that the electric light has been installed, the risk of an outbreak of fire or its spread has been materially reduced. No mention of stage mechanism would be complete unless mention were made of the necessity of providing a carefully made and easily worked fire-resisting curtain of substantial but light construction. On the Continent metal curtains are favoured. In England the double asbestos curtain is more common. The London County Council prefer a steel framing with asbestos wire-wove cloth on both faces, the intervening space being filled with slag wool, well rammed and packed. Such curtains are somewhat

own cities. Statues of actors were not to be placed in the public streets, but only in the proscenium of a theatre. A governor of a province was entitled to take the money raised for public games for the purpose of repairing the city walls, provided that he gave security for afterwards celebrating the games as usual. Municipalities were encouraged to build theatres (Dig. 1, 10, 3). By Novel cxvii., it was ground for divorce if a wife went to the theatre without her husband's knowledge. In Cod. iii. 12, 11 (De Feriis) is a constitution of Leo and Anthemius forbidding dramatic representations on Sunday. The Digest (iii. 2) classed all who acted for hire (omnes propter pecuniam in scenam prodeuntes) as infamous persons, and as such debarred them from filling public offices. A mere with it. By Novel li. actresses could retire from the stage contract to perform not fulfilled did not, however, carry without incurring a penalty even if they had given sureties or taken an oath. There was probably a censorship at certain periods," as well as provisions for safety of the building and the audience (Tacitus, Ann., iv. 63; Leonine Constitutions, cxiii.). The seats were allocated by the state, and the care of the building committed to certain magistrates (Novel cxlix. 2).

decades later witnessed the production (December 1883) by Wilson | by magistrates, practically confining them to exhibiting in their Barrett of Claudian, a. romantic poetic drama of classic days, mounted so exquisitely as to gain Ruskin's enthusiastic praise But undoubtedly the earliest noteworthy alliance of spectacle with Shakespeare was made by Sir Henry Irving at the Lyceum. The art of Royal Academicians was happily enlisted to add lustre and distinction to his productions. Ravenswood and the sumptuously presented Henry VIII. (1892) owed much to the co-operation of Mr Seymour Lucas. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema supervised Cymbeline and Coriolanus (1901), whilst Sir Edward Burne-Jones inspired the decoration of King Arthur (1895). In Tennyson's Cup (produced in January 1881) and in the beautiful revival of Romeo and Juliet it was felt that perfection of stage illusion could scarcely go farther, but the next production, Much Ado about Nothing, with its superb church scene by Telbin, was admittedly Irving's crowning success, alike from the artistic, the dramatic, the spectacular and the financial standpoints. Great praise was equally won by the version of Faust, which was frankly spectacular, and by the more recent Robespierre by Sardou. Shakespeare and the poetic drama were also finely illustrated by Mr Beerbohm Tree, who secured Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema's interest for Hypatia at the Haymarket, and Julius Caesar at the new His Majesty's; England. In England, as in other countries of western whilst for his later productions, King John, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Herod (by Stephen Phillips), Twelfth Night (1901), and Europe, theatrical legislation was of comparatively recent such later plays as his revival of Antony and Cleopatra (1907), he introduction. Such legislation was unnecessary as long as was assisted by the designs of Percy Anderson, an artist who made the theatre was under the control of the Church and actors his mark in the costumes for a series of the operas at the Savoy under its protection, the Church having turned to its own uses Theatre, notably the 15th-century dresses for the Beauty Stone. Spectacular features of exceptional refinement distinguished the what it was powerless to prevent. The earliest regulations were therefore, as might be expected, made by the Church rather than by the state. The ecclesiastical ordinances were directed chiefly against the desecration of churches, though they sometimes extended to forbidding attendance of the faithful as spectators at plays even of a harmless kind. Sacraments and Christian burial were denied by the canon law to actors, whose gains, said St Thomas, were acquired ex turpi causa,' and who, if they exceeded what was proper, might be in mortal sin. It was a doubtful point as to whether spectators might not be in similar case. The same law forbade plays to be acted by the clergy, even under the plea of custom, as in Christmas week, and followed the code of Justinian in enjoining the clergy not to consort with actors or be present at plays (see Decretals, iii. 1, 12 and 15, De Vita et Honestate Clericorum). As late as 1603, canon lxxxviii. of the canons of the Church of England enacted that churchwardens were not to suffer plays in churches, chapels or churchyards. The latest occurrence of such a play seems to have been at Oxford in 1592.

