So this came to mind while I was watching Anthony Hopkins’ production of King Lear with my mum who commented on the pivotal scene in the play, in which the Earl of Gloucester is blinded, by saying that the violence “wouldn’t have been shown in the past”.
I found this an odd comment as the scene is in the play and has been depicted in the past, not to mention that violence is a key factor in most of his plays; whether it’s the numerous duels and climatic suicide in Romeo and Juliet, the entirety of Macbeth, Titus Andronicus, so on and so forth. Shakespeare’s plays often use violence to further the drama and to analyse the subject matter.
So how would a contemporary audience in 1600’s Britain have reacted to such a thing? I get that the violence probably would not have been done with such intensity or realism as the current productions we are used to but I still can’t help but wonder what they would have made or such scenes.
The other thing that comes to mind - when I wonder about how people would react - is the frequent critiques of the monarchy. Macbeth, the various History Plays, Julius Caesar - to an extent -, and King Lear, to name a few, can all be seen as somewhat less than flattering to the monarchy in one way or another and, in light of the fact these plays were often performed for monarchs or the descendants of the figures depicted, I wondered if anything has survived about these first productions.
When I was in college a little over a decade ago, much was made in class about regicide in Macbeth and how Macbeth’s actions were seen as an affront to the divine right of kings, but nothing was ever made or discussed about how people reacted to this.
Do we know anything at all about what these first reactions were? Nowadays we have the luxury of newspaper reviews and journals, and so on, but I’m not sure where to look to find out if the people approved or disapproved of these monarchical critiques or depictions of violence.
Any information would be super interesting to read.
Well there are several ways to answer this. First I gave an answer to a similar question to this a while ago which you can find here - this specifically deals with contemporary audience appreciation to plays performed in the era, focusing on Shakespeare.
However you do ask about a more detailed focus in your question; the portrayal of violence on stage.
While you yourself identified the many uses of violence in Shakespeares plays both as a means to further drama and at times an end unto themselves, you do ask how violence was shown on stage at the time.
To which the answer would be- in some detail.
It is worth remembering that during the late Tudor/early Stuart era violence, while not as all encompassing as the cases shown on stage, was by our modern standards, a much more common thing. As Salgādo says ”Two of the most commonest causes of imprisonment were debt and assault” (Salgādo p166).
Assault, violence upon someone, was, by that measure, fairly common place. From duels (both Ben Johnson and Kit Marlowe, Shakespeares contemporaries, were both involved in duels and the deaths of others), to robbery, to interpersonal fights (Johnson’s example was probably caused by a fall out over a woman) to the ever present mob violence heralded by teenage apprentices issuing the war cry of ‘clubs’ (as contemporary writer John Taylor notes, on a particular Shrove Tuesday, youths arm’d with cudgels, stones, hammers, rules, trowels and hand-saws, put playhouses to the sack and bawdy-houses to the spoil (Porter p70)
Certain areas were seen as more violent than others. Those regions outside the liberties of the City of London (for example Shoreditch to the north of the city, Blackfriars to the east and Southwark to the south) were identified as being somewhat more dangerous than other parts with greater records of violence.
It is worth pointing out that as well as being technically part of London and yet also outside the boundaries of ‘the city’ (which led to these areas gaining a bad reputation as this grey area made them a natural home for criminals) they were also the areas where Elizabethan theatre thrives (Shoreditch being the home of the original Theatre and The Curtain; Southwark of course gave us The Rose, The Globe and The Swan; and Blackfriars gave us the Blackfriars playhouse itself.
In the early era of theatre in London, violence and the portrayal of violence was an entertainment unto itself- Titus Andronicus, while being Shakespeares first play, is also indicative of the need to placate the Shoreditch audiences. Here Theatre was a penny dreadful: filled with blood, death and gore.
One could say that with the shifting of audiences to Southwark that the atmosphere for bloody spectacle was lessened but it is worth keeping in mind that the Southwark theatres biggest competition was the ritualised blood-sports found in Bear Gardens, whose enclosed area regularly outsold the theatres as the number one entertainment in the district.
Additionally, one must give some thought to the portrayal of sword fighting on stage for Shakespearean audiences. In our era, with fight choreography perhaps forever influenced by classic Hollywood portrayals where the purpose is to clearly strike the opponents sword, we often like to call upon re-reactors to comment on the realism of stage fighting.
Such things would not have been acceptable I feel, to an audience who would have grown up using bladed weapons and many of whom carried them.
Fights would have been watched with a critical eye; indeed given how often plays make a note of all dialogue ending so as to show a fight; and given how dialogue in Shakespeares plays often at best allows occasional words and sentences within a fight, this would seem to suggest that fights on stage would be a part of the overall pageantry.
A fight would be like we would see a dance routine in a Broadway musical; a thing to appreciate for its own artistry. By all accounts they would have been fast, furious, done exceptionally well and meant to grab the audience and make them watch. Stage fighting yes, but done up close; an audience who would call out that which looked fake being only feet away from the action; the sounds and sensation of men fighting just in front of the audiences faces.
It’s why a fight scene is used so centrally in Romeo and Juliet- we get a prologue describing the outcome of the play; two men telling a serious of filthy jokes for a minute or so, a sudden round of insults and then? A full blown riot takes place on stage.
By the time the substantive part of the play comes on with the Prince castigating the heads of the households the audience would have had the chance to laugh at the bawdy jokes and enjoy a good action sequence.
This is clever plotting by Shakespeare for me.
Finally the above linked answer does deal with some matters in regard to the portrayal of royalty on stage- mostly however there were a few grey areas that protected players.
Firstly, the plays commentaries existed ONLY for as long as the plays were on stage. Not until Ben Johnson starred publishing his work did play-writes consider their work actually worth publishing (Shakespeare for example never did).
So any salacious words would have had to have been witnessed to have any profound effect (and when they did such as in the case of Eastward Ho!, the writers would be jailed fairly quickly).
Secondly, the subversion you speak off was very carefully directed. So if one was to criticise a King, it would be the faults of the King in question never the state of Majesty itself.
Or one would comment upon the inherent weakness of the state in question (consider Romeo and Juliet- here Shakespeare sets the play Verona, and as such is able to make several sly insinuations about Catholic nations (such as allowing 13 year olds get married) without it seemingly reflecting upon the society around them.
I hope this helps. It’s short but your covered such wide areas, I could only briefly touch upon the issues raised. If you have any questions?
Please ask.
Sources: •Salgādo, Gãmini; The Elizabethan Underworld; 1977; JM Dent & Sons
•Donaldson, Ian; Ben Johnson: A Life; 2011; Oxford University Press
•Porter, Roy; London: A Social History; 1994; Hamish Hamilton.