decades later witnessed the production (December 1883) by Wilson Barrett of Claudian, a romantic poetic drama of classic days, mounted so exquisitely as to gain Ruskin's enthusiastic praise But undoubtedly the earliest noteworthy alliance of spectacle with Shakespeare was made by Sir Henry Irving at the Lyceum. The art of Royal Academicians was happily enlisted to add lustre and distinction to his productions. . Ravenswood and the sumptuously presented Henry VIII. (1892) owed much to the co-operation of Mr Seymour Lucas. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema supervised Cymbeline and Coriolanus (1901), whilst Sir Edward Burne-Jones inspired the decoration of King Arthur (1895). In Tennyson's Cup (produced in January 1881) and in the beautiful revival of Romeo and Juliet it was felt that perfection of stage illusion could scarcely go farther, but the next production, Much Ado about Nothing, with its superb church scene by Telbin, was admittedly Irving's crowning success, alike from the artistic, the dramatic, the spectacular and the financial standpoints. Great praise was equally won by the version of Faust, which was frankly spectacular, and by the more recent Robespierre by Sardou. Shakespeare and the poetic drama were also finely illustrated by Mr Beerbohm Tree, who secured Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema's interest for Hypatia at the Haymarket, and Julius Caesar at the new His Majesty's; whilst for his later productions, King John, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Herod (by Stephen Phillips), Twelfth Night (1901), and such later plays as his revival of Antony and Cleopatra (1907), he was assisted by the designs of Percy Anderson, an artist who made his mark in the costumes for a series of the operas at the Savoy Theatre, notably the 15th-century dresses for the Beauty Stone.
Spectacular features of exceptional refinement distinguished the pantomime of Cinderella, presented by Mr Oscar Barrett at the Lyceum Theatre in Christmas 1893, and designed by Mr Wilhelm. This production also enjoyed a prosperous season in New York. The system of international exchange seems to hold good in stage spectacle as in other cases, and in return for English successes that have been welcomed in America, Augustin Daly's Shakespearean productions were greatly admired in London. Other entertainments of a more absolutely spectacular order found acceptance in London. In connexion with Barnum and Bailey's Hippodrome, Imré Kiralfy's show, Nero, constituted a "mammoth combination," and attracted crowds to "Olympia" in 1890. The success of this latter spectacle of colour and movement, which was also designed by Mr Wilhelm, induced Mr Kiralfy to produce a still more ambitious entertainment the following season, Venice, designed by the same artist. A spectacle on these lines may be regarded as the outcome of such ballets as have long been popular on the continent of Europe—especially in Italy, where grace of movement and spontaneity of gesture are natural to the people, and greatly facilitate such an enterprise as the famous Excelsior ballet of Manzotti, which lasted a whole evening, in several acts, and required the services of hundreds of figurantes. Excelsior was originally produced at La Scala, Milan, in January 1881, and was subsequently given with great success at the Eden Theatre, Paris, in 1883. The revived popularity of the modern ballet, as at the Empire Theatre, London, has also been associated with some memorable triumphs of spectacle with which the name of Mr Wilhelm was closely identified as designer. (C. Wi.)
Law Relating to Theatres.
It was not until comparatively late in Roman history that acting became a distinct calling. The troops of public actors (ministeria publica) were generally slaves, and their earnings enriched their masters more than themselves.