Lyceum of Cinderella, presented by Mr Oscar Barrett at the
Theatre in Christmas 1893, and designed by Mr Wilhelm.
This production also enjoyed a prosperous season in New York.
The system of international exchange seems to hold good in stage
spectacle as in other cases, and in return for English successes
that have been welcomed in America, Augustin Daly's Shakespearean
productions were greatly admired in London. Other entertain-
ments of a more absolutely spectacular order found acceptance
in London. In connexion with Barnum and Bailey's Hippodrome;
Imré Kiralfy's show, Nero, constituted a "mammoth combination,"
and attracted crowds to "Olympia in 1890. The success of this
latter spectacle of colour and movement, which was also designed
by Mr Wilhelm, induced Mr Kiralfy to produce a still more am-
bitious entertainment the following season, Venice, designed by the
same artist. A spectacle on these lines may be regarded as the
outcome of such ballets as have long been popular on the continent
of Europe especially in Italy, where grace of movement and
spontaneity of gesture are natural to the people, and greatly facili-
tate such an enterprise as the famous Excelsior ballet of Manzotti,
which lasted a whole evening, in several acts, and required the
services of hundreds of figurantes. Excelsior was originally pro-
duced at La Scala, Milan, in January 1881, and was subsequently
given with great success at the Eden Theatre, Paris, in 1883 The
revived popularity of the modern ballet, as at the Empire Theatre,
London, has also been associated with some memorable triumphs
of spectacle with which the name of Mr Wilhelm was closely
identified as designer.
(C. WI.)

LAW RELATING TO THEATRES.

It was not until comparatively late in Roman history that acting became a distinct calling. The troops of public actors (ministeria publica) were generally slaves, and their earnings

enriched their masters more than themselves.

The regulation of the theatre by legislation (except as to struc ture) belongs chiefly to the time of the lower empire, in which it depended almost wholly upon constitutions of Theodosius and Valentinian, incorporated in the Theodosian Code (Tit. xv. 5, 6, 7), and a century later to a large extent adopted by Justinian. In the whole of this law there is an evident attempt at a compromise between the doctrines of Christianity and the old Roman love of public spectacles of all kinds. It deals less with theatrical representations proper than with gladiatorial contests and chariot races. The Theodosian Code provided that the sacraments were not to be administered to actors save where death was imminent, and only on condition that the calling should be renounced in case of recovery. Daughters of actors were not to be forced to go on the stage, provided that they lived an honest life. An actress was to be allowed to quit the stage in order to become a nun. There were also numerous sumptuary regulations as to the dress of actors. None of the law which has been mentioned so far was adopted by Justinian, but what follows was incorporated in Cod. xi. 40 (De Spectaculis et Scenicis), which consists entirely of extracts from the Theodosian Code of a very miscellaneous nature. Provision was made for the exhibition of public games and theatrical spectacles

1 The word ludi seems sometimes to include, sometimes to exclude, dramatic performances. Its meaning in a particular instance depends on the context.

ecclesiastical to the non-ecclesiastical authority over the drama. The Reformation marks the period of transition from the Precautions began to be taken by the crown and the legislature against the acting of unauthorized plays, by unauthorized persons, and in unauthorized places, and the acting of plays objectionable to the government on political or other grounds. The protection of the Church being withdrawn, persons not enrolled in a fixed company or in possession of a licence from the crown or justices were liable to severe penalties as vagrants. The history of the legislation on this subject is very curious. An act of the year 1572 enacted that "all fencers, bearwards, common players of interludes, and minstrels (not belonging to any baron of this realm, or to any other honourable person of greater degree)," wandering abroad without the licence of two justices at the least, were subject "to be grievously whipped and burned through the gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch about." This statute was superseded by 39 Eliz. c. 4, under which the punishment of the strolling player is less severe, and there is no mention of justices. The jurisdiction of justices over the theatre disappears from legislation If one may judge from Horace's line (Sat., i. 10, 38): Quae neque in aede sonent certantia judice Tarpa.

