Nuus

Waarom is toneelstukke in 1642 in Londen verbied?

Waarom is toneelstukke in 1642 in Londen verbied?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

'N Produk van godsdienstige ywer en politieke omwenteling, die verbod op toneelstukke in Londen en in Engeland in 1642, was 'n oomblik wat die grys jare van puriteinse bewind in Engeland simboliseer.

Na dekades van Shakespeare, Webster en Marlowe wat 'n florerende toneel in die hoofstad geskep het, het die speelhuise stil geword tot die herstel van die monargie in 1660.

So 'n stap sou onmoontlik gewees het as Londen nog in 1642 onder die bewind van 'n monarg gewoon het. gewone mense van die stad was gereeld.

In hierdie sin het teater 'n ongekende vorm van vermaak gebied wat deur alle klasse geniet is. En hoewel dit ietwat verander het tydens die bewind van Charles I, met hedendaagse toneelstukke wat minder ingewikkeld was en gerig was op 'n hoër voorkoms, was die speelhuise van Londen steeds vol mense wat die werke van vorige dekades geniet.

'N Skets van 1595 van 'n repetisie in die Swan Theatre in Southwark, Londen.

Die Puriteine ​​vs. die monargie

Vir Elizabeth I en haar opvolgers James I en Charles I was teater 'n goeie manier om die inwoners van Londen gelukkig te hou, en iets waarmee hulle dit geniet het om mee te assosieer.

Charles se vyande, aan die ander kant, was vurige Puriteine, verenig deur hul afkeuring van die monargie - wat as te katoliek beskou word - en van die teater, wat geminag is om sy ligsinnigheid en, soos die meeste ander vorme van vermaak, beskou word as sondig.

Die nuutste werk van Suzannah Lipscomb onthul die lewens van vroue in die 16de en 17de eeu deur 'n reeks hofbronne wat min deurkyk het. Dan praat met haar oor die maniere waarop hierdie vroue veel gewelddadiger en aggressiewer was as wat voorheen aangeneem is, en die maniere waarop hulle om mag in 'n patriargale wêreld geveg het.

Luister nou

Hierdie sienings was sentraal in die Puritane se Protestantse beweging, wat die hervorming van die Engelse Kerk as slegs halfvoltooi beskou het, en daarop gemik was om die oorblywende spore van die Katolisisme uit die weg te ruim. Sulke spore het ingesluit wat hulle as buitensporige ligsinnigheid beskou het, en - indien nodig - 'n koninklike familie wat te veel simpatiek teenoor die Katolieke was.

Die ouma van Charles I, Mary Queen of Scots, was betrokke by 'n aantal katholieke geïnspireerde komplotte teen die Protestantse Elizabeth I, en hy was bekend daarvoor dat hy op sy Franse Katolieke vrou gepraat het.

Burgeroorlog

Teen 1642 was daar ook toenemende wrywing tussen die koning, wat die geloof in sy goddelike reg op absolute heerskappy gehandhaaf het, en die deur die Puritein-gedomineerde parlement, wat gekwel het onder wat hy as Charles se swaarmoedige en onbevoegde heerskappy beskou het.

In Januarie het dinge tot 'n punt gekom toe Charles die wette van die ongeskrewe grondwet van Engeland verbreek het deur in die Laerhuis in te marsjeer en te eis dat vyf invloedryke Puriteinse lede wat sterk teen hom was, gearresteer word.

Teen die tyd dat hy daar aankom, het hierdie lede gevlug, en toe hy die omvang van sy optrede besef, het Charles kort daarna die hoofstad verlaat en hom voorberei op 'n burgeroorlog met sy eie parlement wat hy uiteindelik sou verloor, en wat hom sy lewe sou kos. 1649.

Dit het Londen slegs onder parlementêre beheer gelaat, en die mag was in die hande van die ongewilde, maar polities begaafde Puriteinse faksie.

Van Oliver Cromwell tot Robin Cook, van Ellen Wilkins tot Margaret Thatcher, van Edmund Burke tot Winston Churchill. Dan Snow kyk terug na van die grootste toesprake wat ooit in Westminster gehou is.

Kyk nou

Die verbod op toneelstukke

Die verbod op toneelstukke op 6 September 1642 is gelas deur die 'Long Parliament', wat van krag sou bly totdat die monargie in 1660 herstel is. met “hierdie tye van vernedering” en burgeroorlog.

Die speelhuise self is nie gesluit nie, maar is vir ander geleenthede gebruik, terwyl slegs baie nie -amptelike optredes in die stad toegelaat is. In 1648 is die verbod in die wet vasgelê, hoewel 'n ondergrondse toneel voorspelbaar nooit verdwyn het nie.

Charles II se jarelange minnares Nell Gwyn was een van Engeland se eerste aktrises.

Die wag vir die herstel van die monargie was moontlik lank, maar die dood van aarts-Puritein Oliver Cromwell en die toetreding van Charles II-wat bekend was as die 'vrolike monarg'-het tot 'n herlewing in die Engelse toneel gelei. Dit is ondersteun deur die opkoms van sexy, skandalige vroulike aktrises, wat Brittanje se eerste bekendes in moderne styl sou word.

Charles II het self 'n jarelange minnares gehad wat 'n bekende aktrise was - Nell Gwyn.


Londen

Londen is die hoofstad van Engeland en die Verenigde Koninkryk en een van die grootste en belangrikste stede ter wêreld. Die gebied is oorspronklik gevestig deur vroeë jagterversamelaars omstreeks 6 000 vC, en navorsers het bewyse gevind van brûe uit die Bronstydperk en forte uit die Ystertyd naby die Teemsrivier.

Antieke Romeine het in 43 nC 'n hawe- en handelsnedersetting met die naam Londinium gestig, en 'n paar jaar later is 'n brug oor die Teems gebou om handel en troepebewegings te vergemaklik. Maar in 60 nC het die Keltiese koningin Boudicca 'n leër gelei om die stad te ontslaan, wat in die eerste van vele brande tot op die grond afgebrand het om Londen te vernietig.

Die stad is spoedig herbou, maar brand weer ongeveer 125 nC. Meer heropbou het plaasgevind, en binne 'n paar geslagte was die bevolking meer as 40 000 mense. Na die val van die Romeinse Ryk in 476 nC, is die stad egter talle kere deur Vikings en ander plunderaars aangeval, en gou is Londen grotendeels verlaat.

Die lot van die stad het in 1065 begin verander toe die Westminster Abbey gestig is. 'N Jaar later, na sy oorwinning in die Slag van Hastings, is Willem die Veroweraar as koning van Engeland gekroon. Tydens sy bewind is die Tower of London gebou, en in 1176 is 'n hout London Bridge wat herhaaldelik gebrand het, vervang deur 'n klipbrug.

Namate die mag van die Tudor- en die Stuart -dinastieë toegeneem het, het Londen groter en groter geword. Teen die tyd dat Henry VIII koning was, was die bevolking van Londen minstens 100,000.

Die spanning tussen Protestante en Katolieke het egter die andersins welvarende bewind van Henry ’ se dogter, Elizabeth I., verduister. In 1605 het die Katolieke simpatiseerder Guy Fawkes probeer om die hele Britse parlement in die berugte kruitplot op te blaas.

Die ware ramp het in 1665 plaasgevind toe Londen deur die Groot Plaag getref is, wat ongeveer 100 000 mense doodgemaak het. 'N Jaar later het die stad, wat tot ongeveer 'n halfmiljoen bevolking geswel het, meestal in houtstrukture, weer tot as gereduseer tydens die Groot Brand in Londen. In die nasleep van die inferno is baie noemenswaardige geboue gebou, waaronder Buckingham -paleis en die St. Paul's Cathedral.

