Write about Stage appearance during Elizabethan period? Stage in Elizabethan period
ELIZABETHAN STAGE
A play without an audience and actors
is inconceivable. Therefore a dramatist
has to adapt his plays to the conditions of the stage on which they have to be
performed, to the actors who are to act them and to the audience who are to
witness them. Shakespeare dramas,
accordingly, were greatly influenced by the conditions of the Elizabethan
stage. The Elizabethan audience had no
experience of the elaborate construction and decorations of the modern
stage. Therefore, Shakespeare had to
regulate his plays in accordance with the crude representation and limitations
of the stage available in those primitive days.
Prior to the Elizabethan age there was, really speaking, no fixed stage
in the sense we understand the term today.
Although dramatic art had long established itself as an important
profession in England, the stage was not yet fixed. There were strolling theatrical companies
which carried their simple and crude stage from place to place. The stage was just a simple affair; a kind of
open tent with two side-doors, one serving for ‘entrance’ and the other for
‘exit’ with a small door in between the two serving the purpose of ‘inner’
stage. When Shakespeare arrived in London about 1585, the Elizabethan stage was
in the state of final evolution.
There were three kinds of theatres in London when Shakespeare reached
there: (i) Public theatres, (ii) Private
theatres, (iii) the Halls tof Royal palaces and the Inns of Court. The Curtain, the Theatre and the Newington
Butts were the three public theatres to which was odded the Rose two years
later (1587). They were either circular
or octagonal in shape, with a raised dais I the centre. They were oper head and performances took
place in broad daylight. Shakespeare’s plays
were performed in all these theatres.
Many of his plays were also performed in private theatres and at least a
few in the Royal Palaces too.
It was in 1599 that the Globe Theatre in which Shakespeare himself had a
share, was constructed. It became the
permanent headquarters of the Shakespearean theatrical company. It was the most typical play-house of the
Elizabethan age. An analysis of its
structure can give us an idea of the common Elizabethan play-house. It was circular in structure and the inside
yard was open to the sky. It was
surrounded by three tiers of galleries overlooking the main stage in the
centre. There was a circular area known
as the ‘pit’ around the stage. There
were no seats in the pit and therefore, poor spectators, called the
‘groundlings’ kept standing throughout the performance. More fashionable and respectable spectators
sat on seats arranged in the three galleries, one over the other. The uppermost gallery was covered with a
thatched roof. The tickets varied from
one penny n the ‘pit’ to 2s 6d in the highest gallery.
The stage proper was technically called the ‘apron stage’. It comprised the following main parts: First, there was an outstretched rectangular
platform. The ‘groundlings’ stood on
three sides of it. Above it were
thatched roof and hangings but no side or front curtains. In the floor was a hidden trap-door which was
usually kept closed and through which occasionally ascended or descended ghosts
and witches as in Macbeth. Secondly, at
the back of the stage on either side there were two doors by which the
characters entered and disappeared.
Between the doors there used to be a small recess behind a thin
curtain. The recess formed a kind of
inner stage to present certain scenes as ‘behind’. It represented, for example, the bedchamber of
Desdemona, the cell of Prospero, the cave of King Lear or the tomb of
Juliet. Thirdly, over the recess there
was the upper stage or a balcony, technically called ‘the heavens’ which was
used for ‘tiring-house’ or for representing upper scenes as the balcony of
Juliet’s bed-chamber, a curtain being hung from the balcony to conceal or
disclose the ‘recess’ below.
The stage usually lacked in scenic arrangements. There was acute scarcity of scenery. Bradbrook writes: “The stage had properties but no scenery; the
trees of the popular orchard or woodland set, whether real or not, must have
provided rather thin illusion, and this was certainly the most elaborate scene
of the early stage. Spectacle replaced
scenery”. Among the properties of the
stage a few typical things were a human head, a grave, a lion, an artificial
moo, a bush or a flower plant which were so commonly required in Shakespeare’s
plays. The costumes of the actors were
gaudy, rich and expensive. But they were
all Elizabethan costumes irrespective of the period and country where the
action of the drama was supposed to take place.
Harrison says, “Shakespeare was no archaeologist ; as the medieval
artists who gave us the wall-paintings and sculptures of our churches,
represented Pilate’s Roman soldiers in plate armour: so his romans in Coriolamus, for example,
carry pistols, are put in the stocks, say grace before meat and generally
behave and look like the Elizabethans who watched them performed. Costume was a means of indicating rank and
office more than tie and place: it was
meant to reveal the characters than the setting of the story.”