A large number of such ordinances will be found cited in Prynne, Histriomastix; Bossuet, Maximes et réflexions sur la comédie; Mariana, De Spectaculis. They followed the almost unanimous condemnation by the Christian fathers. See, for example, Chrysostom, Contra Ludos et Theatra; Tertullian, De Spectaculis, Augustine, De Civ. Dei, i. 31, Confessions, iii. 2; Dill, Roman Society, pp. 47, 117.

For this reason it appears to have been the custom in France for actors to be married under the name of musicians. See Hist. parlémentaire de la Révolution française, vi. 381. The difficulties attending the funeral of Molière are well known.

from that time until 1788. In 39 Eliz. c. 4 there is a remark- |
able exception in favour of persons licensed by Dutton of
Dutton in Cheshire, in accordance with his claim to liberty
and jurisdiction in Cheshire and Chester, established in favour
of his ancestor by proceedings in quo warranto in 1499. The
stricter wording of this act as to the licence seems to show that
the licence had been abused, perhaps that in some cases privi-1
leges had been assumed without authority. In 14 Eliz. c. 5
the privileges of a player attached by service of a noble or
licence from justices, in the later act only by service of a noble,
and this was to be attested under his hand and arms. The
spirit of the acts of Elizabeth frequently appears in later legis-
lation, and the unauthorized player was a vagabond as late as
the Vagrancy Act of 1744, which was law till 1824. He is not
named in the Vagrancy Act of 1824. The Theatre Act of 1737
narrowed the definition of a player of interludes, for the pur-
poses of punishment as a vagabond, to mean a person acting
interludes, &c., in a place where he had no legal settlement.

operation of the act of 1737 as creating a monopoly. The exclusive rights of the patent theatres were also recognized in the Disorderly Houses Act, 1751, and in private acts dealing with Covent Garden and Drury Lane, and regulating the rights of parties, the application of charitable funds, &c. (see 16 Geo. III. cc. 13, 31; 50 Geo. III. c. ccxiv.; 52 Geo. III. c. xix.; Geo. IV. c. lx.). The results of theatrical monopoly were beneficial neither to the public nor to the monopolists themselves. In 1832 a select committee of the House of Commons recommended the legal recognition of "stage-right" and the abolition of theatrical monopoly. The recommendations of the report as to stage-right were carried out immediately by Bulwer Lytton's Act, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15 (see COPYRIGHT). But it was not till eleven years later that the Theatres Act, 1843, was passed, a previous bill on the same lines having been rejected by the House of Lords. The act of 1843 inaugurated a more liberal policy, and there is now complete "free trade" in theatres, subject to the conditions imposed by the act. The growth of theatres since that time has been enormous. Nor does the extension seem to have been attended with the social dangers anticipated by some of the witnesses before the committee of 1832.

