Elizabethan theatre and the reactions?

Question

Could anyone help me explain the reaction towards the popularity of theatre by conservative groups in the elizabethan era?

Thanks!

Answer 1

Well, many people who might be considered 'conservative' i.e. members of the noblity and royalty etc, were quite keen on the theatre.  The strongest opposition came from the Puritans who would, in their day, have been considered quite radical rather than conservative.

English drama had its origins in the mystery plays and pageants that were performed by the various trade guilds up until the mid Elizabthan era. There were also groups of strolling players who travelled from town to town performing plays, and students at universities put on performances of plays as well.  The 16th century was the era when the power of the central government increased considerably and this, coupled with the religious changes of the age, made the Tudor monarchs determined to control drama.  

In 'Pleasures and Pastimes in Tudor England' Alison Sim writes:

'Queen Elizabeth was perfectly aware that her religious settlement was fragile and so she felt it best to steer entertainment at court away from religious themes.  She certainly did not want any of her subjects stirring up religious tension either, so she tightned up the process for licensing drama by a proclomation in May 1559, which said that any play had to be licensed by the Mayor or other chief officers of the town where it was to be performed.

The control of drama was strengthened yet again in 1572 when the Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds was made law.Under this act every company of actors had to be authorised by a noble or by two judicial dignitaries of the realm.  In 1598 the licensing power was taken away from the magistrates, leaving only great nobles with the ability to license a company.  If any company bearing its name was to perform work which offended the monarch, the noble patron could expect trouble, so this was quite an effective way of making sure that no offensive material was produced.  It was not only the players who needed a license to perform: plays also had to be given official consent.  The Lord Chamberlain had to license th eplays with the Master of the Revels acting as his executive.  In 1581 the Master of the Revels was given the power to censor plays so control was strict.

The Tudors may have wanted to control drama, but they definitely did not want it destroyed.  It was too useful a tool for that and in any case court life would have been dull without pageants and plays.  It was often cheaper to summon an existing company of actors to perform a play at Christmas before the court than it was to put on some kind of court disguising, so actors were frequently summoned to court.  Nobles and gentlemen also liked to entertain their friends in the same way, so there was plenty of support for good professional troupes among the ruling classes.

This was a very important point as there were many among the ruling elite, particularly in London, who disliked actors and plays.  There was, of course, the usual fear of the possibility of disorder when large numbers of people came together in one place, but the distrust went deeper than that.  There was a Puritan element that felt that plays led to all kinds of vice and that the acting itself was simply a dangerous form of pretence and illusion.  The Puritan authorities of the City of London strongly disapproved of the theatre. Both plays and players were considered highly disreputable and undesirable.

This might have been the opinion of the city elite but judging by the popularity of the theatre in London most people would not have agreed.  english drama was so popular that by the late sixteenth century it was being played not only in england and Scotland but also in mainland europe.  english drama, in english, could be seen in Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Poland and France.

The opposition of the city authorities coupled with the Londoners' enthusiasm for plays led to the development of purpose-built theatres.  The idea of constructing special buildings in which to stage dramatic performances was further prompted by the fact that, in the mid-sixteenth century, galleried inns like the George Inn had become favourite places for holding such events; the city authorities were not very happy about this and, at some point in the late sixteenth century, they did manage to have inns banned from being used as theatres.  it was perhaps in anticipation of this ban that the development of purpose-built theatres began.

The Theatre was built in Shoreditch, to the north of the city, in the Liberty of Holywell, which was conveniently outside the city jurisdiction.  it was built on leased land, and bulding on leased land without the owner's permission was illegal.  The owner of the land did not like theatres and made it clear that he would not allow it to continue once the lease was up.  On top of this, the city authorities were gradually winning their battle to keep playing out of inns.

The Theatre's owner, James Burbage, decided to buy a building in Blackfriars and convert it into a theatre.  it was again conveniently outside the city's jurisdiction.  It was also on the fashionable western side of the city, close to where the wealthier theatgre-goers lived.  Unfortunately the residents of Blackfriars were not quite ready for such a theatre.  The only theatre they had tolerated before had been one used by the Chapel children, a boys' company.  The boys' companies were seen as being more respectable than the adults, possibly because children could hardly be accused of all the crimes associated with actors at the time.  The boy players only played once a week while the adults performed daily, so the adult company brought more problems in the way of traffic congestion etc with them.

The result was that the residents felt that the tone of the area was being lowered  by the presence of an adult company and petitioned the privy council.  It must have been particularly galling to Burbage that the company's patron, Lordn Hunsdon, the Lord chamberlain, also signed the petition.  This left Burbage with a theatre he couldn't use and with nowhere for his company to perform.   The solution to the problem was to finance a new theatre by offering shares in the building to the five leading players (including Shakespeare) and then taking down the Theatre building in Shoreditch and rebuilding it on a new site under a new name, the Globe.

The opposition to the theatre that existed in the sixteenth cedntury does give the impression that playgoing was a disreputable pastime.  In fact many of the Blackfriars' residents who so violently opposed a theatre on their own doorstep would have been regular theatre-goers themselves.  Despite the city authorities' dislike of it, the theatre was patronised by all social classes and by both men and women.'

In fact, the main opposition to the theatre continued to be from radical groups rather than 'conservatives'.  It was the Puritans who gained power after the defeat of Charles I in the Civil War who banned the theatre for instance, while Charles II brought theatre back to england when he was restored to the throne in 1660.

Answer 2

The theatre was part of what might be called the "sporting district" (if not the "red light district") of cities like Greater London.  And one of the things that Conservatives of any country seem to hate is the mixing of the upper and lower classes.  The Elizabethan theater scene opened its doors to everyone -- the social elite rubbed up against a cross-section of common vulgarians, drunken idlers, and other shady, street-wise sorts. Acting was considered a vulgar profession.  It was a precarious way of life; most stage players were vulnerable to arrest on charges of vagrancy if they were not under the protection of a powerful sponsor.

Once the Puritans came to power in the during the English Civil War (1640's) they were able to ban all theatres.