Female actresses had not yet appeared on the stage. The parts of female characters were, therefore,
played by young boys who appeared on the stage in foppish and gaudy female
costumes. Considering the large number
of female characters in Shakespeare’s plays, it may be safely inferred that
young men must have played the female
roles perfectly in the Elizabethan age.
Yet to compensate for the absence of actresses, Shakespeare often
contrived to represent his heroines in comedies disgussed as men. Instance may be cited from his comedies-Portia
playing the part of the judge, Rosalind visiting her lover as a young shepherd,
and Viola serving as the boy-messenger of Duke Orsino. In addition to this, Shakespeare also
avoided very intimate or passionate scenes of love lest they should arouse
ridicule. Granvile Baker observes: “There is, when one comes to examine the
point, quite extraordinarily little intimate love-making in Shakespeare. How often, that is how seldom, do we want to
insert the stage direction ‘the kiss?’ It will be found, I think that
Shakespeare almost always interposes some sort of barrier as the balcony in
Romeo and Juliet or an intellectual barrier, as with Beatrice and Benedick, who
are always at wit’s rapier’s distance and so on. Also, as a minor point, Shakespeare uses
circumstances for occasional effect as when ‘Cleopatra thinks of a squeaking
Cleopatra buoying her greatness or Rosalind delivers an epilogue much of which
is pointless on the modern stage.’
Flexibility was a chief characteristic of the Elizabethan stage. This flexibility was at once an invitation to
licence. Time and place could be
neglected or telescoped to serve a dramatic purpose. The Elizabethan stage was free from any
suggestions of particular locality or time.
Bradbrook writes, “The unlocalized dreams allowed Shakespeare to indulge
in loose flowing construction, episodic plots, and complex action. It is responsible for most of those features
of his plays which appeared to be faults to the eighteenth century, and for the
fact that he was largely unplayable in the nineteenth century. This vagueness of place may has been
encouraged by the frequency with which allegorical figures were allowed to move
on the same plane as a human being in the plays, which confused the sense of
time and plays.” “To the audience, the stage was stage-it
represented nowhere and, therefore, everywhere.
The absence of scenery had far-reaching effects on the construction and
style of Shakespeare’s plays. The
absence of scenery led Shakespeare to
have comparatively short scenes which could be quickly changed. It put a great limitation upon the ways in
which a Shakespearean scene or act could terminate. The drop-curtains were unknown in the Elizabethan
age. Therefore at the end of each scene,
the actors had either to walk away or were carried off the stage leaving it
empty. For this reason an Elizabethan
scene or Act could not end on a climax.
Even the most overwhelming scene of Shakespeare closes relatively
quietly and the stage is usually cleared at the close of each scene. Another method of indicating the close of a
Shakespearean scene was the use of a rhyming couplet at the end. The rhymed couplet was believed to ring the
death-knell of the scene or the act.
The lack of scenic effect was made good by the poet by gorgeous
descriptions and graphic effects of poetry.
Had there been elaborate scenery on the Elizabethan stage, we would have
missed much of the rich descriptive poetry of Shakespeare. The actors had to use highly emotional and
exalted poetry in order to arouse the emotions of the spectators. With a view that this kind of poetic style
may not look incongruous in the day-to-day world, Shakespeare has taken care to
[lace his scenes in far-off lands like Venice or Sicily or in the land of his
own imagination haunted by angels and fairies as in A Midsummer Night’s
Dream. The wonderful poetry of
Shakespeare “caused him to make up for the deficiency of the scenery by his
wonderful descriptions of landscapes castles and wild moors. All that poetry would have been lost had the
painted scenery at his disposal.”
All these peculiarities of the stage and its limitations had marked
influences on the structure, action and even style of Shakespeare’s drama. Shakespeare wrote his plays primarily for the
stage. Ben Jonson rightly hailed him as
“the applause, delight, the wonder of our stage”. Thomas Carlyle regretted that Shakespeare’s
dramatic skill had to be curbed down to the limitations of the Globe
Theatre: “his great soul had to crush
itself, as it could, into that and no other mould”.
Comments
Post a Comment