Cornell University Library PN 2589.L43A21 Elizabethan playhouse .and other s^^^^^^^^ 3 1924 026 121 354 .w.i Bevieivs and Notes 355 makes no effort to group texts that present striking points in common,, or even to call attention to such points. She might have noted, for example, the representation, both in art and in literature, of two distinct processes for the healing of Longinus : the one in which the blood is represented as gush- ing from the spear point into Longinus' eyes; and the other in which it runs down the spear on- hie hand and in which he is healed by rubbing his eyes. The division of material into Longinus in the Apocrypha, The Testimony of the Fathers, The Martyrologies, Other Writers, Longinus in Art, Longinus in the Liturgy, Longinus in Charms, Longinus in English Literature is artificial, and obscures the historical relations. The writer confines her critical remarks on the development of the legend to the chapter The Legend of Longinus a Ficti- tious Narrative (pp. 27-37), and limits them to a discussion of the name of Longinus and the tradition of his blindness. She gives a brief account of other martyrs of the same name. This is far from exhausting the problems raised by the material presented. The position of this chapter is, moreover, unfortunate. The criticism of the tradition of the blindness should not precede the documents which first give evidence of the tradition, the illustrations discussed in the chapter Longinus in Art. The diligent collection of a large number of allusions to Longinus from Middle English litera- ture (pp. 80-142) is deserving of commendation.^^ Gertrude Schoepperle. University of Illinois. " There are numerous misprints. The quotation on page 214 from W. Staerk, Vber den Ursprung der Grallegende, Leipzig, 1903, p. 20, n. 2, is badly mutilated. The passage should read: Es verlohnte sich, aus den Gralromanen die Ziige zusammenzu- stellen, in denen sich der mittelalterliehe Abendmahlsritus wiederspiegelt . . '. . . Ich will hier nur auf zweierlei hinweisen: der mit dem Gral verbundene Speer — urspriinglich wohl eine selbstandige Blutreliquie — erinnert an die "heilige Lanze" im Ritus der orientalischen Kirche, und der in einigen Gralromanen sich findende Zug, dass der kranke "Fischer-kbnig" aus dem Gral Blut mittels einer Rohre saugt, verrat Bekanntschaft mit der im Abendland vor der Durchfiihrung der Kelch- entziehung in Verfolg des Transsubstantiationsdogmas, also bis zum 12. Jahrhundert verbreiteten Sitte, den Wein mittels der fistula eu- charistica zu geniessen. Dr. Peebles is mistaken in introducing this passage at this point. The tuiel (Crestien 20160, Elucidation 275) by which the abundance of blood flowing from the lance is carried away from the Grail cup is one thing. The roere (Heinrich von dem Tiirlin, Diu Crone, 14761 ff.), which lies in the cup and through which the Grail King partakes of the blood, is another. Dr. Staerk is alluding to the second. Dr. Brown (P. M. L. A. XXV (1910), p. 24, cf. pp. 14, 15) is discussing the first. 356 Adams, Jr. THE ELIZABETHAN PLAYHOUSE AND OTHER STUDIES, by W. J. Lawrence. J. B. Lippineott Com- pany, Philadelphia; Shakespeare Head Press, Stratford- upon-Avon. 1912. (8 vo, pp. xvi + 265, illus.) Mr. Lawrence claims to have been "the pioneer" in the mod- ern scientific study of ' ' the physical conditions and stage con- ventionalisms of the Elizabethan playhouse." After readily granting this modest claim, we may add that he is at the pres- ent time one of the most expert investigators in this field, and that a volume from him presenting his mature opinions on a subject so important to the study of the Tudor-Stuart drama is heartily welcome. In this volume, he has assembled ten papers which during the past decade he had published in various periodicals — the Shakespeare-Jahrbuch, Englische Studien, Anglia, The Oen- tleman's Magazine, etc. Yet he has taken care to revise, to amplify, and even in places to rewrite these papers, in order to keep them abreast with the notable progress recently made in this subject ; and in addition, he has enriched the volume by the insertion of thirteen full-page illustrations, which, he states, "have been chosen as much for their rarity as their appositeness. " ' The first paper, entitled "The Evolution and Influence of the Elizabethan Playhouse," is, on the whole, the best general discussion of the subject that we have. The author accepts with too much faith, perhaps, the conjectures of Professor Wallace (The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars) ; and virtually all his conclusions about the influence of the Black- friars theatre on the evolution of the playhouse must be modi- fied in view of the recent discoveries regarding the history of that building. For this, of course,' Mr. Lawrence is in no way to blame. Luckily, before his book was off the press he was able to read in The Daih/ Chronicle Monsieur Feuillerat's brief announcement of those discoveries, and to add a supplementary paper, "New Facts About the Black- friars," in which he corrects his earlier statements and re- writes the history of the private playhouses; and this sup- plementary paper is one oi* the most valuable in the book. Other