Die Bank van Engeland is in 1694 gestig en is eers bestuur deur Hugenoot John Houblon, wat gehelp het om van Londen 'n internasionale finansiële kragstasie te maak. Teen 1840 het die stad tot 2 miljoen mense opgeswel, dikwels in onhigiëniese hutte, wat gehelp het om epidemies van cholera en ander siektes te veroorsaak.

Tydens die bewind van koningin Victoria was Londen goed gevestig as die gesogte setel van die uitgestrekte Britse ryk, en terwyl Big Ben in 1859 bo die stad uitgestyg het, is die Londense metro in 1863 geopen as die eerste ondergrondse spoorlyn ter wêreld. Maar in die skadu van die groot metropool het Jack the Ripper in 1888 die vroue van die stad bekruip en minstens vyf in een van die berugste moordtogte in die geskiedenis doodgemaak.

Lugaanvalle het in die Eerste Wêreldoorlog ongeveer 2,300 slagoffers in Londen veroorsaak, en tydens die Slag van Brittanje in die Tweede Wêreldoorlog is die stad meedoënloos gebombardeer deur die Duitse Luftwaffe en die London Blitz het uiteindelik ongeveer 30,000 inwoners doodgemaak.

Tydens die Groot Smog van 1952 het Londenaars onmeetlike lyding verduur en duisende sterf tydens en na die besoedeling. Meer onlangs het 56 mense in 2005 gedood deur 'n terroriste -aanslag op die Londense vervoerstelsel. Maar die stad het steeds gegroei en floreer, die gasheer vir die Olimpiese Spele in 2012, terwyl dit hom as die vooraanstaande kulturele en finansiële sentrum van Europa gevestig het.


Die vuil dans van jou grootouers

Op 'n sekere tydstip in die onlangse geskiedenis het 'n nuwe dansgier die wêreld oorval, wat groot opwinding onder die jongmense veroorsaak het, gepaardgaande met 'n groot handwring onder diegene wat gevoel het dat dit moreel gevaarlik is. Hierdie dans is op 'n aantal plekke verbied, op die kansels en deur koerantredaksies uitgeskel, en het selfs 'n amptelike teregwysing van die pous gekry. En nee, hierdie verderflike vorm van beweging was nie twerking, dolk, die Macarena of enige van die ander danse wat onlangs afgewerk is nie. Dit was die wals.

Om nie te vergeet nie, het moraliseerders in Noord -Amerika kort daarna die knuppel ingeneem. 'N Artikel in die Suidelike Letterkundige Boodskapper uit 1835 snuif: “Kan ons geliefde vroue en dogters - geliefdes, omdat hulle nog steeds nie besmet is deur buitelandse korrupsie nie - dat hulle voortdurend in al die woelige, opwindende doolhowe van die losbandige wals ronddraai, soos soveel Franse of Italiaanse operameisies? , sonder om alle selfrespek te benadeel of te verloor? ” 'N Anonieme skrywer wat die joernaal skryf Die Nuwe Wêreld in 1843 'n hartstogtelike pleidooi gerig aan ouers wie se kinders die sirene van hierdie wervelende dans ten prooi val: "As u hul beskeie onskuld in sy varsheid wil behou ... moet hulle nie wals nie." Die besware teen walsing was te wyte aan die feit dat dit vennote 'n beskeie mate van fisiese kontak toegelaat het en lustige gedagtes by mans aangemoedig het toe hulle hul hande op 'n vrou se liggaam gesit het.

Die wals is in die 1820's deur pous Leo XII verbied, en Amerikaanse etiketboeke het daarteen gewaarsku ("met betrekking tot die onlangs ingevoerde Duitse wals, ek kan nie so gunstig praat nie", skryf die skrywer van die 1840 -uitgawe van Etiket vir dames). Selfs teen die einde van die 19de eeu het die dans nog steeds teenstanders gehad: 'n dansonderwyser is aangehaal Die Washington Post in 1882 en gesê: "die wals word bereken om die kleintjie meer skade te berokken as by baie van die ondeugde waarteen vanaf die kansel gepreek word".

Soos dit duidelik is vir almal wat ooit 'n ballroom -dansles gevolg het, kon die wals die oorgang na eerbaarheid bewerkstellig, en die terpsichorese heiligheid het spoedig gefokus op ander maniere om u liggaam na musiek te beweeg. Veral in die 20ste eeu is herhaaldelike pogings aangewend om te verhoed dat dansers hul siel onherstelbare skade berokken. In 1913 word die tango deur 'n Franse aartsbiskop 'n 'diep morele gevaar' genoem, en dieselfde jaar het Kaiser Wilhelm sy weermagoffisiere verbied om dit te dans (sowel as die bose neef, die tweestap).

Danse wat verband hou met jazz (en Afro-Amerikaanse kultuur) het veral negatiewe aandag geniet. Die Charleston ('' N lewendige baldans waarin die knieë in en uit gedraai word en die hakke by elke tree skerp na buite geswaai word ') is op baie plekke verbied vanweë die oënskynlike seksuele aard en die waarskynlikheid dat vroue se bene blootgestel word (hoewel sommige plekke dit verbied het) weens oënskynlike veiligheidskwessies, nadat meer as 40 mense in Boston dood is toe die vloer in 1925 ineengestort het tydens 'n dans in Charleston). 'N Aantal gebiede en verenigings het die shimmy (die skouer-wriemelende gunsteling van die Jazz Age-skare).

'N Stadsverordening wat die shimmy -dans verbied, is in Sheridan, Wyo, aangeneem. Die verordening maak voorsiening vir 'n boete van $ 100.
Jackson's Hole Courier (Jackson, WY), 12 Februarie 1920

Op dieselfde dag merk ons ​​op dat Parys lang rompe en ultra-beskeie klere bepaal het, en dat die National Dancing Association in New York die skelm en ander lepelvolle dans verbied het.
Die Los Angeles Times, 7 Augustus 1921

Die kalkoen draf en die hasie drukkie Miskien het hulle hul risqué gloed verloor, maar toe hierdie ragtime danse bekendgestel word, is dit deur baie mense beskou as padkaarte na die verderf. En die jitterbug, 'n waansinnige dans waarvan die naam blykbaar gebaseer was op Cab Calloway se slangterm vir 'n dronk, was onderhewig aan verordeninge en resolusies wat dit verbied.

Die inhuldigingskomitee is vandag tydens 'n uitvoerende sitting meegedeel dat president Wilson se werklike rede waarom hy die komitee versoek om die gewone inhuldigingsbal te laat vaar, is dat hy vrees dat daar 'n toevlug sal wees na die "kalkoen draf", die "hasie drukkie" en ander ragtime danse., en veroorsaak dus 'n nasionale skandaal.
Die New York Times, 21 Januarie 1913

Die komitee van twee sal burgemeester Fred Hugo raadpleeg oor die instelling van 'n verordening wat 'n daaglikse lisensiegeld van $ 5 op die enigste "jitterbug -paleis" van die stad bepaal. Dit is volgens hulle oortollig selfs vir plekke waar die mees vurige swaai -aanhangers hulle beskerm.
Die New York Herald Tribune, 26 Maart 1939

Daar is min danse van die afgelope honderd jaar wat gewild was onder die jeug en vrygestel is van onsedelikheid. Alhoewel die gewildheid van enige dans kortstondig kan wees, is 'n sterk gevoel van afkeuring by bejaardes 'n konsekwente tema by elke nuwe herhaling. 'N Voorstel vir u wat vind dat hul ouers (of grootouers) vingers waai oor die dans wat u en u vriende doen: die regte antwoord is: "Ek doen ten minste nie die hasie drukkie.”


