English Court Theatre 1558–1642 by John H. Astington (review)

348 letters in canada 1999 German demonological writings by both Protestant and Catholic authors. And as is well known, he responded in this major text of French demonology not to an earlier French treatise, but to the German Johann Weyer. By overemphasizing the French singularity, Pearl reminds us of the importance of specific political and social contexts of each demonological text, and warns us against wide global or European generalizations . But it is just as important to remember that early modern intellectuals and theologians lived in a shared culture. This does not mean that they agreed with each other. Far from it. But it does mean that national and linguistic boundaries played only a minor role in their lives. (MOSHE SLUHOVSKY) John H. Astington. English Court Theatre 1558-1642 Cambridge University Press. xiv, 294. US $59.95 A forty-five-page appendix closes this admirable book. In it Astington provides a chart of all known performances of plays and masques at royal palaces and houses from the beginning of Elizabeth's reign to 1642. Here at a glance one can see the vast terrain that Astington has covered as he has delineated the nature of plays and other entertainments that took place at court. This exceptionally helpful appendix captures in tabular form the questions that Astington has wrestled with. Among them: what constitutes theatre at court, who performed it, how was it staged, and who constituted the audience? Astington defines his purpose succinctly: `My aim in this study is to concentrate attention on the physical and aesthetic conditions under which actors worked when they performed at the Tudor and Stuart courts.' To this end he must define what actually constituted the court, which could be amazingly mobile and protean B hence the many places at which dramatic entertainment took place. Part of the definition comes from an exploration of what Astington calls the `royal administration.' This in turn leads to an extensive discussion of the Office of the Revels and the Office of Works, both crucial to the mounting of drama at court. Astington investigates the contributions of such Master of the Revels as Edmund Tilney, George Buc, and Henry Herbert. He argues convincingly that the function of the Master shifted over time from primary responsibility for producing drama at court to oversight of London public acting companies, including publication of texts. As the Master of the Revels developed a close relationship with the acting companies, they in turn made more appearances at court. Only with the advent of the regular court masques under the Stuart kings did the Revels office again assume many production responsibilities. More often than not, `it was the Works rather than the Revels which gave physical form to the theatre at court.' humanities 349 In the royal palaces, such as Hampton Court and Whitehall, the crucial`spatial principle of court theatres from the largest to the smallest was that the royal seat should directly face the stage, and hence both stage and state were aligned on the central axis of the chamber.' Late in the period Inigo Jones designed the conversion of the Whitehall Cockpit into a permanent theatre space, `the first court theatre in England.' Astington meticulously discusses the requirements for such theatres from trestles to illumination. This also leads him to consider the artists and artisans who made the drama possible. Here we find familiar and unfamiliar names, from Jones to George Gower. Astington suggests that the theatrical craft `most prominently patronised by the court was that of the costumier,' and Jones became the chief designer of costumes. The skill of these many artists reinforces the point that England did not suffer as an artistic backwater of Europe. In the section on audiences, Astington addresses three principal questions : `Who went to court entertainments ...? How many people saw plays and masques at court? What did they think of what they saw, and how did they behave?' Not surprisingly, a number of the answers to these questions remain elusive from lack of specific evidence. These audiences came to court for royal birthdays, the Christmas season, Shrovetide. In the Elizabethan period they would have seen a number of John Lyly's plays; but at the Jacobean...