papers elaborate special topics connected with the playhouse — "The Situation of the Lords' Room," "Title and Locality Boards," "^Music and Song in the Elizabethan Theatre"; still other papers take up separate themes — "The Mounting of Carolan Tilasques," "Early French Players in England," "Did Thomas Shadwell Write an Opera on The Reviews and Notes 357 Tempest f" and "Who Wrote the Famous Macbeth Music?" In this review, however, I shall confine myself to those papers dealing particularly with the Elizabethan playhouse. On not a few matters of detail one may feel inclined to dis- agree with Mr. Lawrence. This, however, is somewhat hazard- ous, for the author does not always substantiate his assertions with a citation of evidence, so that it is hard to know when he is merely speculating, and when he could, if pressed to do so, advance the necessary proof. Nevertheless I shall call atten- tion to some of his statements which seem to me to be ques- tionable. P. 6. Of the rear stage he says : "Its employment was, to some extent, restricted by the remoteness and obscurity of its position, an inconvenience which almost invariably de- manded the bringing in of lights at the commencement of all inner scenes." Mr. Lawrence has failed to observe that in the scenes to which he refers for proof of this statement, the torches, candles, or lanterns >were brought in for the pur- pose not of illuminating the rear stage, but of indicating to the audience that the action took place at night. In the open playhouse, with the afternoon sun beating down on the plat- form, the rear stage would not be dark; and there is abun- dant evidence that at times much action took place in this restricted area. P. 8. The well-known "shadow" which protected a part of the stage from the weather is thus described: "A thatched (or possibly, tiled and leaded) half -roof, sloping down from the tiring-house, and known indifferently as 'the shadow,' or 'the heavens'." Was not this half -roof called "the shadow," "the shade," or "the cover" (see the Fortune contract), and was not the term "the heavens" applied rather to a hut which overhung a part of the lower stage, and through the floor of which gods and goddesses were lowered? Note Hey wood's Silver Age II. i: "Juno and Iris descend from the heavens"; The Valiant Welshman I. i: "Fortune descends downe from heaven to the stage." The Hope contract is too vague to prove anything in this connection, but the "heavens" there referred to may well be a hut projecting over the stage. The following reference to the Fortune bears on this point: "There shall also great inflammations of Lightning hap- pen this year about the Fortune, in Golding Lane, if the play- ers can get leave to act the tragedie of Doctor Faustus, in which tempest shall be seen shag-haired divils run roaring with squibs in their mouths, while drums make thunder in the tiring house, and the 12 d. hirelings make artificial light 358 Adams, Jr. in her heavens." — Crete Wonders Foretold. The "shadow," it would seem, sloped from the "heavens" rather than from the tiring-house. P. 9. Of the "turret" over the stage (which I would identi- fy with the "heavens") Mr. Lawrence says: "Through its apertures stage ordnance were let off, a custom that led to the destructive fire at Shakespeare's Globe." The destructive fire here referred to is not in itself sufiScient to prove this statement. In the various accounts of that catastrophe no indication is made of the location of the cannon ; but distinct reference is made to a strong wind that was blowing, which might account for the landing of the "stoppage" in the thatched roof. I can recall no stage-direction that reads: "Ordnance shot off above," whereas the direction "Ordnance within" is not uncommon. P. 9. "Not all, if any, of the rooms and galleries were pro- vided with seats, although in most parts stools and cushions could be procured by paying extra." Surely there are abun- dant references to seats and benches in the galleries of the "penny-bench theatres." See the Fortune contract. P. 11. "An extra charge [for admission to the galleries] was subsequently enforced, according to the locality, the fee being collected during the performance by 'gatherers'." The last clause appears doubtful. Would it not be simpler, and easier (not to say surer), to collect the extra fee at the time of entrance to the gallery? Some proof of Mr. Lawrence's statement is needed. P. 13. "For the benefit of those who, through coming early, arrived dinnerless, eatables, and drinkables, including fruits, nuts and bottled beer, were vended in the theatre." Undue emphasis is put on those who arrived dinnerless. Such persons must have been comparatively few in number, and the "eatables and drinkables" were primarily intended for those Fellows that at ordinaries dare eat Their 18 d. thrice out before they rise And yet go hungry to a play.