Salome - Oscar Wilde

is deur Oscar Wilde (1854-1900). Geskryf in 1892,

is deur die Lord Chamberlain verbied vanweë die uitbeelding van Bybelse karakters, en dit is later in Boston verbied. Die toneelstuk is 'vulgêr' genoem. Wilde se toneelstuk is gebaseer op die Bybelse verhaal van prinses Salome, wat vir koning Herodes dans en dan die hoof van Johannes die Doper as haar beloning eis. In 1905 het Richard Strauss 'n opera gekomponeer op grond van Wilde se werk, wat ook verbied is.

is deur die Lord Chamberlain verbied vanweë die uitbeelding van Bybelse karakters, en dit is later in Boston verbied. Die toneelstuk is 'vulgêr' genoem. Wilde se toneelstuk is gebaseer op die Bybelse verhaal van prinses Salome, wat vir koning Herodes dans en dan die hoof van Johannes die Doper as haar beloning eis. In 1905 het Richard Strauss 'n opera gekomponeer op grond van Wilde se werk, wat ook verbied is.


Waarom is toneelstukke in 1642 in Londen verbied? - Geskiedenis

HIER was nog nooit so 'n algemene passie vir dramatiese vermaak nie, aangesien die kuns gedurende die Elizabethaanse tydperk deeglik bestudeer en verstaan ​​is, soos anders onder die bewind van dramaturge soos Jonson, Beaumont en Fletcher en Shakespeare? Die akteurs het in hul ou ou groot stadshuise gewoon, of in groot landgoed, soos Edward Alleyn bewoon in Dulwich, gewaardeer en gesog deur die beste mense, en as dit gewoonlik verstandig was, het hulle ryk en geëerd gesterf. Hul grootste vyand was die plaag terwyl dit woed, en dit was gereeld, alle teaters was gesluit en hulle moes na die land trek, wat nie winsgewend was nie.

Maar namate Puritanisme vorder, het die welvaart van die teaterberoep begin afneem. In 1622 was daar slegs vier hoofmaatskappye-die King's, wat by die Blackfriars en die Globe the Prince, by die Curtain the Palgrave's, by die Fortune the Queen of Bohemia, by die Cockpit opgetree het. 1629 was die eerste jaar waarin 'n vroulike kunstenaar in die Engelse teater te sien was. Die innovasie is deur 'n Franse onderneming bekendgestel, maar die vroue is gesis en van die verhoog af bestook. Dit was by die nuwe teater wat pas in die Salisbury Court geopen is. Drie weke daarna het hulle 'n tweede poging aangewend, maar die gehoor sou hulle nie duld nie. Koning Charles en sy koningin het 'n groot liefde vir dramatiese vermaak, laasgenoemde het gereeld aan die hofmaske deelgeneem, wat die wrede taal van die ontslape mede -Prynne op haar gebring het. Maar in 1635 noem sir Henry Herbert, die Meester van die Revels, onder wie se jurisdiksie alle teateraangeleenthede dan plaasgevind het, slegs die geselskap van die King onder Lowin en Taylor by Blackfriars, die Queens onder Beeston by die Cockpit, die Prince's onder Moore en Kane by die fortuin in die volgende jaar voeg hy 'n vierde, ongetwyfeld Salisbury -hof by die lys, watter huis waarskynlik op die vorige datum gesluit is.

Op 6 September 1642 is die teaters op verordening gesluit, aangesien dit skynbaar nie in sulke moeilike tye aan allerhande afleidings of vermaaklikhede toegegee word nie. In 1647 is 'n ander en meer noodsaaklike bevel uitgereik, as gevolg van sekere oortredings van die vorige, met die dreigement om almal wat die wetgewing verbreek het, in die gevangenis te straf en te straf. Op die hakke van hierdie tweede kom 'n derde, wat alle spelers as skurke en rondloper verklaar het, en die regters van die vrede gemagtig het om alle toneelgalerye en sitplekke wat 'n akteur ontdek het tydens die uitoefening van sy roeping, te sloop en die eerste oortreding moes wees geklits, want vir die tweede word dit as 'n onverbeterlike skelm beskou, en elke persoon wat 'n verhoogvertoning sien, moet 'n boete van vyf sjielings opgelê word. Voorwaar, die heerskappy van die lofprysing-God Barebones het begin. Maar selfs hierdie streng regulasies is nie voldoende gevind nie, en in die volgende jaar is 'n priester-maarskalk aangestel, wie se plig dit was om alle balladesangers te gryp en alle toneelstukke te onderdruk. In Whitelocke's Memorials word genoem dat op 20 Desember 1649 op die Red Bull 'n paar verhoogspelers in beslag geneem is, hul klere weggeneem en na die gevangenis geneem is. Wat 'n verandering van die palm dae van Elizabeth en James! Gelukkig was die wat oorlede is. Die volgende, uit Davies se & quotMiscellanies, & quot is 'n treffende beeld van die toestand van akteurs in hierdie tyd:

& quot Toe hulle hom nie meer kon dien deur die beroep van toneelspel nie, het hulle met vrymoedigheid sy saak op die veld bevestig. Diegene wat te ver gevorder het om ouderdomsbewyse van hul lojaliteit te gee, was gereduseer tot 'n alternatief om honger te ly of werk te verrig om hul behoeftes te bevredig. Gedurende die eerste jare van die onnatuurlike wedstryd tussen King en die Parlement was die spelers nie onwelkome gaste in die dorpe en stede wat die koninklike saak voorgestaan ​​het nie, maar in Londen, waar grootmoedigheid en teenkanting teen die koning seëvier, was hulle niks anders as vervolging nie. 'N Paar van die adellikes wat die amusement van die verhoog liefgehad het, het die spelers aangemoedig om privaat in hul huise op te tree, maar die wakende oë van woedende yweraars het alle openbare uitstallings verhoed, behalwe soos die skrywer van Historia Histrionica nou en dan beweer. wat met groot omsigtigheid en privaatheid gegee is. 'N Ruk voor die onthoofding van die ongelukkige Charles, het 'n groep komediante ontstaan ​​uit die wrak van verskeie wat drie of vier keer in die kajuit gespeel het, maar terwyl hulle Fletcher's Bloody Brother opgetree het, het die soldate wat binnegedring het, 'n einde gemaak die toneelstuk, en het die akteurs na Hatton House gebring, destyds 'n soort gevangenis vir koninklike misdadigers waar hulle twee of drie dae gevange gehou is, en nadat hulle van hul verhoogsklere ontneem is, ontslaan is. Baie omtrent hierdie tyd het Lowin die Three Pigeons in Brentford gehou, waar hy deur Joseph Taylor bygewoon is. Hier het hulle 'n ongemaklike bestaan ​​uitgehou, met skaars ander hulpmiddels as dié wat hulle by die vriende van koninklikes gekry het, en die ou liefhebbers van die drama wat hulle nou en dan besoek het en hulle tekens van hul oorvloed laat. By hierdie geleenthede het Lowin en Taylor hul besoekers 'n voorsmakie van hul kwaliteit gegee. Die eerste het die gees en humor van Falstaff opgewek. Weer sweer die vet ou skelm dat hy die prins en die poins ken, net soos hy wat hulle gemaak het. Hamlet het ook die visioenêre angs van die spook opgewek en sy uitgesoekte ouditeure met skrik en verwondering vervul. Om hul gaste te vermaak, moet ons veronderstel dat hulle verskillende persoonlikhede aanneem en afwisselend opgewonde vreugde en hartseer. Hoe gereeld was daardie eerlike genote verbaas oor die goeie nuus dat die koning en die parlement tot 'n verdrag gekom het, dat die vrede herstel sou word en die koning sou triomfeer na sy hoofstad. Hoe sou hulle aangesig verlig word met vreugde, die glas vrolik rondloop en die vergadering verwerp met: 'Die koning sal weer sy eie hê.' Hul eerlike vriend en medewerker, Goff, die akteur van vrouedele by Blackfriars en die Globe, was die gewone jakkals om die verspreide komediante bymekaar te roep, wat hulle by Holland House, of op 'n edelmanstoel, binne 'n paar kilometer van die hoofstad kon uitstal . & quot

