Театральное искусство Англии в период правления Елизаветы І (1558-1603)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Министерство образования и науки РФ

Федеральное государственное бюджетное общеобразовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования

"Пензенский государственный университет"

Курсовая работа

по дисциплине "История и культура стран изучаемых языков"

Театральное искусство Англии в период правления Елизаветы І (1558-1603)

Выполнила: Трунина Анастасия

Проверил: Савостьянов В.О.

Пенза, 2017

Content

Introduction

1. The permanent playing space

1.1 The Theatre

1.2 Other theatres and constructions

2. Elizabeth I's view on theatre

2.1 The educated monarch

2.2 The Queen's Men

2.3 Elizabeth's laws and their impact

3. A typical audience

4. Theatre's Downfall - the influence of Puritans and the law

Conclusion

Sources

Introduction

The emergence of plays and the theatre as a commercial industry in England reached its peak during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. However, during this time numerous laws were passed which threatened the existence of this popular form of entertainment. The process of developing the Theatre brings together the social, political and economic situations of early modern England and highlights the effects each had on the emerging theatre scene.

Through scrutinizing of primary sources and the works of theatre historians, these works attempts to chart the reasons for the mixed reception towards playgoing in Elizabethan England. Analysis of other popular media at the time such as printed matter provides evidence of a flourishing entertainment scene. Indeed, the creation of purpose built theatres as venues for drama was a physical manifestation of the rise in popularity of playgoing. However, this is contrasted with the rise of the anti-theatrical movement which also embraced print as a way to disseminate information. queen theater drama

Social problems such as the threat of plague, public disorder and the stigma attached to being an actor also contributed to the setbacks that affected attendances at plays. Finally, the influence of Puritan beliefs after Elizabeth's reign led to the most critical event affecting the theatre world in the seventeenth century, the total ban in 1642 on theatrical productions. This final blow to a popular form of entertainment is the nadir of the industry's rising popularity and its effects are examined by exploring what happened to the playhouses of London.

The object for this investigation is developing of the theatre as a form of entertainment during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

Overall, the research will emphasize the varying ways in which the theatre gained in popularity while also charting its demise due to a number of factors.

There are several research tasks:

– to analyze of the transformations in Elizabethan theatre by giving further details on a number of theatres that were established, as well as the successes and failures they encountered;

– to look at the monarch herself and to investigate her role in the rise and eventual fall of the theatre;

– to explore the omnipresent anti-theatrical movement and the eventual Parliamentary acts that were passed to suppress the performing of plays which led to the decline in popularity of the theatre.

1. The permanent playing space

1.1 The Theatre

Most playing companies in the sixteenth century traveled from town to town and used one city as their base. The establishment of a theatre district in the London area was a lengthy process fraught with disagreements, financial problems, and legal restraint. Nevertheless, the move towards permanence by a select number of innovators highlights the appeal and support for the performing arts and is an indicator of the increase in popularity of the theatre during the Elizabethan era.

The emergence of patronage by the monarch and nobles is an indicator of the increased support for the theatre. The sponsorship offered to acting companies by these patrons highlights the appeal of the performing arts to those of a higher social class and will be elaborated in Chapter Two. In spite of the numerous anti-theatrical laws that were passed during Elizabeth's reign, the patronage of theatre companies was unfaltering which suggests that the theatre remained both popular and profitable for the patrons involved. Patronage was also a way in which a noble could solidify his position as the plays and players must have proved entertaining enough to reflect the status of their sponsors.