Before the Restoration there were privileged places as well as privileged persons, e.g. the court, the universities, and the inns of court. With the Restoration privilege became practically confined to the theatres in the possession of those companies (or their representatives) established by the letters patent of The suppression of objectionable plays was the ground of many Charles II. in 1662. In spite of the patents other and un- early statutes and proclamations. While the religious drama privileged theatres gradually arose. In 1735 Sir John Barnard was dying out, the theatre was used as a vehicle for enforcing introduced a bill "to restrain the number of playhouses for religious and political views not always as orthodox as those playing of interludes, and for the better regulation of common of a miracle play. Thus the act of 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. I players." On Walpole's wishing to add a clause giving parlia- made it criminal to play in an interlude contrary to the orthodox mentary sanction to the jurisdiction of the lord chamberlain, faith declared, or to be declared, by that monarch. Profanity the mover withdrew the bill. In 1737 Walpole introduced a in theatres seems to have been a crying evil of the time. Stephen bill of his own for the same purpose, there being then six Gosson attacked it as early as 1579 in his School of Abuse. The theatres in London. The immediate cause of the bill is said first business of the government of Edward VI. was to pass an to have been the production of a political extravaganza of act reciting that the most holy and blessed sacrament was Fielding's, The Golden Rump. The bill passed, and the act of named in plays by such vile and unseemly words as Christian 10 Geo. II. c. 28 regulated the theatre for more than a century. ears did abhor to hear rehearsed, and inflicting fine and imIts effect was to make it impossible to establish any theatre prisonment upon any person advisedly contemning, despising except in the city of Westminster and in places where the or reviling the said most blessed sacrament (1 Edw. VI. c. 1). king should in person reside, and during such residence only. A proclamation of the same king in 1549 forbade the acting of The act did not confine the prerogative within the city of interludes in English on account of their dealing with sacred Westminster, but as a matter of policy it was not exercised in subjects. In 1556 the council called attention to certain lewd favour of the non-privileged theatres, except those where the persons in the livery of Sir F. Leke representing plays and "legitimate drama" was not performed. The legitimate interludes reflecting upon the queen and her consort and the drama was thus confined to Covent Garden, Drury Lane and formalities of the mass. The same queen forbade the rethe Haymarket from 1737 to 1843. In the provinces patent currence of such a representation as the mask given by Sir theatres were established at Bath by 8 Geo. III. c. 10, at Thomas Pope in honour of the Princess Elizabeth at Hatfield, Liverpool by 11 Geo. III. c. 16, and at Bristol by 18 Geo. III. for she "misliked these follies." By the Act of Uniformity, c. 8, the act of 1737 being in each case repealed pro tanto. The 1 Eliz. c. 2, it was made an offence punishable by a fine of a acting of plays at the universities was forbidden by 10 Geo. II. hundred marks to speak anything in the derogation, depraving It is not a little remarkable that the universities, once or despising of the Book of Common Prayer in any interludes possessing unusual dramatic privileges, should not only have or plays. In 1605 "An Act to restrain the Abuses of Players lost those privileges, but have in addition become subject to made it an offence punishable by a fine of £10 to jestingly or special disabilities. The restrictions upon the drama were profanely speak or use certain sacred names in any stage play, found very inconvenient in the large towns, especially in those interlude, show, may-game or pageant (3 Jac. I. c. 21). In which did not possess patent theatres. In one direction the consequence of the appearance of players in the characters difficulty was met by the lord chamberlain granting annual of the king of Spain and Gondomar, an ordinance of James I. licences for performances of operas, pantomimes and other forbade the representation on the stage of any living Christian spectacles not regarded as legitimate drama. In another king. The first act of the reign of Charles I. forbade acting on direction relief was given by the act of 1788 (28 Geo. III. c. 30), Sunday. Puritan opposition to the theatre culminated in the under which licences for occasional performances might be ordinance of 1648, making it a crime even to be present as a granted in general or quarter sessions for a period of not more spectator at a play. After the Restoration there are few than sixty days. The rights of patent theatres were preserved royal proclamations or ordinances, the necessary jurisdiction by the prohibition to grant such a licence to any theatre within being exercised almost entirely by parliament and the lord eight miles of a patent theatre. During this period (1737-1843) chamberlain. Among the few post-Restoration royal prothere were several decisions of the courts which confirmed the clamations is that of the 25th of February 1664-65, restraining any but the company of the Duke of York's theatre from enter'The "advowry." as it was called, over the Cheshire minstrels lasted until 1756, when the latest minstrel court was held at Chester.ing at the attiring house of the theatre, and that of the 27th Interludes were acted in the open air at Berriew in Mont- of February 1698-99 against immorality in plays. gomeryshire as lately as 1819, when the players were indicted before the Great Sessions of Wales. They had been prohibited in the Declaration of Sports (1633) and in the Propositions of

c. 19.

Uxbridge (1644).

3 See W. Nicholson. The Struggle for a free Stage in London (1907).

Preventive censorship of the drama by an officer of state dates from the reign of Elizabeth. The master of the revels (see REVELS) appears to have been the dramatic censor from 1545 to For the anti-theatrical Puritan literature see Courthope, History of English Poetry, ii. 381.

