wrongdoings, but the reality is that most people went to the theater then, as they do now, for entertainment more than moral edification. Besides, it would be foolish to suppose that audiences behaved in a homogeneous way: a pamphlet of the 1630s tells of how two men went to see
Pericles
and one of them laughed while the other wept. Bishop John Hall complained that people went to church for the same reasons that they went to the theater: âfor company, for custom, for recreationâ
â¦â
to feed his eyes or his earsâ
â¦â
or perhaps for sleep.â
Men-about-town and clever young lawyers went to be seen as much as to see. In the modern popular imagination, shaped not leastby
Shakespeare in Love
and the opening sequence of Laurence Olivierâs
Henry V
film, the penny-paying groundlings stand in the yard hurling abuse or encouragement and hazelnuts or orange peel at the actors, while the sophisticates in the covered galleries appreciate Shakespeareâs soaring poetry. The reality was probably the other way around. A âgroundlingâ was a kind of fish, so the nickname suggests the penny audience standing below the level of the stage and gazing in silent open-mouthed wonder at the spectacle unfolding above them. The more difficult audience members, who kept up a running commentary of clever remarks on the performance and who occasionally got into quarrels with players, were the gallants. Like Hollywood movies in modern times, Elizabethan and Jacobean plays exercised a powerful influence on the fashion and behavior of the young. John Marston mocks the lawyers who would open their lips, perhaps to court a girl, and out would âflow / Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.â
THE ENSEMBLE AT WORK
In the absence of typewriters and photocopying machines, reading aloud would have been the means by which the company got to know a new play. The tradition of the playwright reading his complete script to the assembled company endured for generations. A copy would then have been taken to the Master of the Revels for licensing. The theater book-holder or prompter would then have copied the parts for distribution to the actors. A partbook consisted of the characterâs lines, with each speech preceded by the last three or four words of the speech before, the so-called âcue.â These would have been taken away and studied or âconned.â During this period of learning the parts, an actor might have had some one-to-one instruction, perhaps from the dramatist, perhaps from a senior actor who had played the same part before, and, in the case of an apprentice, from his master. A high percentage of Desdemonaâs lines occur in dialogue with Othello, of Lady Macbethâs with Macbeth, Cleopatraâs with Antony, and Volumniaâs with Coriolanus. The roles would almost certainly have been taken by the apprentice of the lead actor, usually Burbage, who delivers the majority of the cues. Given that apprentices lodged with their masters, there would have been ample opportunity for personal instruction, which may be what made it possible for young men to play such demanding parts.
9. Hypothetical reconstruction of the interior of an Elizabethan playhouse during a performance.
After the parts were learned, there may have been no more than a single rehearsal before the first performance. With six different plays to be put on every week, there was no time for more. Actors, then, would go into a show with a very limited sense of the whole. The notion of a collective rehearsal process that is itself a process of discovery for the actors is wholly modern and would have been incomprehensible to Shakespeare and his original ensemble. Given the number of parts an actor had to hold in his memory, the forgetting of lines was probably more frequent than in the modern theater. The book-holder was on hand to prompt.
Backstage personnel included the property man, the tire-man who oversaw the
Alan Cook
Unknown Author
Cheryl Holt
Angela Andrew;Swan Sue;Farley Bentley
Reshonda Tate Billingsley
Pamela Samuels Young
Peter Kocan
Allan Topol
Isaac Crowe
Sherwood Smith