Maar selfs nie 'die heiliges' was onberispelik nie, een wat Robert Cox onder die dekmantel van tou-dansende vermaak onder die dekmantel van tou-dansende vermaak, die middele gevind het om die amptenare wat aangestel is om na sulke sake om te sien, omgekoop het Dit was 'n skande en kan amper nie deur die titel van dramatiese optrede waardig gemaak word nie, en dit was dus meer geneig om deur hul heiligheid geduld te word as die edele produksies van Shakespeare en Beaumont en daarin word hulle nou gevolg deur die Mawworms van die huidige tyd, wat glimlag vir die sombere en twyfelagtige grappe van 'n sirkusnar, en goedkeurend na die jong dames met 'n toon op die kaalrugstert en die ander in 'n horisontale lyn goedkeurend kyk, maar dit sal sondig ag om na die edele te luister met Touchstone, en baie onbuigsaam om na Rosalind te kyk in haar bosbou -rok. Met 'n geselskap wat slegs uit homself, 'n man en 'n seuntjie bestaan, het Robert Cox ondanks verordeninge besluit om deur die hele land te reis, om by die universiteite op te tree-wat uit gebrek aan beter dinge gretig verwelkom het- -en om 'n groot fortuin te verdien deur sy mammas.

Maar selfs die partisane van die Gemenebest het 'n bietjie moeg geraak vir die Kimmeriese somberheid en intellektuele verlamming waarin hulle geleef het, en nadat hulle die aangesig van Whitelocke, sir John Maynard en ander onderskeidende persone gekry het, het Davenant in 1656 geopen 'n soort teater by Rutland House, Charterhouse Yard, waar hy begin het met die voorstelling van wat hy 'n opera genoem het (& quot The Siege of Rhodes & quot). Dit is gevolg deur ander soortgelyke werke. In 1658 gaan hy 'n stappie verder en maak die Cockpit oop met 'n uitvoering wat hy beskryf het as "The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, uitgedruk deur instrumentale en vokale musiek, en deur die kuns van perspektief in tonele, by die Cockpic in Drury Lane, by drie in die middag. & quot Ons sien dat hy die woord & quotplay versigtig vermy het, & quot; daardie rooi lap van stierkop-fanatisme. Daar word gesê dat Cromwell se haat teenoor die Spanjaarde, wat in hierdie stuk tereggestel is, baie te doen gehad het met die toestemming van my Lord Protector.

Twee jaar daarna kom die herstel, en 'n nuwe orde van dinge dramaties. Teaters het begin herleef, en toneelstukke is openlik opgevoer in die Red Bull, die Cockpit in Drury Lane en die teater in Salisbury Court.

Hierdie artikel is herdruk van Engelse akteurs: Van Shakespeare tot Macready. Henry Barton Baker. New York: Henry Holt & amp Co., 1879. pp. 27-35.


King James 1st was 'n groot voorstander van die kunste, veral drama. In sy eerste regeringsjaar het hy 'n koninklike handves toegeken aan die groep spelers van Shakespeare en hulle het daarna hul naam verander na die King's Men. James was egter so lief vir teater dat baie ander optredes uitsluitlik vir die monargie aangebied is en geen openbare uitstappies gehad het nie. Hierdie optredes word dikwels 'maskers' genoem en behels dansreekse, musiek en uitspattige kostuums. Dit het 'n modieuse en dikwels duur ontspanningsaktiwiteit geword vir koninklike gesinne in Europa.


Die Puriteine ​​het teaters gesluit en dramaturgs geteister

Klik op enige prentjie vir meer inligting oor lisensiëring vir kommersiële of persoonlike gebruik.

Hierdie geredigeerde artikel oor die Engelse teater verskyn oorspronklik in Look and Learn -uitgawe nommer 199 wat op 6 November 1965 gepubliseer is.

In die jare van sy grootste triomf was die Engelse teater in lewensgevaar. Sy vyande, die Puriteine, het gewag op hul kans om dit te vernietig, en in 1642, slegs ses en twintig jaar na die dood van Shakespeare, het dit gelyk of hulle daarin geslaag het. Toneelstukke is verbied, teaters word afgebreek en akteurs word verbied om op te tree en met dreigemente en gevangenes bedreig as hulle dit doen. Sommige van hulle het na Frankryk gevlug om daar op te tree. Ander het by Charles I aangesluit en dapper vir hom baklei, terwyl sommige in die geheim in die huise van edeles opgetree het toe die kans hom voordoen.

In die vroeëre jare van die sewentiende eeu kon so 'n onrusbarende en tragiese toedrag van sake nie deur die akteurs gedink word nie, selfs nie in hul nagmerries nie. Hulle het koninklike beskerming gehad, want James I en Charles I was so lief vir die teater as wat koningin Elizabeth gedoen het. Hulle het 'n wonderlike ontvanklike gehoor gehad, wat gretig was om opgewonde en betower te word, en hulle het briljante dramaturge. Alhoewel Shakespeare ons vandag die grootste van hulle lyk, was hy op sy eie tyd slegs 'n reus onder reuse.

Daar was Ben Jonson, sy vriend en mededinger, wie se toneelstuk Volpone nog steeds gewild is, net soos die wonderlike prentjie van Thomas Dekker se Elizabethaanse lewe, The Shoemaker ’s Holiday. Daar was John Ford, wie se tragedies The Witch of Edmonton en The Broken Heart nog steeds af en toe uitgevoer word, en wat blykbaar self 'n ongelukkige mede was:

‘Diep in 'n stortingsterrein wat John Ford alleen gekry het
Met gevoude arms en weemoedige hoed. ’

En, miskien die naaste aan Shakespeare in genie, was daar John Webster. Sy twee meesterwerke, The Duchess of Malfi en The White Devil, is gruwelverhale van moord en intrige, maar tog het hulle 'n groot grootsheid en lyne wat Shakespeare self waardig is.

Dit was 'n ongeluk in die teater dat hierdie goeie dramaturg óf dood was óf met aftrede was toe die Puriteine ​​intrek vir die laaste moord. Drama word te gewelddadig, te dwaas en te morbied, en dit speel in die vyand se hande.

Teen hierdie tyd was daar 'n paar binnenshuise teaters en die#8211 Shakespeare -geselskap wat by die een in Blackfriars opgetree het. Daar was sitplekke vir almal, en die goedkoopste was 6d. in teenstelling met 1d. in die buitelug-teaters het hulle waarskynlik 'n meer gerespekteerde gehoor gelok, en moes dus minder oop gewees het vir aanval deur die Puriteine. Maar hulle was ten spyte hiervan aangeval.

Vanweë al hul hardwerkende, godvresende eienskappe, het die Puriteine ​​'n eienaardige vrees gehad dat mense hulself geniet. Die teater het mense opgewonde gemaak, so dit moet boos wees! Opwinding moet slegs uit godsdiens spruit. Een prediker het gekla dat mense vir 'n paar uur na 'n toneelstuk kon luister, maar slegs 'n uur van sy preke kon verduur!