The first man who took on the building of an outdoor theatre was James Burbage. He was disturbed by the 1572 "Act for the punishment of Vagabondes" which stated, that wandering actors or storytellers would be jailed for their occupation unless they had the patronage of a Baron of this Realm, or any other honorable personage of greater degree. Strangers who wandered from town to town were looked upon with suspicion and fear because of the possible spread of plague and other epidemic waves. Due to this law, Burbage and his playing company sought the approval of the Earl of Leicester and became known as the Earl of Leicester's Men. This allowed the playing company to continue to perform plays and gave Burbage the authorization to further establish the company. The Earl of Leicester's Men were also approved by the Crown as Queen Elizabeth I issued them with a royal patent that granted them increased support and an edge over their competitors. [2]

Despite the royal backing of Burbage's company, the building of the first permanent theatre structure had one more obstacle to overcome. The London City authorities decided that having mass gatherings of people to see plays and other entertainments such as bearbaiting was too dangerous. In addition to the easy spread of the plague, anti-social behavior was rife and a nuisance, so in 1574 an "Act of the Court of Common Council" placed a ban on the building of theatres within the city limits.

In order to avoid this ban, James Burbage signed a lease for a piece of land outside the jurisdiction of the City of London, on the south side of the Thames in Shoreditch. Burbage entered into the lease with his brother-in-law, John Brayne who helped financially with the building of The Theatre. Little documentation survives to indicate the type of plays that were performed there, but it is important to link Brayne's last theatrical venture with the new investment of The Theatre.

The financial documents reveal more than the theatre's layout, they allow the historian to reconstruct the collection of profits and the limitation of theatre profits. Money was collected at a door which led up to the galleries. The money that was made from the more affluent who went up to the galleries. The money that was made from the more affluent who went up to the galleries was given to Burbage and Brayne and the profit collected from those who stood in the yard was given to the actors. However, as James Burbage was also part of a playing company, some financial problems appeared as he was taking money both from the yard and the galleries.

Burbage's intention of establishing a permanent, long lasting structure was not fulfilled as his sons Cuthbert and Richard failed to renew the lease on the site, in 1597 after Burbage's death. The Theatre was demolished in 1598 and the timbers were used for the building of the Globe Theatre on London's Bankside. The recycling of building materials shows the similarities between the two most notable theatres of the Elizabethan era and it is remarkable that the success of the Theatre is physically carried on through the building of the Globe.

1.2 Other theatres and constructions

Before the Globe theatre was built in 1599, other theatrical venues had emerged. In 1577, The Curtain theatre was built close to the Theatre at Shoreditch. This was another venture by James Burbage. The Curtain was named after the cluster of buildings it was located near, there are not many records about it.

Philip Henslowe and Edward Alleyn, the leader of the Lord Admiral's Men, established the Rose Theatre (1587). The location of the Rose Theatre at London's Bankside was seen as more convenient with audiences who did not want to travel to the Theatre or the Curtain during winter. Henslowe believed that the theatre's location next to the river would attract crowds of people who traveled on the Thames and who crossed the London Bridge close by. Henslowe made numerous additions to the Rose Theatre, including the building of a roof over the stage area and a storage shed for props and costumes. However, these investments were overshadowed by the frequent outbreaks of plague which affected the patronage of the theatres.

Another well-known theatre of the Elizabethan era was the Swan, built in 1596. The Swan was owned by Francis Langley, a businessman who entered into a contract with the Earl of Pembroke's Men. Langley received a high proportion of the takings in return for paying for the production costs for the acting troupe. The agreement was a success until the Earl of Pembroke's Men staged "The Isle of Dogs", a play written by Thomas Nashe and Ben Jonson. Although few details remain about the content of the play, there are extensive accounts of the hostile reactions that were generated after its performance in July 1597, as a result of the content the actors were imprisoned, including Ben Jonson. Langley's Swan Theatre never recovered from the after effects of "The Isle of Dogs" production and he was forced to use the theatre for events such as prize fights in order to stay fluid. The Swan's effect on the popularity of the theatre was great. After "The Isle of Dogs" incident only the two Crown-approved playing companies were allowed to perform.