^ P. 14. "There was seldom any absolute certainty in the Bankside houses as to what would be performed." (Cf. also p. 50.) Some modification of this assertion is surely needed, or some conclusive proof. It is hardly in keeping with what we know of the dignity of the actors, or with their custom of posting bills throughout the city: Then hence, lewd nags, away Go read each post, view what is played to-day. ' The Scornful Lady IV. 2. Reviews arid Notes 359 Note also the following custom referred to by Humphrey Moseley in his poem "The Stationer," prefixed to the First Folio of Beaumont and Fletcher: As after th' Epilogue there comes some one To tell the Spectators what shall next be shown. The fact that a play was occasionally changed at the demand of an unruly audience led Mr. Lawrence, I suspect, into making too sweeping an assertion. The statement that the Theatre and the Curtain were used not only for plays but also for bull and bear baiting, and that their stages, as a result, were removable, is open to grave doubt. Upon this assumption rests the theory that the oblique disposition of the stage doors was a contribution to the stagd arrangement from the private playhouse of Blackfriars. Tl^e hypothesis is plausible, yet fails to take into consideration the fact that in the public playhouses the stage was constructed of wood, and hence could be easily modified. It is hard to say when the oblique doors came into use; and, moreover^ the first Blackfriars seems merely to have continued the court usage of multiple setting. The second paper deals with "The Situation of the Lords' Room. ' ' The theory that these rooms were over the stage h«ld sway, I believe, before Mr. Lawrence wrote. The most original part of his essay is the suggestion that at some time before 1609 these rooms were degraded into a shameful resort for courtesans: "Dark and ill-placed, they could no longer have been let to spectators, but tlie cupidity of the players induced them to turn the deserted rooms into a licentious rendezvous for the lower middle classes ... A mart for illicit love and bought kisses." This astonishing theory, not in keep- ing with what we know of the better actors of the time — for example, Shakespeare, Heminge, or Heywood, — is based solely on the well-known passage in Dekker's The Gull's Eornbooke : "I meane not into the Lords roome (which is now but the Stages Suburbs) : No, those boxes, by the iniquity of custome, conspiracy of waiting women and Gentlemen-Ushers, that there sweat together, and the eovetousnes of Sharersj are contemptibly thrust into the reare, and much new Satten is there dambd, by being smothred to death in darknesse." Accordingly, the gull is advised not to go near the Lords' Room. Now, every student of Elizabethan literature knows that the term "suburbs" was often applied to that section of London which contained the houses of ill-fame. But this usage of the word was secondary, and it is not to be supposed that in the 360 Adams, Jr. passage quoted Dekker necessarily meant to imply that the Lords' Rooms were "suburbs" in that odious sense. The rest of the passage fails to carry out such an idea. Exactly what is meant, to be sure, is not clear ; but we may infer that the Lords' Rooms at the time Dekker wrote had ceased to be highly fashionable, and had been turned over to the servants of fashionable people ("waiting women and Gentlemen Ush- ers"), the natural successors. Furthermore, we may infer that the rooms were much over crowded, and that because of their location they gave poor opportunities for the gallant to display his gorgeous apparel. Dekker, in his satirical vein, would hardly have been so earnest in urging the gull not to enter the Lords' Room, if it enjoyed the reputation that Mr. Lawrence wants to give it. Mr. Lawrence takes Professor Schelling to task for stum- bling in his interpretation of the phrase "advance yourself up to the Throne of the Stage, ' ' and shows that Dekker refers to the stage as a whole (the throne of the playhouse), not to an actual property throne on the stage. It may be proper, therefore, to point out that Mr. Lawrence himself stumbles in this passage. He says, by way of interpretation: "He [the gull] has come in by the tiring-house door, having duly paid the preliminary price of admission; more remains to be dis- bursed for a stool. The same doorway leads to the Lords' room. ' ' Now, to my mind, the passage shows clearly that the gull entered by the regular door of admission, paid his penny to the gatherer who stood there with the "box," and then "advanced" through the playhouse "up to" the stage. Ob- serve the passage itself: "Whether therefore the gatherers of the publique or private Playhouse stand to receive the after- noones rent, let our gallant, (having paid it) presently ad- vance himself up to the Throne of the Stage. " It is not likely that regular gatherers stood at the tiring-house entrance to accommodate the few who entered there. Besides, having en- tered the tiring-room, the gallant would be on the stage at once, and could not well "advance himself up to the throne of the stage." On pages 95-6, Mr. Lawrence says of the tiring-room: "Its identity with the 'upper stage' seems well assured." And he proceeds to give M^hat he is pleased to call "proof of the position of the tiring-room." The proof, however, shows nothing of the kind, for there is no reason why the hangings through which the half-dressed players peeped "to see how the housp did fill" were not on the lower stage. Nor is this theory in full