Die Puriteine ​​het werklik geglo dat allerhande goddeloosheid in die speelhuise floreer. En so gebeur dit dat, kort na die uitbreek van die burgeroorlog, een van die eerste dade van 'n hoofsaaklik Puriteinse parlement was om te beveel dat die openbare toneelstukke ophou en verbied sal word. 8220 beskou as skelms. ”

Dit was die laaste doodslag vir Merry England. Selfs die maskers, wat in die jare voor die burgeroorlog so gewild was, was nie meer daar nie. Dit het sang, dans, musiek en toneelspel gekombineer. Dit is dikwels geskryf deur die voorste skrywers van die dag en is opgevoer met uitgebreide natuurskoon deur bekwame manne van die teater. Die meeste van die kunstenaars was here, dames en Kavaliers van die Hof. Vroue mag deelneem omdat hierdie optredes hoofsaaklik amateur was en gewoonlik in die groot paleise gehou is.

Die tipe teater wat vir die maskers gebou is, het geleidelik begin lyk soos dié wat ons vandag ken. Dit was nou dat die proscenium-boog, wat die verhoog omring soos 'n raamwerk, net soos die gordyn verskyn het. Eintlik was die gordyn aanvanklik slegs 'n ekstra hulpmiddel om verrassingseffekte te bewerkstellig, en die grootste deel van die natuurskoon is ten volle gesien as deel van die vermaak.

Baie van die eer vir die sukses van die maskers gaan aan Inigo Jones, wat as jong man Italië besoek het en die nuutste teateridees wat hy daar gesien en gehoor het, teruggebring het.

Vir 'n paar jaar kon maskers slegs in die geheim uitgevoer word. Teen die einde van die protektoraat van Cromwell het 'n buitengewone man met die naam Sir William D ’Avenant die teater weer lewendig gemaak.

Sir William D ’Avenant was die seun van Shakespeare, en het voor die burgeroorlog maskers geskryf. Hy het dapper geveg vir sy koning en is tot ridder geslaan vir dapperheid. Maar toe word hy gevange geneem, in die Tower of London opgesluit en ter dood veroordeel.

Hy is gered deur invloedryke vriende, waaronder die digter John Milton en Bulstrode Whitelocke, die Bewaarder van die Toring, wat 'n komponis van maskers was.

'N Tyd lank reis hy na die buiteland. Toe, soos die ware teatergenie wat hy was, het hy daaraan gedink om 'n manier om die teater in Londen te laat herleef, al was dit verbied. Musiek was nie verbied nie en Cromwell self was mal daaroor, en D ’Avenant het die owerhede slim oortuig dat die nuut uitgevinde operakuns 'n herlewing van die kunste van Griekeland en Rome was, en in 1656 het The Siege of Rhodes, met sangers in plaas van akteurs wat die rol speel. 'N Mevrou Coleman verskyn in die opera en was die eerste vrou wat professioneel op die Engelse verhoog opgetree het.

Ander operas het gevolg en hulle was meer soos maskers as opera soos ons dit vandag ken, en teen die tyd dat Charles II in 1660 op die troon herstel is, het D ’Avenant die weg voorberei vir die restauratieteater. Die akteurs het teruggekeer, en dramaturge was weer besig.

Hierdie inskrywing is op Vrydag 15 Maart 2013 om 12:32 geplaas en is ingedien onder Akteurs, Historiese artikels, Geskiedenis, Musiek, Godsdiens, Teater. U kan enige kommentaar op hierdie artikel volg via die RSS 2.0 -feed. Beide opmerkings en pings is tans gesluit.


Ontdek literatuur: Shakespeare en Renaissance

As ons dink aan die toneelstukke van Shakespeare, dink ons ​​miskien aan hulle wat in die Globe -teater voorkom - 'hierdie hout -O', Henry V.Se koor stel dit. Ons dink aan die wesenlikheid van die plek: die neutedoppe wat in die modderige rietstrooi erf getrap het, die kelder genaamd 'Hel', die verhoog wat sy akteurs in die middel van die gehoor uitstoot. Al hierdie elemente was beslis deel van die vroeë moderne teaterervaring, maar die ervaring was ouer, meer divers en vreemder as die Globe.

Gegraveer beeld van Londen deur C J Visscher wat die Globe wys

Die Globe -teater op die voorgrond van Claes Visscher & rsquos panorama van Londen, 1616.

Fundamente

Ingevolge 'n bevel wat in 1575 uitgevaardig is, is akteurs verbied om binne die Londense stadsgrense op te tree. In reaksie hierop begin teaters net buite die stadsmure opskiet. Die eerste hiervan was die breinkind van James Burbage, wat 'n breë belangstelling in teater, entrepreneurskap en bou gehad het. Associated with Leicester’s Men, Burbage took the lead in securing land, designing the layout, contracting a builder, and facilitating the construction of the 'Theatre'.

The Theatre, the first purpose-build playhouse in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, constituted a major financial risk for Burbage, and for a while it appeared that his optimism would prove foolish. The Theatre demanded a certain amount of mobility – and determination – from its audiences. Bordered on one side by a 'great barn', on another by a ditch, and on a third by a horse pond, the Theatre no doubt stank on warm days. Standing room cost a penny, gallery space two pennies, and 'quiet standing' three. As open-air performances, the penny-audiences were at the mercy of the elements rain, sleet, or sunshine beat down with equal fervor on the bare necks of those standing in the yard, unshielded by any sort of roof. Nonetheless, Burbage’s Theatre did well enough to survive. Soon, imitators emerged: first the Curtain, then a theatre in Newington Butts, then the Rose and the Swan and the Fortune. By 1600, there were half a dozen theatres on the outskirts of London, each of which could hold upwards of 3,000 spectators. Given that the city's population was then in the neighborhood of 100,000, on any Saturday afternoon during this Golden Age of London Theatre, an astonishing 20 per cent of Londoners were watching plays.

Van Buchel's copy of de Witt's drawing of the Swan playhouse

The interior of the Swan Theatre in 1596, copied by Aernout van Buchel from a sketch by Johannes de Witt.

Satire on watchmen and playhouses in Dekker’s The Gull’s Horn-book

Thomas Dekker wittily describes &lsquoHow a Gallant should behave himselfe in a Play-house&rsquo, 1609.

The Golden Age

The Globe, best-known of the great open-air theatres, has a remarkable history. The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, the acting company to which Shakespeare belonged, had played for years at the Theatre, to the north in Shoreditch. The company owned the building but leased the land it stood on. When its lease expired, the landlord sought to appropriate the building as well as the land, and so the Chamberlain’s Men played temporarily at the Curtain. Then, on a frosty night in 1598, three days after Christmas, a carpenter and several men associated with the company secretly dismantled the Theatre and removed the timbers. In the spring, they ferried the timbers across the Thames and used them to build a larger theatre in Southwark: the Globe. The Globe opened in 1599 – probably featuring the new plays Henry V. en Julius Caesar – and provided a leading dramatic venue for the next 14 years. In 1613, however, during a fateful performance of Henry VIII, a stage cannon ignited the thatched roof and the Globe burned to the ground ‘all in less than two hours’, according to a contemporary account, ‘the people having enough to do to save themselves’. Less than a year later, another Globe rose from the ashes of its predecessor and remained open until 1642.

Thanks to contemporary drawings of similar playhouses, we know roughly what the Globe looked like. It resembled the Theatre closely, in part because it had been constructed from the Theatre’s materials. Roughly 30 meters in diameter, it could accommodate an audience of 3,000. The stage protruded into the standing area, so players downstage were surrounded on three sides by the groundlings, who were presumably talking, belching, eating nuts, and sometimes engaging in discussions with the actors onstage. There was a trapdoor to a cellar beneath the stage when ghostly, demonic, or otherwise dead characters appeared, they would emerge from the cellar, accompanied perhaps by smoke, noise, or other special effects. Through the trapdoor the Ghost of Hamlet’s father – a role that may have been played by Shakespeare himself – probably appeared in the play’s first performance, startling groundlings and seated patrons alike. From the cellar, he bellowed ‘Swear!’ resoundingly and repeatedly. Complementing the hell-space, the Globe had a heaven-space, a cloud-painted roof over the back of the stage. In Cymbeline, when Jupiter 'descends in Thunder and Lightning, sitting uppon an Eagle,' he may have been lowered from 'heaven'. Below the roof, a balcony held musicians and provided a space from which characters could survey the action below (perhaps the royal audience sat here during the play-within-the-play in Hamlet) very important members of the audience might be seated there as well. As far as we know, the Globe had a curtained alcove beneath the balcony, called the ‘discovery space’. Here, no doubt, Ferdinand and Miranda were discovered playing chess in Die storm.

