We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
THE ELIZABETHAN THEATRE of class melted before the magical process of dropping pennies in a box'.1 The Elizabethan civic authorities had no democratic leanings. They were afraid that the crowds might disrupt the established order. 'Elizabethans had a very real fear of the potentialities of a crowd — any crowd. They were less used to crowds than we are, less adept at policing them, and evidently quite conscious of the degree to which privilege rested more upon precedent than upon any physical power to preserve it.'2 We must bear this important sociological characterisation of two different historical crowds, the Elizabethan and our contemporary crowd, in mind, as we shall return to this point later on.
Out of an estimated population of London of some 160,000, Professor Harbage suggests that about 21,000 were, in 1605, weekly spectators of the theatres. In other words, 13 per cent of the population of London, or 2 persons in 15, went to the theatres each week. Professor Harbage submits these figures also as an estimate covering the whole period of Shakespeare's theatrical career. On the other hand, it seems probable that about two thirds of London's population did not go to the theatre at all. All the same the theatres in Shakespeare's time were able, according to Professor Harbage, to draw weekly attendances of 13 per cent from London's population.
Now how can the social structure of Shakespeare's audience be described? 'The wage earner of that time . . .' observes Professor Harbage, 'could go to the theatre almost as cheaply as his modern counterpart can go to the movies.'3 Moreover, as the Elizabethan artisan had to pay proportionally much more for food, clothing, fuel — the necessities of life — he may have been willing to pay his penny the more readily. It would, therefore, appear arguable that 'craftsmen . . . with their families, journeymen, and apprentices, must have composed the vast majority of "groundlings".'4 The next largest group in the London area was formed by the 'dealers and retailers'. A considerable number of them were wealthy, but the majority were ordinary shopkeepers. Professor Harbage then turns to professional men and officials. The teachers earned then somewhat less than the artisans; the lawyer's profession was then — as to-day — highly profitable.
The prices for the Elizabethan theatres 'were calculated as prices in general were not, to what workmen could afford to pay'.5 Later on when the 'private' theatres raised the minimum
1 Shakespeare 's Audience, p. 12. 2 Ibid. p. 14..
3 Ibid. p. 56 sq. * Ibid. p. 60. 5 Ibid. p. 64
44