(2) 3 In spite of the failure of its measures, the Council undoubtedly made sincere efforts. With a disposition to profit by failure without yielding to it, the Council, in response to many complaints received against the newlyplanned houses, especially the Fortune, passed the order "for the restrainte of the imoderate use and Companye of Playehowses and Players." The multitude and misgovernment of the play-houses, the order affirmed, caused so much social disorder that some restriction was necessary. Yet since "the use and exercise of such playes, not beinge evill in ytself, may with a good order and moderacion be suffered in a well-governed state," and since "her Majestie," was "pleased at somtymes to take delight and recreation in the sight and hearinge of them," the Council sought to restrict, but not to abolish, the pastime. This change in the Council's attitude is not a mark of insincerity. Undoubtedly, the Court's love of the drama influenced it; but it had also seen in the past the fruitlessness of over-legislation, and had learned that effective restraint was better than ineffective prohibition. Consequently an order was passed, "to the ende, therefore, that both the greate abuses of the playes and playinge-houses may be redressed, and yet the aforesaide use and moderation of them retayned." With this purpose, they ordered first that two, and only two, playhouses should be allowed; but permitted Alleyn to proceed with the Fortune on the supposition that it was to take the place of the Curtain. Secondly, owing to the excessive use of plays in the past and the resulting damage to business (and labor, it provided that these two houses should be opened only twice a week, but neither on Sunday nor during plague time. And thirdly, they reminded their petitioners that their orders would be unavailing without the coöperation of the justices of Middlesex and Surrey, and called upon the Lord Mayor and the authorities in the Liberties to attend to the fulfillment of the order. Yet even this order, the last made by Elizabeth's Council 1 Outlines, I, 281–2. touching the matter, was not carried out. The Curtain not only refused to yield place to the Fortune, as had been expected, but rashly attacked in her plays those magistrates who had schemed for her ruin.1 When the attention of the Privy Council was called to this, in December 31, 1601, a letter was sent to the Lord Mayor acknowledging the receipt of the new complaint, and expressing surprise that its last order had not been carried into execution.2 For the neglect the Council blamed chiefly the justices of Middlesex and Surrey, implying, however, that London, too, was not exempt from blame. Fleay sees in this evidence that London's ruling motive was not Puritan, but a mere obstinate determination to assert its own privileges, opposing or countenancing, according as the Council's attitude was favorable or adverse, the theaters.3 This was not the case in 1584; and, considering the great difficulties in the way of the city, it seems fairer to lay the blame either on the inertia of the administration for that one year, or, as Simpson does, on the popularity in London of the Earl of Essex, whose part the players took. To be sure, the English edition of John Boden's Commonwealth concludes its censure of plays with the words, "There is no hope to see playes forbidden by the magistrats, for commonly they are the first at them."5 But when we consider the great popular demand for stage-plays, and the favor showed them in the Council-for again in 1604 London was requested to allow players after a temporary closure to resume at the three theaters, the Curtain having regained firm foothold®we can account for the fact that in 1602 there were four public theaters open, besides some half dozen places where performances were regularly given, without impugning the sincerity of the magistrates' moral solicitude. 1 Outlines, I, 342. 2 Ibid., 283. 4 Shakespeare Soc. Trans. 1874, p. 386. 5 Book VI, p. 645-6. 3 Fleay, p. 161. 6 Outlines, I, 284. CHAPTER 11. SUMMARY; 1576-1603. With the year 1603 and the close of the Queen's reign, we terminate the second period in the growth of the Puritan opposition. Earlier than this, to be sure, in 1584, events seemed to be leading to a climax like that of 1576. By that year the spirit of opposition on the literary side had been expressed by the greatest of its early exponents, Northbrooke, Gosson and Stubbes; only the voice of Oxford's academic disputation was lacking to complete its full development. Then, also, when the long sought for order was obtained from the Council for the suppression of the Theater and the Curtain, London seemed about to win a victory greater even than that of 1576. But the victory was only apparent; for, backed by great popular favor, the theaters remained unharmed. We therefore do not call this the close of the second great period, but trace further the unmistakable growth of public feeling. The work of the great pamphleteers was carried on after 1584 by the lesser writers whom we have mentioned, and by new editions of the early treatises, while the writings of divines after that date scattered the seeds already sown. That recognition of the social and moral dangers of the theater was gradually extending, is confirmed by the evidence found in all sources, even in the ranks of the dramatists themselves. We must not, however, fall into the error of supposing that the theater had not still its patrons. If some actors spoke against it, of course the majority favored the outspoken vindications of Lodge and Nashe. It was still the popular diversion of the metropolis. Nevertheless the opposition, aided by force of circumstances, became strong enough to win at the end of the century another order of suppression from the Council; and though this, too, remained inoperative, the restrictive measure substituted for it served as a check on the license of the players during the last two years. of the Queen's reign. Thus both the Council and the Corporation were allied in their effort to control the stage. All this is clear proof of a growing sentiment against stage-plays. The Council would never have taken such action unless forced by necessity, and they, as we have seen, were less exposed to the danger, and therefore slower in recognizing it, than were hundreds of sober steady citizens. Hence behind these actions of the Council we may infer a more than proportionate increase in the opposition of the middle classes. We can hardly expect to find this indicated in a marked falling off in the attendance at theaters. There are always enough people in a city to crowd such exhibitions, especially if they are rendered infrequent, as they were in London, by constant closures. From the very words of the assailants themselves, it is seen that the play-houses retained great popularity, drawing people from honest work and worship. The growth of the opposition can only be realized by careful research. The rapid increase in the momentum of the early quarrel, the more conservative, but equally forcible and significant, expressions of the men of all callings who spoke against it, reveal indubitably the widespread and growing opposition of the sober class against theatrical exhibitions of all sorts. the rise of this opposition the culmination of events in the first years of the 17th century marks definitely a second high-water point, fully as conspicuous as the crisis of 1575, and this we take as the close of the second main period of the general Puritan movement against the English theater. In CHAPTER 12. THE PERIOD OF CALM. Thus had the controversy over stage-plays reached a natural crisis at the close of the Queen's reign, and in this, as in other matters, Puritanism awaited expectantly the first of the Stuarts. It was no mere flattery when Jonson wrote:1 This is that James of which long since thou sung'st, it was the earnest hope, rather, of men of both parties. The Puritans looked to him, the member of the Scotch Kirk, for at least tolerance, while the Episcopacy, thinking of his decided predilection for absolutism, did not despair of increased favor. Naturally, therefore, after the crisis came a lull in the stage controversy. And although the contemptuous treatment accorded Puritanism at the Hampton Court Conference soon dashed to the ground all hope of a more liberal policy toward the dissenters; and although the personal interest taken by the sovereign in the actors must have dissipated whatever confidence their enemies could have had in a man already proved a lover of the drama, yet the respite in the open, heated controversy was not immediately broken. But notwithstanding the lull in the storm, there is good reason to believe that the quieter opposition grew steadily, and perhaps even the more rapidly, as a result of the actors' prosperity. The greater liberty allowed them brought increased license and disorder, and a more scathing ridicule of their opponents. It is fair, therefore, to assume that during the interim feeling against the drama advanced both in extent and in intensity. Evidences of this growth of sentiment are reflected even in the acts of the King. Before the accession of the Stuarts, Parliamentary statutes passed in reference to the 1 1 Jonson, The Irish Masque. |