Boydell's Collection of Prints illustrating Shakespeare's works

Horatio and Hamlet see the Ghost of Hamlet&rsquos father, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4 by Henry Fuseli.

The Great Blackfriars Experiment

While the Globe, the Theatre, the Curtain, the Rose, and other open-air venues certainly prospered, James Burbage was not satisfied. Mired in property disputes over the location of the Theatre, and perhaps disillusioned with the sordid alleys surrounding London&rsquos first theatre district, Burbage envisioned a new sort of theatre experience, and, indeed, a new sort of theatre &ndash luxurious, sophisticated, and warm. He set to work.

The Life of a Satirical Puppy Called Nim

Blackfriars playgoers were frequently mocked for their vanity and love of luxury. Here, Nim is shown in new clothes bought especially to attract the attention of ladies in the Blackfriars audience.

By opening night, Burbage had spent close to a thousand pounds acquiring and fitting out his Blackfriars theatre. Initially, the outlay was for naught. Thanks to agitation among the well-to-do prospective neighbors of the theatre, the Privy Council 'forbad the use of the said house [the monastery that Burbage had bought and refurbished] for plays'. This stymied the Blackfriars project for a while, and James Burbage died before the theatre could open. But his son, Richard, one of the stars of the Chamberlain&rsquos Men, eventually evaded the Privy Council&rsquos ban, and Blackfriars began hosting plays around 1600. A boys&rsquo company performed in the space until 1608, when the King&rsquos Men moved in. Despite staggeringly inept management, tempests of political controversy, fluctuating business, legal assaults, and traffic jams, Blackfriars survived. Eventually, it even attracted royalty to its audience. But the nationwide closing of the theatres in 1642 spelled its doom. The building remained empty, probably, until 1655, when it was demolished.

Petition to the Privy Council against using Blackfriars as a playhouse

Copy of the petition against the Blackfriars Playhouse, which was signed by 31 residents of the Blackfriars precinct and submitted to the Privy Council in 1596.

Usage terms © The National Archives

Only a few details about the Blackfriars playhouse itself survive. Situated in a fairly large room, with the industry-standard expensive galleries, the Blackfriars could hold a crowd, though not nearly as large a one as its open-air cousins. It appears that members of Blackfriars&rsquo audiences felt comfortable sitting on the edge of the stage and talking back to the actors &ndash the Shakespeare First Folio refers to them as the 'Magistrates of Wit'. Plays were performed by candlelight, not daylight. Instead of braving the elements, audiences could relax in shelter, a roof over their heads. Generally speaking, the plays performed in Blackfriars were wittier, more intellectual, than the popular fare performed in the larger theatres. After the play, patrons could climb into the coaches that had brought them to the wealthy district &ndash a welcome change from walking across fields and through the City&rsquos sodden, stinking alleys. As the first successful indoor playhouse, Blackfriars represented the future of theatre.

Interior of Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

The Sam Wanamaker playhouse &ndash a new candlelit theatre next to Shakespeare&rsquos Globe &ndash is designed to replicate the indoor playhouses of the early 17th century.

Usage terms © Pete Le May / The Globe Theatre

Companies, Troupes, and Players

We associate playhouses with acting companies, but partnerships between personnel and space only came into being about 400 years ago. Throughout English theatre history, troupes of performers had mounted plays wherever they could &ndash at court, in various temporary locations around London, in inn-yards, in the homes of nobles, and at universities. Performing for royalty elevated the profile of performers. Other locations were less prestigious and posed distinct challenges. Inn-yards were spacious, but their facilities varied widely. And while the 'university wits' appreciated finely turned witticisms or high-flown poetry, they disapproved of the concept of publicly available theatre.

Drawings of the funeral procession of Elizabeth I

&lsquoThe Children of the Royal Chapel&rsquo formed a popular boys&rsquo company which performed at the Second Blackfriars Theatre. Here, they are shown as part of the funeral procession for Elizabeth I in 1603.

Public Domain in most countries other than the UK.

Although performance locations may have varied, the troupes that mounted plays maintained some internal consistency. In the Chamberlain's Men, for example, Richard Burbage regularly played leading men, and clown-roles fell to one member of the troupe: first to Will Kemp, renowned for his physical comedy, and later to Richard Armin, whose talents lay more in song and witticisms. Shakespeare was a member of this company, which held mostly exclusive rights to perform his plays. The Chamberlain's Men were initially in residence at the Theatre, and later at the Globe. In 1603, having secured King James&rsquo patronage, the company became the King&rsquos Men. In 1608, it made a seasonal move to Blackfriars in the winter months.

Will Kemp's Nine Days Wonder, 1600

Will Kemp was a renowned comic actor who played many of Shakespeare&rsquos clowns. This is the record of his morris dance from London to Norwich, after his departure from Shakespeare&rsquos company.

Usage terms © The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford

The Chamberlain's / King&rsquos Men certainly enjoyed an unprecedented run of influence, financial security, and prestige, but this could not shelter them from the law. The authorities frequently shut down the theaters in an effort to contain outbreaks of plague. Actors in plays deemed 'seditious' could be imprisoned or fined, or both. Acting companies also faced opposition from the Puritans, who articulated their objections to the theatre in a flood of pamphlets, sermons, and calls for repentance. In the short term, these efforts led to little more than the occasional banning of a play or cancellation of a performance. However, eventually the Puritans achieved their aim.

The Anatomy of Abuses by Philip Stubbes, 1583

Philip Stubbes rails against &lsquostage plays and their wickedness&rsquo in his Anatomie of Abuses, 1583.

The Closing of the Theatres

By 1642, the disastrous reign of Charles I had stimulated the growth of Puritan influence, and in that year Parliament issued an edict banning the staging of plays, even outside London. The edict demanded '[t]hat, while these sad causes and set Times of Humiliation do continue, Public Stage Plays shall cease, and be forborn'. With these words, the early modern theatre industry effectively ended. The edict implied that the ban would be temporary, but a subsequent edict in 1648 categorically banned 'stage-plays and interludes', established penalties for players, and mandated the destruction of theatres. While the theatre industry would be revived shortly after the Restoration, it would never again approach the cultural saturation enjoyed by early modern theatre. What disease, political mistakes, and cultural elitism could not accomplish, the Puritans did. In closing the theatres, they terminated one of the richest periods of cultural creation in history.

Eric Rasmussen, Foundation Professor and Chair of English at the University of Nevada, is co-editor of the award-winning Royal Shakespeare Company&rsquos edition of William Shakespeare: The Complete Works enWilliam Shakespeare and Others: Collaborative Plays

Ian DeJong is a doctoral student at the University of Nevada. His scholarship centers around the cultural construction of Shakespeare. Sy werk het verskyn in Shakespeare Quarterly.

Die teks in hierdie artikel is beskikbaar onder die Creative Commons -lisensie.


Theatres had to compete for audiences against other London entertainment. These included cock-fighting and bear-baiting which were enjoyed by both the poor and the wealthy. In 1591, London theatres were banned from performing on Thursdays because ‘the players do recite their plays to the hurt of bear-baiting, maintained for Her Majesty’s pleasure.

