Drama's Shift From Court to Common Stage: 17th–18th Century

Introduction: Caviar for the General

Ham. I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was never acted; or, if it was, not above once; for the play, I remember, pleased not the million; 'twas caviar to the general: but it was — as I received it, and others, whose judgments in such matters cried in the top of mine — an excellent play, well digested in the scenes, set down with as much modesty as cunning. (Shakespeare, "Hamlet," Act II, Scene 2)

This quote from Shakespeare's Jacobean tragedy perfectly encapsulates the character of the drama that was to follow the Shakespearean era of theater in 17th-century England and France. During the courtly years of the Restoration period in England, and in France, drama was "caviar for the general" — not for the common people. From the raucous, open-air Elizabethan style of theater, the shift in theatrical content moved away from work designed to "please the million," and this did not change until the rise of the middle class in the 18th century.

Puritan Suppression and the Royalist Stage

The first winds of European theatrical change in the 17th century were felt in England. The broad scope and concerns of Shakespeare — albeit, ironically, centered on a Prince of Denmark — made him a man of a theater directed to the populace, performed by professional actors who were patronized by royalty but not directly enmeshed in the social world of the court. After Cromwell's revolution closed the theaters and disrupted the continuity of the theatrical profession, the Restoration was to herald a new era of theater of the mind rather than the heart — of satire and in-jokes rather than broad human concerns.

Initially, the alliance in England between the royalists and the theatrical profession in the 17th century may seem odd, given that it was arrayed against the more democratically inclined pro-Parliament Puritans. But one must remember that "as Puritanism advanced, the prosperity of the theatrical profession began to decline." While King Charles and his Queen had manifested a great love for dramatic entertainments — even more so than his predecessors, as he frequently took part in the Court Masques — the Puritans regarded theater as sinful.

After Cromwell's ascension to power, the Lord Protector issued a series of increasingly severe orders. One order, by "threatening to imprison and punish as rogues" all who broke its enactments, severely limited theatrical performances. "Close upon the heels of this second [order] came a third, which declared all players to be rogues and vagabonds, and authorized the justices of the peace to demolish all stage galleries and seats; any actor discovered in the exercise of his vocation should for the first offense be whipped, for the second be treated as an incorrigible rogue, and every person found witnessing the performance of a stage play should be fined five shillings." (Baker, 27–34)

No wonder that, when the civil wars shut the doors of the theaters, "many of the comedians, who had youth, spirit, and vigor of body, took up arms in defense of their royal master," namely the cause of Charles, who had protected the theaters. "When they could no longer serve him by the profession of acting, they boldly vindicated his cause on the field." (Baker, 27–34) Meanwhile, in France, courtly theater flourished. In 1660 the Stuart dynasty was restored to the throne of England. Charles II, the king, had spent the greater part of the Protectorate in France, together with many of the royalist party, all of whom were familiar with Paris and its fashions. (Bellinger, 249–250)

French Neoclassicism and the Restoration Ideal

By the time the theaters were reopened in England, Racine's France had established the neoclassical standard for tragedy — a standard that dealt with lofty rather than middle-class concerns and was performed at court, not in areas known as "the liberties," where the Globe had been located on the outskirts of London. Molière set the standard for French comedy. Although 17th-century French theater was more gender-inclusive in the sense that women performed in these dramas — as became the custom in English Restoration theater as well — these works were highly cerebral and based, as in Racine's Phaedra, on sanitized versions of ancient classical dramas. They were often confined to the Aristotelian unities of time and place and did not engage with wider aspects of society. (Bellinger, 249–250)

Comedy, rather than being directed to the groundlings as Shakespeare's wit had been, was largely satirical. The theater was not outdoors but indoors, performed at night by candlelight rather than by day. This enabled audiences to be literally shut out of the spectacle and confined the theatrical vision to a fixed place, time, and audience. Thus, both French and English theatrical humor consisted largely of in-jokes directed at a courtly audience limited in number, social class, and milieu. (Bellinger, 249–250)

Conclusion: A New Voice for a New Stage

The 18th-century view generally held that people are good and that virtue could be cultivated by appealing to virtuous human feelings, as expressed in the works of Sheridan, Goldsmith, and Sir Richard Steele. This signaled the end of the aristocratic, brittle Restoration hero and heroine. Yet the return of theater to the people also inspired German theatrical aspirants such as Goethe to create ambitious works like Faust — plays that addressed larger spiritual concerns of the people and political ideologies spanning far wider than the immediate social preoccupations of the court.