The theatre's popularity can be charted through the famous Globe Theatre. Constructed in 1599 from the timber of the Theatre on London's Bankside, the venue was created as a performance space for the Lord Chamberlain's Men, as their original plan to perform at the Blackfriars Theatre had not transpired. The Globe's proximity to the famous Bear Garden which featured bearbaiting entertainment meant that there was already a ready audience in the area. The Bear Garden was eventually transformed into the Hope Theatre which offered patrons both bearbaiting and theatrical performances in competition with the Globe.

The Globe was a three storey high, circular building with a small thatched roof that covered part of the structure. It is estimated that the theatre could hold almost three thousand playgoers. It was in this theatre that the partnership between the Lord Chamberlain's Men and William Shakespeare flourished. The troupe performed some of Shakespeare's most notable plays such as Romeo and Juliet, Richard II, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Taming of the Shrew, The Winter's Tail and Henry VIII. However, in 1613 during a performance of Shakespeare's Henry VIII, a cannon was fired which set fire to the thatched roof. This resulted in the total destruction of the Globe Theatre which was rebuilt with funding from the Crown and rich patrons in 1613 on the same plot of land. Having a prolific playwright work with an esteemed acting group contributed to the success of the Globe. Despite the destruction of the original building, the Globe maintained its position as a popular venue for performances. This success was halted only in 1642 by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons Concerning Stage-Plays which closed the theatre and expedited its demolition in 1644.

The aspect of rivalry between theatre companies can also be seen in the establishment of the Fortune Theatre. Built by Peter Street, the same builder of the Globe Theatre in 1600, the Fortune was located outside London city's jurisdiction in the Liberty of Finsbury. This location in an "up-and-coming area" was across the Thames from Bankside and it was hoped to appeal to an alternative audience. However, like the Globe, the Fortune met a fiery end in 1621 but was reconstructed in 1623. This building remained standing until 1662, and plays were performed surreptitiously despite the 1642 Ordinance which affected many of the other prominent theatres. The Fortune was partially demolished by soldiers in 1649. With this attack on the Fortune's structure, it is not surprising that this setback led to its demise as a home for theatre.

Overall, the investment placed in theatre companies and the building of structures by several key figures led to the establishment of a thriving industry. The number of theatres that were constructed during Elizabeth's reign not only signifies a growth in popularity of the performing arts but an increase in support from both nobles and the crown. The support given to the new business ventures and acting troupes was however, marred by events outside of their control. As plague gripped the country, it is understandable that for the safety of the nation, plans had to be implemented to limit public gatherings. Nonetheless, the later 1642 Ordinance was the most damaging act which brought the theatre's popularity, which had been garnered throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth century, to a dramatic low point.

2. Elizabeth I's view on theatre

2.1 The educated monarch

During her forty-five-year reign, Elizabeth I battled many problems facing her nation. Religious intolerance, threat of foreign invasion and plague were all omnipresent, but in the face of these concerns, Elizabeth tried to improve conditions in England and led the country through an age of prosperity. Elizabeth was a very educated monarch, with a deep respect for Greek and Latin texts in addition to being able to speak Italian, Spanish and French. Elizabeth was also tutored in the art of public speaking which was a useful tool later in her rule. Although most women did not receive as thorough an education as Elizabeth, she served as a role model for bringing educational equality to women. Being a role model allowed Elizabeth the chance to not only govern over her subjects, but to inspire them to get involved in the emerging forms of entertainment.