A woodcut of Bearbaiting, made around 1620.


Christmas under the Puritans

Both the religious and the secular celebration of Christmas was forbidden by the English Puritan republic, but by no means everywhere with success.

There has been no stranger episode in the long history of the English Christmas than the attempt to suppress both the religious and the secular celebrations during the period between 1644 and 1659. Why was it made, and how far did it succeed?

John Knox was alone among the great Reformers in condemning all Church festivals and, at any rate until the Civil Wars, few English Puritans seem to have wished to do away with Christmas as such. To others than their sympathizers it must sometimes have been a distinction without much of a difference. The Puritans objected to the Popish associations of Christmas and to the excesses such as play-acting, gambling and dancing with which as the great national holiday it was associated more than any other season. But neither of the chief Puritan critics of Christmas before 1640 went so far as to advocate abolition.

Philip Stubbes' complaint in the Anatomie of Abuses (1583), which dealt with the celebrations as part of a broad attack on the theatre and other follies of the nation, was that Christmas was the time of the year when the abuses were most flagrant. "Who is ignorant," he asked, that at Christmas time "more mischief is committed than in all the year besides? What masking and mumming? whereby robberies, whoredom, murder, and what not, is committed? What dicing and carding, what banqueting and feasting, is then used more than in all the year besides!" In Histriomastix in 1632, William Prynne took Christmas as the worst example of the festivals that were devoted to the theatre and spent in "amorous, mixed, voluptuous, un-Christian, that I say not, pagan dancing." Why, he asked, could not the English nation observe festivals and especially Christmas" without drinking, roaring, healthing, dicing, carding, masques and stage-plays? which better become the sacrifices of Bacchus, than the resurrection, the incarnation of our most blessed Saviour." If Turks and infidels were to behold the Bacchanalian Christmas extravagances would they not think our Saviour to be a "glutton, an epicure, a wine-bibber, a devil, a friend of publicans and sinners?" The celebrations were derived from the Saturnalia and the Bacchanalia. Christmas, as it was kept, could be more truly termed Devil's mass or Saturn's mass.

Exaggerated though they were, there was much force in these criticisms of the contemporary celebrations-particularly in high society. Moderate opinion agreed that there were excesses that needed to be curbed, and if the critics had stopped there, they would have had a large measure of support. They forfeited sympathy-and foreshadowed the extravagances of the forties and fifties-when they extended their objections to customs that were harmless arid pleasant, and the pedantry in which some of them indulged made them easy targets for ridicule. It was one thing to carry their convictions into practice themselves like, for example, the eccentric Lady Margaret Hoby, who in the latter years of Elizabeth's reign devoted Christmas Day to prayer, Bible reading and self-examination. It was another to inveigh against New Year gifts and evergreens or, like a. Puritan caricatured by Sir Thomas Overbury, to attack the Pope by refusing to eat plum-broth or to condemn those who ate mince-pies . as Papists and idolaters. As Thomas Warmstry pointed out, the remedy for anybody who objected to receiving New Year gifts was to make this known and not to trouble further the consciences of possible donors. There was also the objection to the word "Christmas" because it incorporated the Popish "mass." "Christ-tide, I pray you," said the Puritan Ananias in Jonson's Die Alchemis.

Sir Toby Belch gave the unanswerable reply to pedantry run mad: "Dost thou think," he asked Malvolio, "that because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale ?" Serious exponents of the case for Christmas wisely did not contend that the celebrations were in all respects worthy of the Nativity feast, but they made essentially the same point as Sir Toby. A custom was not necessarily to be condemned because it was heathen, said Warmstry. "It is a Custome with Heathens to kneele at prayer, yet this is no Heathenish custome." Nobody put the case into better perspective than George Herbert. "The country parson is a lover of old customs, if they be good and harmless and the rather because country people are much addicted to them, so that to favour them therein is to win their hearts, and to oppose them therein is to deject them. If there be any ill in the customs, that may be. severed from the good, he pares the apple, and gives them the clean to feed on."

The Puritan leaders must have been aware of the risks that they took, not perhaps so much in proscribing the religious celebrations - this, after all, was inseparable from their general policy towards the Church of England - as in trying to stop the majority of English people from keeping the most popular of all holidays in ways that were hallowed by tradition and sentiment. But they were impelled by the logic of their own policies and the pressure of their more extreme supporters, and their position was made more difficult by the skill with which Royalist propagandists identified the celebration of Christmas with the good old days and the cause of King and Church.

The ban on the performance of plays, which was imposed in 1642, inhibited the keeping of Christmas, particularly in London: Christmas had been the peak of the theatrical season. In 1643, to the dismay of some of the Scots, the Assembly of Divines decided to adjourn over Christmas Day, the majority resolving (said the Scottish Presbyterian, Robert Baillie) that they would preach "that day, till Parliament should reform it in an orderly way," but none the less the minority had the satisfaction of being able to persuade both Houses of Parliament to sit. It was not, however, until 1644 that Parliament took any positive action against .the general observance of Christmas. Its hands were forced by an accident of the calendar and pressure from the Scots. In Scotland the Presbyterians had secured a ban on Christmas celebrations as long ago as 1583, though they had not found it easy to put down snowballing, football, guising, carol-singing and other profane pastimes. In 1618 they had been compelled to accept an order of the King that Christmas and certain other festivals should be kept, but the General Assembly had set this aside in 1638. They came to England with rigid views which in the circumstances of 1644 they were in a position to press. For some time the Parliamentary leaders were able to resist demands that Christmas should be abolished in England, but it happened that in 1644 Christmas Day fell upon a Wednesday, and the last Wednesday in each month was by law to be kept as a day of solemn fast and penance. The question was whether December 25th should be an exception to the general rule. In deference to the Scots, Parliament decided with evident unwillingness that it should not.

This decision does not seem to have been of much importance in practice. It was widely disregarded, and according to one account all the London shops closed as usual: in the previous year: some are said to have opened, presumably because of the convictions of their owners. In 1645 the religious but not the secular celebrations were outlawed as a result of another general measure- the substitution of the Presbyterian Directory of Public Prayer for the Book of Common Prayer. " O blessed Reformation! " commented a friend to Sir John Oglander, " the church doors all shut, and the tavern doors all open!" Parliament met as usual, and the Commons sat in Committee of Privileges. At least one enthusiast, General Browne, who was a Presbyterian, took it upon himself to proclaim the abolition of Christmas. This was at Abingdon, and he "sent out his warrants for men to work on that day especially."

The first big test of the determination of the regime and of popular affection for Christmas was delayed until 1647, when the authorities tried to enforce general legislation, passed in the summer, under which all festivals or holidays "heretofore superstitiously used" were no longer to be kept. The effect was that for the first time Christmas Day could lawfully be observed neither as a religious nor a secular holiday. The timing was unpropitious. That winter there was a wave of popular sympathy for the King. When Christmas came there was both passive and active resistance. Some London shops closed in defiance of Parliament and some that opened were attacked. In one incident the Lord Mayor was met with jeers, and made an undignified departure when his horse bolted. Officers had to be sent to remove the evergreens from a number of London churches, including St. Margaret's in the shadow of Parliament itself In the' proceedings that followed, the churchwardens and clerk of St. Margaret's advanced a provocative defence. The parishioners, they said, thought that so few people would be at work on Christmas Day that it would be better to draw people to a sermon than that they should misspend their time in taverns.

