ForewordEarly Printed Responses to the Closing of London's Playhouses, 1641–43 Christopher Highley (bio) in one of early modern england's most unlikely volte-faces, the notorious antitheatricalist William Prynne penned a tract defending the public stage. Published in 1649, Mr William Prynn His Defence of Stage-Plays reversed the same author's landmark denunciation of theater in his Histrio-mastix. The Players Scourge, or, Actors Tragædie (1633).1 Prynne's reference in the earlier work to "Women-Actors, notorious whores"2 was widely seen as glancing at Henrietta Maria's participation in court plays; as a result, he was quickly condemned by the court of Star Chamber to stand in the pillory and have his ears "trimmed." Prynne's outrage in the 1630s at what he considered the growing authoritarianism of the king, and the threats from bishops and a Catholic queen, had turned by 1649 into alarm at "a Tyrannical, abominable, lewd, schismatical [and] hæretical Army"3 that not only held the king captive but also controlled Parliament following Pride's Purge of its moderate members in December 1648. The specific occasion for Prynne's defense of the stage was the removal of the "Players from their Houses"4 by groups of overzealous soldiers. For [End Page 11] Prynne, this was a violation of the king's prerogative, an attempt to silence Charles I's allies in the theater and to deny him a form of royal solace. From the beginning of hostilities in 1642, Prynne had upheld royal authority and worked for a reconciliation of king and commons in defiance of more radical voices, many of which emerged from the army. In retrospect, Prynne regretted his earlier comparison of Charles I to Nero for "loving of Stage-playes," as well as his attack on Henrietta Maria "with the bitter and cruell words of whore and strumpet" for performing in plays. He now recognized that "Playes are lawfull things, and are to be allowed as recreations for honest men." Prynne claimed that when he wrote Histrio-mastix, he was unaware of the nature of the plays "as were written and acted in England of late, for the Recreation of our most gracious King and Queen, and many of their best friends."5 Although Prynne remained hostile to "lewd" plays, he recognized that "honest Playes may be tolerated," and he even disavowed his earlier objections to cross-dressing on stage.6 By 1649, then, Prynne had come to the startling conclusion that, as Sir William Davenant later put it, "they that would have no King, would have no Play."7 Mr William Prynn His Defence of Stage-Plays is one of a few printed defenses of the stage in the years between 1642 and 1660. In this essay, I examine defenses of the stage in the years immediately after the playhouses were shut, a period when we might expect a flurry of protests to this unprecedented parliamentary action. Here again, defenses of the stage are rare, although The Actors Remonstrance, or Complaint: For the silencing of their profession is one notable and well-known exception (January 1643). In particular, I want to suggest that in order to gauge resistance to the closure, we need to look beyond formal defenses of the stage. I will argue that the republication in 1643 of Thomas Randolph's play The Muses Looking-Glasse is part of a counteroffensive against the ban on plays that also reveals something about the role of local politics in motivating the parliamentary prohibition.8 There are several possible reasons why no printed defenses of playing appeared before The Actors Remonstrance of January 1643. This absence is all the stranger when [End Page 12] we recall that a tract called The Stage-Players Complaint, published in 1641 shortly before the official closure, offered a precedent and template of sorts for theater supporters and personnel. The Stage-Players Complaint is a "pleasant Dialogue between Cane of the Fortune, and Reed of the Friers" in which the two actors lament "the sad and solitary conditions for want of Imployment . . . [during] this heavie and Contagious time of the Plague in London." Whereas Cane, the pessimist, thinks that public...
Read full abstract