The regulation of the theatre by legislation (except as to structure) belongs chiefly to the time of the lower empire, in which it depended almost wholly upon constitutions of Theodosius and Valentinian, incorporated in the Theodosian Code (Tit. xv. 5, 6, 7), and a century later to a large extent adopted by Justinian. In the whole of this law there is an evident attempt at a compromise between the doctrines of Christianity and the old Roman love of public spectacles of all kinds. It deals less with theatrical representations proper than with gladiatorial contests and chariot races.[1] The Theodosian Code provided that the sacraments were not to be administered to actors save where death was imminent, and only on condition that the calling should be renounced in case of recovery. Daughters of actors were not to be forced to go on the stage, provided that they lived an honest life. An actress was to be allowed to quit the stage in order to become a nun. There were also numerous sumptuary regulations as to the dress of actors. None of the law which has been mentioned so far was adopted by Justinian, but what follows was incorporated in Cod. xi. 40 (De Spectaculis et Scenicis), which consists entirely of extracts from the Theodosian Code of a very miscellaneous nature. Provision was made for the exhibition of public games and theatrical spectacles
by magistrates, practically confining them to exhibiting in their own cities. Statues of actors were not to be placed in the public streets, but only in the proscenium of a theatre. A governor of a province was entitled to take the money raised for public games for the purpose of repairing the city walls, provided that he gave security for afterwards celebrating the games as usual. Municipalities were encouraged to build theatres (Dig. 1, 10, 3). By Novel cxvii., it was ground for divorce if a wife went to the theatre without her husband's knowledge. In Cod. iii. 12, 11 (De Feriis) is a constitution of Leo and Anthemius forbidding dramatic representations on Sunday. The Digest (iii. 2) classed all who acted for hire (omnes propter pecuniam in scenam prodeuntes) as infamous persons, and as such debarred them from filling public offices. A mere contract to perform not fulfilled did not, however, carry infamy with it. By Novel li. actresses could retire from the stage without incurring a penalty even if they had given sureties or taken an oath. There was probably a censorship at certain periods,[2] as well as provisions for safety of the building and the audience (Tacitus, Ann., iv. 63; Leonine Constitutions, cxiii.). The seats were allocated by the state, and the care of the building committed to certain magistrates (Novel cxlix. 2).
England.—In England, as in other countries of Western Europe, theatrical legislation was of comparatively recent introduction. Such legislation was unnecessary as long as the theatre was under the control of the Church and actors under its protection, the Church having turned to its own uses what it was powerless to prevent. The earliest regulations were therefore, as might be expected, made by the Church rather than by the state. The ecclesiastical ordinances were directed chiefly against the desecration of churches, though they sometimes extended to forbidding attendance of the faithful as spectators at plays even of a harmless kind.[3] Sacraments and Christian burial were denied by the canon law to actors, whose gains, said St Thomas, were acquired ex turpi causa,[4] and who, if they exceeded what was proper, might be in mortal sin. It was a doubtful point as to whether spectators might not be in similar case. The same law forbade plays to be acted by the clergy, even under the plea of custom, as in Christmas week, and followed the code of Justinian in enjoining the clergy not to consort with actors or be present at plays (see Decretals, iii. 1, 12 and 15, De Vita et Honestate Clericorum). As late as 1603, canon lxxxviii. of the canons of the Church of England enacted that churchwardens were not to suffer plays in churches, chapels or churchyards. The latest occurrence of such a play seems to have been at Oxford in 1592.
The Reformation marks the period of transition from the ecclesiastical to the non-ecclesiastical authority over the drama. Precautions began to be taken by the crown and the legislature against the acting of unauthorized plays, by unauthorized persons, and in unauthorized places, and the acting of plays objectionable to the government on political or other grounds. The protection of the Church being withdrawn, persons not enrolled in a fixed company or in possession of a licence from the crown or justices were liable to severe penalties as vagrants. The history of the legislation on this subject is very curious. An act of the year 1572 enacted that "all fencers, bear wards, common players of interludes, and minstrels (not belonging to any baron of this realm, or to any other honourable person of greater degree)," wandering abroad without the licence of two justices at the least, were subject "to be grievously whipped and burned through the gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch about." This statute was superseded by 39 Eliz. c. 4, under which the punishment of the strolling player is less severe, and there is no mention of justices. The jurisdiction of justices over the theatre disappears from legislation
- ↑ The word ludi seems sometimes to include, sometimes to exclude, dramatic performances. Its meaning in a particular instance depends on the context.
- ↑ If one may judge from Horace's line (Sat, i. 10, 38): Quae neque in aede sonent certantia judice Tarpa.
- ↑ A large number of such ordinances will be found cited in Prynne, Histriomastix; Bossuet, Maximes et réflexions sur la comédie; Mariana, De Spectaculis. They followed the almost unanimous condemnation by the Christian fathers. See, for example, Chrysostom, Contra Ludos et Theatra; Tertullian, De Spectaculis; Augustine, De Civ. Dei, i. 31, Confessions, iii. 2; Dill, Roman Society, pp. 47, 117.
- ↑ For this reason it appears to have been the custom in France for actors to be married under the name of musicians. See Hist. parlémentaire de la Révolution française, vi. 381. The difficulties attending the funeral of Molière are well known.
