This distinction, we see, prevailed for near half a century; but after the Restoration, when the stage revived for the entertainment of a new race of auditors, many of whom had been exiled in France, and formed their taste from the French theatre, Shakespeare's histories appear to have been no longer relished; at least the distinction respecting them is dropt in the patents that were immediately granted after the king's return. This appears not only from the allowance to Mr. William Beeston in June, 1660,[1195] to use the house in Salisbury-court "for a Play-house, wherein Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-comedies, Pastoralls, and Interludes, may be acted," but also from the fuller grant (dated August 21, 1760),[1196] to Thomas Killigrew, Esq., and Sir William Davenant, Knt., by which they have authority to erect two companies of players, and to fit up two theatres "for the representation of Tragydies, Comedyes, Playes, Operas, and all other entertainments of that nature."
But while Shakespeare was the favourite dramatic poet, his histories had such superior merit that he might well claim to be the chief, if not the only historic dramatist that kept possession of the English stage; which gives a strong support to the tradition mentioned by Gildon,[1197] that, in a conversation with Ben Jonson, our bard vindicated his historical plays by urging, that as he had found "the nation in general very ignorant of history, he wrote them in order to instruct the people in this particular." This is assigning not only a good motive, but a very probable reason for his preference of this species of composition; since we cannot doubt but his illiterate countrymen would not only want such instruction when he first began to write, notwithstanding the obscure dramatic chroniclers who preceded him, but also that they would highly profit by his admirable lectures on English history so long as he continued to deliver them to his audience. And as it implies no claim to his being the first who introduced our chronicles on the stage, I see not why the tradition should be rejected.
Upon the whole we have had abundant proof that both Shakespeare and his contemporaries considered his histories, or historical plays, as of a legitimate distinct species, sufficiently separate from tragedy and comedy, a distinction which deserves the particular attention of his critics and commentators; who, by not adverting to it, deprive him of his proper defence and best vindication for his neglect of the unities, and departure from the classical dramatic forms. For, if it be the first canon of sound criticism to examine any work by whatever rule the author prescribed for his own observance, then we ought not to try Shakespeare's histories by the general laws of tragedy or comedy. Whether the rule itself be vicious or not is another inquiry: but certainly we ought to examine a work only by those principles according to which it was composed. This would save a deal of impertinent criticism.
V. We have now brought the inquiry as low as was intended, but cannot quit it without entering into a short description of what may be called the œconomy of the ancient English stage.
Such was the fondness of our forefathers for dramatic entertainments, that not fewer than nineteen playhouses had been opened before the year 1633, when Prynne published his Histriomastix.[1198] From this writer it should seem that "tobacco, wine, and beer,"[1199] were in those days the usual accommodations in the theatre, as within our memory at Sadler's Wells.
With regard to the players themselves, the several companies were (as hath been already shewn),[1200] retainers or menial servants to particular noblemen,[1201] who protected them in the exercise of their profession: and many of them were occasionally strollers, that travelled from one gentleman's house to another. Yet so much were they encouraged, that, notwithstanding their multitude, some of them acquired large fortunes. Edward Allen, who founded Dulwich College, is a known instance. And an old writer speaks of the very inferior actors, whom he calls the hirelings, as living in a degree of splendour which was thought enormous in that frugal age.[1202]
At the same time the ancient prices of admission were often very low. Some houses had penny benches.[1203] The "two-penny gallery" is mentioned in the prologue to Beaumont and Fletcher's Woman Hater;[1204] and seats of three-pence and a groat seem to be intended in the passage of Prynne above referred to. Yet different houses varied in their prices: that playhouse called the "Hope" had seats of five several rates, from sixpence to half-a-crown.[1205] But a shilling seems to have been the usual price[1206] of what is now called the pit, which probably had its name from one of the playhouses having been a cock-pit.[1207]
The day originally set apart for theatrical exhibition appears to have been Sunday, probably because the first dramatic pieces were of a religious cast. During a great part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the playhouses were only licensed to be opened on that day:[1208] but before the end of her reign, or soon after, this abuse was probably removed.
The usual time of acting was early in the afternoon,[1209] plays being generally performed by day-light.[1210] All female parts were performed by men, no English actress being ever seen on the public stage[1211] before the civil wars.