The popularity of plays had steadily been on the increase during the early years of Elizabeth's reign. The move towards the establishment of permanent homes for theatre is indicative of this. Therefore, Elizabeth's involvement in the performing arts was not as much a way to encourage people to attend but more a means of supporting and advocating the theatre industry as a profession and literary genre. One way in which support was given was through the patronage of a theatre company. Patronage was granted by a nobleman or family who wanted to support the arts, such patrons ensuring by their prestige the acceptance of the new art form as part of the social and cultural fabric. In addition to providing the acting company with financial resources, being a patron also allowed the nobleman to gain favors with the Queen because they were both supporting the same cause and the troupes were used in court entertainment. This vying of the Queen's attention led to rival displays of ostentatious nobility and it was due in part to this element of competition that Queen Elizabeth intervened and created her own company of actors. [5]

2.2 The Queen's Men

The Queen's Men was a company of 12 actors. They were brought together in 1583 by Sir Francis Walsingham, one of Elizabeth's espionage specialists. It has been argued that the Queen's patronage of an acting group was in part to make a broad cultural assertion about England's position in a European world and to prove that England had a literature and drama that could stand among those of the continental nations.

Elizabeth also planned for her acting troupe to travel extensively around the country in order to expand the cultural influence reaching into the countryside. By using the medium of drama to spread propaganda, Elizabeth and her advisors were more easily able to disseminate information to those outside of the main towns such as London and Norwich.

In 1583 it is noted that, the first tour by the Queen's Men had lasted for some four or five months with no sign of London performances during that time. By performing plays around the country with the patronage of the Queen, the actors were making more money than touring companies had done before. The financial return that the company accrued is a great indication of their popularity throughout England. Although they differed from the emerging theatre companies who were trying to get established in and around London, the Queen's Men are important in measuring the popularity of the theatre to a more national audience.

The use of acting as a political tool also granted those chosen to be one of the Queen's Men, security in a profession that was constantly under fire. The choice of the twelve actors that made up the Queen's Men was done by harvesting from the already established theatre companies such as the Earl of Leicester's Men. By monopolizing the best actors that were available, Elizabeth had the ability to protect her players from the various restrictions that were implemented by London city authorities to curb theatrical performances. Having twelve adult actors, which was an increase from the more common six or eight, also provided the troupe with the ability to perform plays that had been written with more characters. The Queen's Men were also privileged to be the main court entertainers and in addition to their extensive touring commitments as in the 1580s.

Elizabeth's personal interest in theatre is evident through the number of plays that were performed in her court and also, her willingness to lend her countenance - and the modest wages of twelve men. It is clear that the Queen was a great contributor to the theatre industry and through her support of twelve actors, she approved of the company's development despite the later attacks that threatened its existence.

2.3 Elizabeth's laws and their impact

Although Elizabeth's patronage of an acting company did in some way legitimize the profession, the numerous acts that were passed during her reign created many obstacles for those trying to increase their popularity and reputation in the business. One of the major problems that Elizabeth tried to tackle during her reign was poverty. By implementing a series of Poor Laws to combat the increasing number of subjects who had moved from the country to the towns, Elizabeth was trying to make the state more responsible for the individual. It was from these Poor Laws that the 1572 "Act for the punishment of Vagabondes" was passed. This law had a great impact on the acting profession as it required acting companies to seek the patronage of a noble in order for them to continue performing without fear of disruption.

Actors and traveling players were frequently targeted as possible carriers of plague and blamed for immorality their status in society was constantly changing. However, by being part of a sponsored acting company, actors were granted a sense of stability in a profession that was constantly in jeopardy. By taking the sponsorship of a nobleman, theatre companies were afforded opportunities for growth and development which in turn provided the public with entertainment and thus contributed to the continuing popularity of the performing arts.

3. A typical audience

With the increase in theatre companies, playwrights and buildings dedicated to the performance of plays, an investigation into those who frequented the theatre must be carried out. Records including financial documentation, pamphlets and official city reports provide an insight to the members of the public that attended plays. Written accounts by theatre-goers such as Thomas Platter are also very useful in gauging the involvement and reactions of the public. Despite the available evidence it is clear that without a large, paying audience the growth of the theatre industry would have been extremely stunted.