Lives were lost in riots at Ipswich, skulls were broken in Oxford, there were disturbances in Ealing, and ten thousand men of Kent and Canterbury passed an ominous resolution: "If they could not have their Christmas day, they would have the King back on his throne." This came after disorderly scenes in Canterbury, where crowds defiantly played football in the streets and frustrated the attempts of the Mayor to enforce the opening of the market. Twelve shops at most opened, but the mob threw their wares "up and down" and forced them to shut. They also knocked down the Mayor and rescued some prisoners from gaol. The sequel to these events suggests that the central government was more prudent than the local authorities and is evidence of the sympathy that was felt for the rioters in the county. Parliament refused to agree to a proposal of the County Committee for Kent that the ringleaders should be dealt with summarily under martial law, but insisted that they should be tried by jury in the normal courts. But the grand jury twice refused a true bill, and in the end the prisoners had to be discharged.

It is difficult to say who won this trial of strength. There was to be no repetition of the outbreaks of 1647, and if some Royalist writers are to be believed, the suppression of Christmas was effective. On the other hand, to judge from some of the opponents of Christmas, the law was widely disregarded and if aggressive disobedience was uncommon, there is much evidence of non-compliance.

The authorities were in a dilemma. The issue was not simply - as Royalist propaganda liked to suggest - whether harmless old customs should be permitted. The religious observances were flatly inconsistent with the proscription of the Book of Common Prayer, and secular celebrations might be a demonstration of sympathy with King and Church. Yet it was a mistake to alienate support by rigid insistence upon the letter of the law, and moderate opinion among the Puritan leaders was not opposed to some of the Christmas customs, including even dancing and the theatre within limits. There is some evidence that Cromwell actually went out of his way to celebrate the New Year, notwithstanding that it fell within the Twelve Days and the objections that some fanatics had to New Year gifts: in 1656 drummers and trumpeters were sent to play for· foreign embassies on·New Year's Day, and the Protector sent handsome gifts to the ambassadors and ministers.

Yet the leadership could not disregard the constant pressure from extremists or ignore the political implications of ill-judged tolerance. The extreme point of view was expressed in the "terrible Remonstrance against Christmas day, grounded upon divine Scriptures," which was presented to Parliament in 1652. This spoke of "Anti-Christ's Masse, and those Masse-Mongers and Papists who observe it." It led Parliament to enact that December 25th should not be solenmized in churches or observed in any other way, and that town criers should each year remind the people that Christmas Day and other superstitious festivals must not be kept and that the markets and shops should remain open on December 25th.

In practice a middle course seems to have been pursued. Bishop Duppa, who was responsible to Charles II for the maintenance of the Church of England, wrote just before Christmas in 1655 that Church people were ''yet suffered to offer up the public prayers and sacrifices of the Church, though it be under private roofs, nor do I hear of any for the present either disturbed or troubled for doing it." But policy fluctuated according to the circumstances, and it is likely that for understandable reasons the authorities were stricter in London than elsewhere. In 1659 Duppa drew a distinction between Richmond, where he was living, and London, where the worship of God had been prohibited with such severity on "those days" that some had begun to doubt whether "they shall be suffered to be Christians any longer or no."

John Evelyn's experience supports this view. Each year from 1652 to 1655, he noted the absence of Christmas Day services in London, though in 1652 he found an "honest" divine who preached at Lewis ham on Boxing Day. In 1656, however, he went especially to London to receive the sacrament at "Dr. Wild's lodgings, where I rejoiced to find so full an assembly of devout and sober Christians." In 1657 his friends were bolder. The sacrament was actually being administered in Exeter Chapel when soldiers placed the congregation under arrest. When Evelyn was examined, he was asked why "contrary to the ordinance made, that none should any longer observe the superstitious time of the Nativity . I durst offend, and particularly be at Common Prayers, which they told me was but the mass in English, . and particularly pray for Charles Stuart."

Too much should not he read into this episode. The assembly was obviously provocative. Like others which were similarly raided, it was held in direct defiance of an express order by the Protector and the Council, and the stress that was laid on the prayers for the King will be noted. Clearly, however, public services could not be held without serious risk, and it may be assumed that for all practical purposes Christmas, like other church holidays, ceased to be observed as a religious festival except in the privacy of the home. It might be supposed from some Royalist writings that Christmas was also virtually dead as a popular holiday. "Old Christmas now is come to town," said the broadsheet Mercurius Democritus in 1652, "though few him do regard." The theme of a pamphlet called The Vindication of Christmas in 1653 was the rejection of old Father Christmas and his failure to find anyone to welcome him until he reached a remote farm in Devonshire. Here Christmas was being kept in the old style and in pursuits that could give offence to nobody. It is probably true, too, that many people were easily reconciled to the abolition of Christmas. As early as 1646 Ralph Josselin noted that many London families were "weaned " from the old "sports and pastimes".

The evidence to the contrary seems, on the other hand, to be conclusive. Too much importance need not be attached to the fulminations of the extremists, but, judging from the most visible sign of passive resistance, the closing of shops, the majority of people never acquiesced. In 1650 the Council of State complained of the "very wilful and strict observation of the day" in London and Middlesex by "a general keeping of their shops shut up." In the same areas the ordinance of 1652 was ostentatiously disobeyed. Volgens die Weekly Intelligencer, almost all the shops in the City of London were shut, "and so were the churchdoors." It was as rare, said the Flying Eagle, to see a shop open, "as to see a Phenix, or Birds of Paradice." And of two shops that did open it was said that one shopkeeper had better have given fifty pounds, "his wares were so dirtied." In 1656 it was suggested that there were even defaulters in Parliament itself. It was observed that the House was thin, "much, I believe, occasioned by observation of this day," and a Bill was read "for the abolishing and taking away of festival days, commonly called holy days." One speaker in the debate said that he could not rest all night "for the preparation of this foolish day's solemnity," and another that in many places the day was kept more strictly than the Sabbath and that it was possible to go from the Tower to Westminster without a shop being open or a creature stirring. " We are, I doubt, returning to popery," he concluded. In 1657 the Council ordered the authorities of London and Westminster to enforce the law, but once again it was reported that all the shops were shut.

What happened behind the closed shutters? Ralph Josselin, who himself conformed, but retained his old sympathies, heard in 1652 that Londoners bought "bay, holly and ivy wonderfully for Christmas, being eagerly set on the feast." A botanical work published in 1656 referred to mistletoe being transported long distances for sale at Christmas-time. Of one thing it is possible to be reasonably certain. The English Christmas was not complete without the roast beef or the goose or the turkey, the plum-broth and the mince-pie. According to the Vindication of Christmas, the Puritans assumed "power and authority to plunder pottage-pots, to ransack ovens, and to strip spits stark naked." That this was not entirely fanciful is shown by the case of the minister in Scotland who in 1659 searched houses that they might not have a Christmas goose.

The likelihood is that the analysis made by the Flying Eagle in 1652 was substantially sound. The citizens made the belly their God, it said. For its sake they disobeyed Parliament 'and the Ten Commandments. "Yea, the Theefe will steale and rob his own father against Christmas, and the poore will pawn all to the Cloaths of their back to provide Christmas pies for their bellies, and the broath of Abominable things in their Vessels." There was no telling who would yield to this most insidious temptation of the Devil. None other than Hugh Peters was charged in 1652 with preaching against Christmas Day and then eating two mince-pies for his dinner.

It was indeed ironical if, as Bishop Duppa said in 1655, "though the religious part of this holy time is laid aside, yet the eating part is observed by the holiest of the brethren." It is certainly plausible.


Kyk die video: ergens in londen (Junie 2022).


Kommentaar:

  1. Dobei

    I read your article and loved it, thank you.

  2. Bourke

    Interessante artikel, respek vir die skrywer

  3. Tanos

    Bravo, baie goed gedink

  4. Dariell

    seleksie)))

  5. Doukazahn

    Ek is jammer, dit het inmeng ... hierdie situasie is vir my bekend. Ek nooi na bespreking.

  6. Kagall

    I like your posts



Skryf 'n boodskap