, Holydays and Festivals the theatres were closed. Orders were frequently issued permitting stage plays only on certain days in the week. Every device was instituted in their endeavour to persecute the poor player, but, in spite of all these tyrannical enactments, the drama continued to flourish exceedingly, attracting hundreds of people who found employment in connexion with the stage.
Another early reference to the Theatre is found in a volume of a contemporary author. John Florio, an Italian refugee, who instructed the English aristocracy in the niceties of the Italian language, in a book entitled Dialogues and Proverbs First Frutes, published in 1578, is the following passage: “We will go into the Fields. Let us go to the Theatre to see a comedie. What pastimes are they in England on holidays? Of all sortes of pastyme, as Comedies, Tragedies, leaping, dancing, playes of defence, Baiting of Beasts, etc.” The above paragraph is in the form of a dialogue. This reference is rarely met with, I believe Mrs. Carmichael Stopes was the first to point it out. “In the year 1580, Burbage was summoned before the Middlesex Court on a charge of bringing together unlawful assemblies of people to hear and see certain colloquies or interludes called plays, exercised by James Burbage and divers other persons unknown, at a certain place called The Theatre, in Halliwell, in the aforesaid county. By reason of which unlawful assembly of the people great affrays, assaults and tumults and quasi-insurrections and divers other misdeeds and enormities have been then and there done and perpetrated by very many ill-disposed persons to the great disturbance of the peace.” This statement is a gross exaggeration, but its very overstatement suffices in explaining the attitude the authorities assumed in the extreme measures adopted by them in suppressing play-acting. How unfair and unjust appear the means by which a body of English magistrates endeavoured to abolish theatrical institutions. No statement was too false, no lie uttered was deemed sinful; the airiest motive was seized upon with eagerness if by such means any discredit was cast upon the acting fraternity. For years they were harassed, tormented and bandied about from place to place, and this persecution lasted even whilst the greatest dramatic literature of all time was daily being represented before an ever increasing and admiring public.
For this drastic treatment we may seek some condonement and extenuating circumstances in the religious belief of the country, the people being chiefly guided by the clergy, who instilled in them the belief that all things connected with the stage were injurious and harmful to the community. Imbued with these ideas the clergy considered themselves justified by using every means in their power in overthrowing and abolishing the stage out of the kingdom. Many of these reverend fanatics were admitted on the Council of Administration, who continually persisted in their endeavours to oust the players, at any rate, out of the City; in furtherance of their plans they preached the sinfulness of the drama in order to drive away the people from the playhouses. Their pleadings were partially successful; by continual exhortations they succeeded in poisoning the minds of the middle classes, who accordingly absented themselves from all places of amusement. The chief patrons of the drama were drawn from the upper and lower classes much in the same way as the Turf to-day exercises on the same classes, the middle class in this instance displaying great good sense and morality by staying away from such an unhealthy and discreditable amusement.
Although the Corporation were powerful enough in forcing the players from places under their control, they were powerless in suppressing play-acting during the entire reigns of Elizabeth and James. The year 1584 was memorable on account of a disturbance which occurred outside the Theatre, thereby causing the assembly of a great crowd. Quickly seizing this event as an excuse, the authorities petitioned that this building and the Curtain should be pulled down. The Court considered the punishment too drastic; nevertheless, the Corporation persisted, eventually obtaining letters ordering the demolition of both theatres: “Upon Sunday my Lord sent 2 Aldermen to the Court for the suppressing and pulling down of the Theatre and Curtain for all the Lords agreed thereunto, saving my Lord Chamberlain and Mr. Viech, but we obtained a letter to suppress them all. Upon the same night I sent for the Queen’s players and my Lord Arundel his players, and they all well nigh obeyed the Lords’ letters. The chiefest of her Highness’ players advised me to send for the owner of the Theatre, who was a stubborn fellow, and to bind him. I did so. He sent me word that he was my Lord Hunsdon’s man, and that he would not come to me, but he would in the morning ride to my Lord. Then I sent the under Sheriff for him, and he brought him to me, and at his coming he shouted me out very Justice, and in the end I showed him my Lord his master’s hand, and then he was more quiet, but to die for it he would not be bound. And then I, minding to send him to prison, he made suit that he might be bound to appear at the Oyer and determined the which is to-morrow, where he said he was sure the Court would not bind him, being a counselor’s man, and so I have granted his request, where he shall be sure to be bound or else is like to do worse.”
Again, for fear of riots, official notices were distributed that the Theatre be closed. “There shall be no plays at the Theatre or other usual place where the same are commonly used.” These orders were frequently circulated; whether they were put into execution is doubtful. Considering the restrictions that hemmed around the poor player, Shakespeare’s lament that through ill-fortune he became a player need cause no surprise, considering the persecution that was directed against the theatrical profession.
A passage in Dante’s “Inferno” might, with slight alterations, exactly fit the actions of our own civic authorities during the reign of Elizabeth. “As in the Venetian Arsenal, the pitch boils in the winter time wherewith to caulk their rotten ships. But, looking down into the chasm, I could see nothing except the bubbles that its boiling raised. And as I looked at it fixedly and wondered, my guide drew me back hastily, saying, ‘Look! look!’ And when I turned I saw behind us a black devil come running along the rocks. Oh, how wild his face, oh, how bitter his action, as he came with his wings wide, light upon his feet, on his shoulder he bore a sinner grasped by both haunches, and when he came to the bridge foot he cried down the pit: ‘Here’s an Alderman from the City of London; put him under that I may fetch more for the land is full of such.’”