There are several key features of a play which attracted an audience made up of every social class. The first is the requirement that the audience members suspend their disbelief for the duration of a performance. By submitting to the words and actions of the playwright and being willing to place themselves in different locations around the world, the audiences were playing "the theatrical game". [11] It has been argued that England's fascination with warfare, courthouse debate and competitive sports fuelled the popularity of drama as it was an extension of everyday life. Mass gatherings to watch bearbaiting and traveling plays were popular before the Elizabethan era but the establishment of permanent homes for plays aided the increased popularity of the theatre. Initially most playwrights focused on the poetry of their work and the delivery of lines was the most important aspect of the performance. However, some writers such as Shakespeare realized that audiences were also attracted to plays by the use of spectacle, scenery and costume. [5]

It is clear that all social classes attended plays and one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in support of this is the layout of the theatre buildings. Each theatre had different areas which varied in price. Generally, the open-air courtyard housed the lower priced theatre goers, known as "groundlings" and the sheltered balconies (which had some seating) were for those who paid a higher admission price.

In addition to describing the physical locations of the audience members in the theatre, their physical actions and behavior also play a big part in uncovering what a typical audience in the Elizabethan era was like. To try to combat the rambunctious interruptions Shakespeare, Marston, Dekker and many other poets used epilogues to appeal for applause at the end of their plays. It is clear that the entertainment provided by the plays was well received and appreciated through the audience's verbal and physical reactions.

It is also apparent that if the audience was not enjoying the performance they would not refrain from vocalizing their disdain with hisses. Also, if the play started late or was not to the audience's liking, missiles such as food would be thrown onto the playing area.

The audience's involvement with the acting company and their production is important in charting the popularity of the theatre. As the audience was not scared to show emotion, playwrights and acting troupes would have to take a risk with their play content because they knew that if it was not liked, their reputation would be ruined. This reciprocal relationship of good works being rewarded with large, appreciative audiences fuelled the success of the theatre in late sixteenth century and only faltered when outside influences, such as city authorities, clamped down on mass gatherings.

The importance of the theatre as a tool to educate the public on current events cannot be underestimated as the illiteracy rates in Elizabethan England were extremely high. This meant that those who were of a lower social class and could not afford newspapers, books and pamphlets were at a loss for written information. As the action was acted out on stage, literacy was not a major concern as through the actors' delivery they could understand the main themes and points of a play. In addition, the shift from religious to secular plays appealed to a greater number of people. Playgoers now paid for their entertainment and there was a demand for topics that they would not get taught at church.

This shift towards commercialization of what was previously a free form of entertainment is another indication of the appeal of plays. As people were willing to pay to attend plays on a frequent basis, the audiences played a key role in shaping theatre as an industry at this time.

4. Theatre's Downfall - the influence of Puritans and the law

One of the most influential events in early modern English theatre was the rise of the anti-theatrical movement. The success of the theatre in the Elizabethan age, witnessed through the building of permanent structures, crown and noble patronage, introduction of secular themes and the increased use of the printing press were all fraught with various threats which jeopardized the continuing popularity of the theatre. For years people objected to the unlawful behavior surrounding the theatre. Several disturbances took place during performances and objections were constantly made about plays being performed on Sundays. Concerns were also made about the number of strolling players who went from town to town providing entertainment. It was believed by the government that this kind of activity encouraged rebellious behavior. In addition, these strolling players were seen to be the group that could be easily blamed for the spread of plague from town to town. [8]

In 1580 there were requests to city magistrates for the expulsion of actors and the destruction of playhouses. The argument posed was that theatre was sacrilegious and in order to appease her followers Elizabeth allowed the suppression of playhouses in central London. After Elizabeth's death, licensing and censorship of plays became the duty of the crown (previously it lay in the hands of the nobles) and actors were seen to be supporters of the crown. The degree of protection offered to the profession by royal licensing explains the rise in political and religious commentary featured in plays in the seventeenth century. With an increasing number of references to the Puritans and their beliefs, plays began to hit the nerves of many, under King Charles, most critics agree, it becomes more appropriate to speak of an "oppositional" drama, and theatre becomes an increasingly important forum for the representation of controversial issues. There is no doubt that due to the increasing political content of plays that some people would be offended. However, finding common ground between an acting troupe's artistic independence and the political motives of their patrons was difficult and in order to receive funding, actors and playwrights would go along with the views of their sponsors.