harmony with the statement (p. 7) : "At many of the Reviews and Notes 361 theatres, when not in dramatic use, the upper stage was oc- cupied by the musicians and boy-singers." On many other points of minor importance one might feel inclined to question the statements of Mr. Lawrence. But the physical conditions of the early playhouses have not yet been exactly determined by careful research, and many de- tails still remain in obscurity. Mr. Lawrence's book is valuable as a summing-up, and in the case of doubtful points, as an inspiration to further investigation. It would be pleasant, in conclusion, to dwell on the many commendable features of the volume. I have space, however, to mention only two. In the paper, "New Facts about the Blackf riars, " is pre- sented an ingenious and plausible explanation of the term "private" as applied to certain playhouses. The author connects the word with the city ordinance of 1575, forbidding public performances within the city; "Provydid allwaie that this Acte . . . shall not c^xtend to anie plaies . . in the pryvate hous, dwellinge, or lodginge, of anie nobleman, citizen or gentleman . . . without publique or common collection of money of the auditorie." This seems conclusive. In the paper on "Title and Locality Boards," and again in the final essay, Mr. Lawrence has done a valuable service by emphasizing the use of the multiple setting which long held eway at the court, and, at first, in the private, and to a less extent, in the public playhouses. The need of calling special attention to this fact is well proved by the clumsy at- tempts of modern editors to give exact locations to the scenes in our early plays. The disastrous results of such an attempt are to be observed in Mr. Bond's recent edition of the playa of John Lyly. As Mr. Lawrence remarks (p. 237) : "It is ad- visable that the student of Elizabethan drama should make himself thoroughly conversant with the distinguishing charac- teristics of the multiple scene and the conventionalisms its em- ployment gave rise to, so that he may readily recognize a play constructed strictly on its principles, when he comes across it." Joseph Quinct Adams, Je. Cornell University. DIE KAILYARD SCHOOL: EIN BEITRAG ZUR NEV- EREN ENGLISCEEN LITER ATV ROE SCHICHTE, von Dr. Fritz Loose. Berlin, Bmil Bberling. 1912. Pp. 93. The material which Dr. Loose has here brought forward in a formal thesis would have served much better for a magazine article, to the length of which it might be reduced by the 362 Uamsa/y omission of a good deal of padding. At least a third of the ninety-three pages are occupied by perfectly useless summar- ies of the plots of the stories treated and by extracts taken rather at random from contemporary book-reviews. For a magaidne article, however, it must be added, there would be needed not only compression but a radical change of style, for the method of composition is dry and mechanical in the extreme, quite unrelieved by critical insight or originality, and with but a single flash of humor, perhaps unmeant: in answer to the charge that the Kailyard novelists have ma- ligned their countrymen by bringing so much whisky into their stories. Dr. Loose protests: "Auch der "Whisky spielt in den Werken der Kailyarders nur eine untergeordnete Rolle, wie jeder Leser zugeben muss. Er nimmt nur den Platz ein, den der Schnaps in jedem wohlgeordneten Haus- halt der niederen Landbevolkerung einnimmt. ' ' ! However disappointing in execution, the study which Dr. Loose has made of the Kailyard School deals with a subject by no means lacking in interest. Until recent times the lit- erary school has been a phenomenon far more familiar in France and even in Germany than in England. The most conspicuous example of it in English literature is, of course, the so-called Lake School, the term being applied to a group of writers who had hardly any single quality in common. But at present the tendency to cohere into groups seems distinctly on the increase. The group of Scottish writers for whom "W. ' E. Henley in 1895 first suggested the name "Kailjard School " is by no means the only genuine school that has arisen during the last half-century, nor is it the most important. But it is one in which the common impulse and the common characteristics are especially manifest and well marked. It includes four or five writers whose work deserves to be remem- bered, and it produced about a dozen volumes of good snort stories and three or four fairly good novels, all of which appeared between 1888, when Barrie initiated the movement with his Auld lAcht Idylls, and 1900, when Barrie turned to the drama and the ' others ceased to produce significant work. As his five chief representatives of the school. Dr. Loose selects Barrie, its founder and leader, "Ian Maclaren", Crock- ett, "Gabriel Setoun", and "Anne S. Swan." There can be no quarrel with the choice of the first three; but the work of "Gabriel Setoun" (Thomas Nicoll Hepburn) is distinctly of minor importance, and that of "Anne S. Swan" (Mrs. Bur- nett Smith ) is certainly of no importance at all from the point of view of literature. In view of the inclusion of these it Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026121354