A Pre-History of Music and Theatre in London

Endlessly inspired by their rich environment, London’s players and musicians certainly did, “play on.” The cultural history of London is significantly interwoven with the city’s shifting geographical and political history. Much like the circular nature of modernity, the arts are always both the product and the cause of societal change; since the earliest recorded settlements in the area we know as London, theatre and music have grown in logical progressions with the advances of the era. However, once the two arts begin to come closer to the institutions we know today, and started to adhere to inertia-based evolution, growth unrestricted by the progress in other realms of society, advancing as quickly as the city itself, a definite trend appeared (although not necessarily correlated to a reflection of, or a stimulus for, larger societal growth): In pre-modern London, as music made its gradual progression from a strictly elite / ecclesiastical institution to a more fully appreciated state, theatre remained essentially constant as an egalitarian leisure form. This essay will consider the history of music and theatre, and their adherence to this pattern, in the setting of London, from Roman times through 1830.

In London, from the Roman through Saxon periods (c. 45 AD – c. 1050), through little information exists regarding music, early examples of the public nature of theatre / performance-related activities are evident. Theatre found its earliest home in the form of the amphitheatre, where gladiatorial shows and other public sports were presented. It is important to note that these performances were intended for the entire population – not, for example, solely the emperor or the Roman equivalent of the aristocracy.

This public nature is further exemplified by the following: early in the 2^nd century, in anticipation of a visit from the Emperor Hadrian, a military fort intended solely for soldier-training / housing and other military affairs was built near the amphitheatre, but more importantly, separate from it. Since the cultural significance of the amphitheatre was so ingrained in unrestricted, mass entertainment, the construction of a separate structure was essential in distinguishing military ranks from civilians. During the 450s, when the Anglo-Saxon settlers divided Britain into insignificant kingdoms, London’s art scene, obviously not yet affected by the momentum of later generations’ production, did not thrive. However, in the years to follow, the Roman amphitheatre would witness an interesting progression. The structure that was once devoted to public performances was inhabited by the Folkmoot, a popular assembly (again, public use), who later moved to St. Paul’s Cross cathedral.

From the Medieval through Tudor periods (c. 1100 – c. 1600), the role of music was intrinsically knit to the Church (for the most part), and, headed by Shakespeare; theatre continued its course as an egalitarian institution. The Old Hall Manuscript, a pivotal source for documentation of music during early British history, provides a significant amount of data regarding late 14^th to early 15^th century composers and musicians. In short, the majority was affiliated with at least one church or cathedral (often up to four) or some royal institution (castle or court). Prior to the work of composer John Dunstable, who created the “the English style” of composition, nearly every single musician recorded in the Manuscript was assigned to an elite institution. After Dunstable, who broadened the scope of musical creativity and range, a larger number of non-affiliated musicians arose. However, the ratio still floated around 7 (affiliated): 3 (non-affiliated) for every ten musicians.[1]

Another interesting musical fact runs through this period: many of the instruments featured in the English court (specifically the collections of the Edwards and Henrys) were crafted specifically to suit the acoustics of royal chambers and churches. Although many had the capacity to be heard in outdoor, public environments, the very fact that the particular sound-needs of royal courts were considered in the crafting of the instruments is indicative of how closely music was associated with the higher institutions. For example, the Dulcian was created to double the bass line in church and a mute (bell cap) was created to dull the sound of the instrument for more intimate settings. Also, before the Renaissance, the bagpipes, outfitted with less abrasive pipes, were used strictly in court settings. The harp, another especially soft instrument, is still associated today with both Christianity and royalty. Additionally, the organetto, a small, lightweight organ, was very popular due to its ability to be strapped on and used during religious processions. Several other instruments with incredibly wide ranges were valued for their small size, including the rackett and the gemshorn. (Very early evidence of the fusion of music and theatre is evidenced by the use of the tabor and pipe, among other instruments, to entertain during Shakespeare’s plays.)

The Inns of Court and Chancery: “hostels for barristers and students which took on the role of a University in the city,” initially taught, among other things, music and dancing. However, mainly during the Tudor reign, they began housing a less elite institution, namely the theatre of William Shakespeare. Shakespeare first worked as actor and playwright in London in the late 1500s, after which he was interrupted by plague. The reign of Elizabeth I was a heyday for theatre and leisure forms in general. Shakespeare brought his work to all the citizens of London in both the Globe and the Rose (the Swan and the Hope were two other major theatres of the period, however they were not used by Shakespeare). The composition of Shakespeare’s audience, accompanied by the range of elevated and base jokes in Shakespeare’s plays is a few of the best indicators of the classless world of theatre.

From the Stuarts(c. 1600) through the year 1830, comes further into its own, theatre continues providing entertainment for all social levels, and we see early examples of the fusion of the two art forms. Firstly, The Old Hall Manuscript data for these years (which feature the progression through several styles: Early English Baroque, Middle English Baroque, Late English Baroque, and the new Classical period) provides testimony to the increasing number of independent musicians over this time period. Additionally, all of these periods featured their respective steps toward the development of public music featured for the theatre and opera. [Also, music in Britain became thoroughly centralized in the city of London – concentration in the capital is a traditional step in cultural progress in a society.] Two specific individuals exemplify well this motion towards fusion in the late pre-history of London. The first, George Frederic Handel, famous composer and creator of such works as Rinaldo, Jeptha, and, the best known, Messiah, was also a major contributor to the oratorio format, an opera-like art form, which used elements of traditional theatre and music. His oratorios were performed at the King’s theatre between 1711 and 1752. Second, Sir William Davenant (possibly a son of Shakespeare) “governed” actors at the Cockpit Theatre (1639), then turned to poetry after revolution, and “by 1656 he was again producing plays, in the guise of opera, i.e., with the dialogue sung in recitativo style, rather than spoken”[2] – another definite step towards the merging of classless art.

It is also important to mention the early 19^th century origins of the geographically divided, yet still fundamentally classless, theatre culture. Although theatre brought together citizens otherwise separated by the West-end vs. East-end class-based divisions, class-distinctions are emphasized by differences in west / east theatrical taste. For example, precise qualifications of East-end taste ("patriotic", "sentimental" and "moral") contrasted with the predilections of West-end audiences (“sophisticated”). While, the East-end audience was primarily working-class and the West middle class, neither end was heterogeneous, and these “tastes” were clearly a product of a new factors. By the middle of the 19^th century theatre and music had become so fused, common and widely appreciated that they were no longer dependent on the political evolution of the state – the arts were approaching the independent, ever-flourishing, complex institution of modern times.

Bibliography

Inwood, Stephen and Porter, Roy. A History of London. Publisher’s Group West. 1999.

Ed. Griffith, Paul and Jenner, Mark S.R. Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London. Manchester Univ. Pr. 2001

The University of Washington.

<http://www.artsci.washington.edu/drama-phd/cbeast1.html>

The University of Florida.

<http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/~pcraddoc/biogstext.html>

<http://britannia.com/history/londonhistory/>

The Center for Research in Early English Drama (REED). Abigail Ann Young. “All the World’s A Stage.”

<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html>