The supporters of the anti-theatrical movement embraced the popularity of the printing press to more easily disseminate their views on stage-plays and other entertainments. Pamphlets and petitions were issued to educate society on the wickedness and lavishness of the theatre. [2] The actions of the anti-theatrical movement must have angered the theatre industry who was trying to utilize the printing press for their own promotions (playbills, playbooks). The differing motives for using printed materials created tension between the two groups. Church leaders preached regularly against the theatre. Thomas Beard, who later became Oliver Cromwell's tutor, describes the death of playwright Christopher Marlowe as a "manifest sign of God's judgment". [2] By stating that God had a plan in place for playwrights and those involved in the theatre, Beard is publicly voicing his opposition to the theatre. Complaints were also voiced regarding the spread of the plague in the playhouse and this was again brought up after 1630 when outbreaks were rife. The religious beliefs of the Puritans, affected every aspect of English life. Their attempt to "purify" the Protestant church, led them to criticize many of the behaviors that were taking place in everyday life. One of the most prominent and vocal Puritans was William Prynne.

William Prynne, a lawyer and Puritan, released his argument against stage plays in 1633, other non-religious spectacles and the use of cross dressing on the stage. At over a thousand pages, Histrio-Mastix, is a verbose document which highlights Prynne's view of the theatre. In addition to his anti-theatrical venting, Prynne also commented on the antics of King Charles and his wife, Henrietta Maria, who was known to dance in court masques. Although Prynne's Histrio-Mastix is an excellent example of the anti-theatrical movement in print, it did not further Prynne's cause as he was imprisoned and had his ears cut off. This highlights how strictly an attack on the monarchy was punished. [9]

It was not until 1642 that Puritan demands on Parliament came to fruition with the "1642 Ordinance of the Lords and Commons concerning Stage-plays". However, it can be argued that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of this order were not purely related to Puritanism but, in fact, with the notable exception of William Prynne, neither English Calvinism nor Puritanism had much to do with principled antitheatricalism before 1643.

Companies found ways around this ordinance and plays were still performed, mainly in taverns and private houses but there was always the threat of military raids. However, there is no record of the publication of any significant work by a playwright during 1642, highlighting the effect that the ordinance had on the link between the theatre and the publishing industry. There is however, evidence to show that "penny pamphlets" were written and this gave playwrights a meager income after the ordinance was issued.

The reasons for this ordinance being imposed are purely political and, the decision to suppress performances there too may have been aimed not only at players and dramatists - most of them Royalist, though not all - but also at the danger of a new popular theatre emerging, appealing to the political and religious radicalism of the lower orders.

The ordinance of 1642 was not warmly received by actors and acting companies. In 1643 "The Actors Remonstrance or Complaint: for the silencing of their profession, and banishment from their severall Play-houses" was published in response to the previous order. This document highlights the inequalities brought about by the ordinance, namely that only prestigious playhouses were disbanded and that other gatherings which promote anti-social behavior (bearbaiting for instance) were allowed to continue unchecked. The actors also promised to reform some of their practices to appease those in power and get their play houses reinstated. The ideas they proposed included not allowing unaccompanied women and "those unwholesome" into the theatre.

This ordinance was followed up in 1647 by a stricter order which gave permission for the suppression of stage plays, interludes and common plays and commit the actors to the goal, to be tried at the next sessions, the extent to which Parliament was curbing the acting world is mirrored in the dearth of printed plays and highlights the effect that the political climate had on print culture and the theatre at this time.

Socially, the plague was another contributing factor to the fall in popularity of theatre. The government and London city officials had to act when the threat of plague was present. By closing down theatre buildings and other places of entertainment they hoped to curb the spread of the disease, but despite their best attempts the plague gripped London in several outbreaks. The fact that theatres were specifically targeted as likely sites for the passing of plague indicates the popularity of stage-plays. Unfortunately, during the outbreaks the output of playing companies was significantly less, and while it was not the main reason for the reduction in popularity, the volatility of the theatre and its audience is apparent. Through financial documentation and James Burbage's obvious greed it can be surmised that profit had become the main incentive to the company owners and they in turn invested in plays which provided the greatest income. The relationship between financial motivation and popularity is a key factor in charting the rise of Elizabethan theatre, and not surprisingly when profit records detail a fall in takings the theatres' popularity had diminished due to the aforementioned extraneous factors.

Between 1642 and the 1660 (when Charles II was restored to the throne) there is little to suggest that the London theatre world was a profitable business. This dearth in performances, playing companies and printed plays is a result of the parliamentary acts and the political events occurring in England. The correlation of important national events to the demise of the theatre's output in this short period is significant, as it highlights how the theatre world mirrors society.

Conclusion

The ban on theatre in 1642 was the most alarming and comprehensive attack on the performing industry. However, throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the establishment of a capitalistic theatre world became an important part of everyday life. The audiences that were reached by traveling playing companies or who frequented one of the many new theatres were exposed to poetry, singing, dancing and current affairs. The accessibility of this new form of entertainment was made possible through the support of nobles and the monarchy, an important factor when the politics of the state were becoming more involved with the common people. Combined with the increasingly popular printing press, published plays and folios emerged as a secondary form of the entertainment and drama evolved into its own literary genre under the reign of Elizabeth. All of these factors contributed to the heightened popularity of the industry but were sporadically marred by laws and ordinances to protect the public and the rise of Puritanism.

The popularity that the theatre gained throughout this period was monumental in ensuring that despite the anti-theatrical movement, the industry would once again revive. By being able to analyze the moments of theatrical glory and contrast them with the problems that stemmed from social or political issues, it is clear that the theatre industry, like most emerging genres, had to struggle to assert its place in society. However, the emergence of playwrights, actors and theatre entrepreneurs that are still admired today stands testament to the notion that under Elizabeth's reign, culture and the arts were of great importance.

Sources

1. Astington, John H. English Court Theatre 1558-1642. - Cambridge: University Press, 1999. - 228 p.

2. Briggs, Julia. This Stage-Play World. - Oxford: University Press, 1983. - 56 p.

3. Brooks, Douglas A. From Playhouse to Printing House. - Cambridge: University Press, 2000. - 109 p.

4. Clare, Janet. "Theatre and Commonwealth". The Cambridge History of British Theatre Vol.1 Ed. Jane Milling and Peter Thomson. - Cambridge: University Press, 2004. - 103 p.

5. Gurr, Andrew. Playgoing in Shakespeare's London. - Cambridge: University Press, 2004. - 78 p.

6. Harwood, Ronald. All The World's A Stage. - Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984. - 134 p.

7. Heinemann, Margot. Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts. - Cambridge: University Press, 1980. - 90 p.

8. Howard, Jean E. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. - New York: Routledge, 1994. - 356 p.

9. Kirschbaum, Leo. Shakespeare and the Stationers. - Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1955. - 156 p.

10. Mann, David. The Elizabethan Player: Contemporary Stage Representations. - New York: Routledge, 1991. - 99 p.

11. Saquet, Labeebee. The Evolution of the Theatre. - New York: Carlton Press, 1968. - 55 p.

12. https://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/queen-elizabeth-i/

13. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/poverty_01.shtml

14. http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/discover-theatres/theatre-faqs/172-how-has- the-design-of-theatre-buildings-changed-over-time

15. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Globe-Theatre

16. http://www.shakespeare-online.com/theatre/

Размещено на Allbest.ru