1624, when he was superseded by his official superior, the lord |
chamberlain.' In some cases the supervision was put into
commission. Thus with Tilney, the master of the revels in
1581, were associated by order of the privy council a divine
and a statesman. In other cases it was delegated, as to Daniel
the poet by warrant in 1603. The proposal to give statutory
authority to the jurisdiction of the lord chamberlain led, as has
been already stated, to the withdrawal of Sir John Barnard's
bill in 1735, and to considerable debate before the bill of 1737
became law. Lord Chesterfield's objection to the bill in the
House of Lords was not unreasonable. "If the players,"
said he,
are to be punished, let it be by the laws of their
country, and not by the will of an irresponsible despot." A
stage play must now be duly licensed before performance.
§ 12 of the act of 1843 prescribes that a copy of every new play
and of every addition to an old play, and of every new prologue
or epilogue or addition thereto (such copy to be signed by the
master or manager), shall be sent to the lord chamberlain, and,
if the lord chamberlain does not forbid it within seven days, it
may be represented. § 13 empowers the lord chamberlain to
fix a scale of fees for examination; the fee is now two guineas
for a play of three or more acts, one guinea for a play of less than
three acts. All plays represented previously to the act are held
to be licensed. A play once licensed is licensed once for all
unless the licence be revoked under § 14. The examination is
the duty of a special officer of the lord chamberlain's department,
the examiner of stage plays. In spite of occasional lapses of
judgment, a belief in the wisdom generally shown in the
exercise of the censorship has been confirmed by the report of
the select committee of the House of Commons in 1866, and also
by the report of the joint committee of both Houses in 1909.
The censorship has been consistently supported in recent
years by theatrical managers, but violently opposed by an
advanced section of dramatic authors. There have been
instances, no doubt, where perhaps both the lord chamberlain
and his subordinate officer, the examiner of stage plays, have
been somewhat nice in their objections. Thus, during the
illness of George III., King Lear was inhibited. George Colman,
when examiner, showed an extraordinary antipathy to such
words as
"heaven" or "angel." The lord chamberlain's
powers are still occasionally exerted against scriptural dramas,
less frequently for political reasons. Later instances are Oscar
Wilde's Salomé (1892), Joseph of Canaan (1896), Maeterlinck's
Monna Vanna (1902), Housman's Bethlehem (1902), Gilbert
and Sullivan's Mikado (temporarily in 1907), and a play by
Laurence Housman dealing with George IV. (1910). Before
1866 the lord chamberlain appears to have taken into considera-
tion the wants of the neighbourhood before granting a licence,
but since that year such a course has been abandoned. The
joint committee in 1909 recommended that it should be optional
for an author to submit a play for licence, and legal to perform
an unlicensed play whether submitted or not, the risk of police
intervention being taken. They also recommended that the
reasons for which a licence should be refused should be: in-
decency, offensive personalities, the representation in an in-
vidious manner of a living person or a person recently dead,
violation of the sentiments of religious reverence, the presence
of anything likely to conduce to crime or vice, or to cause a
breach with a friendly power, or a breach of the peace.

The

A theatre may be defined with sufficient accuracy for the present purpose as a building in which a stage play is performed for hire. It will be seen from the following sketch of the law that there are a considerable number of different persons, corporate and unincorporate, with jurisdiction over theatres. A consolidation of the law and the placing of jurisdiction in the hands of a central authority for the United Kingdom would probably be convenient. committee of 1866 recommended the transfer to the lord chamberlain of the regulation of all places of amusement, and an appeal from him to the home secretary in certain cases, as also the extension of his authority to preventive censorship in all public entertainments; but no legislation resulted. The committee of 1909 It was probably through his influence that the expletives in Shakespeare were edited. The quarto of 1622 contains more than the folio of 1623

stage

The

recommended the abolition of any distinction between theatres and
music-halls. Several bills for the amendment of the law have been
introduced, but without success in the face of more burning political
questions.2
Building-A theatre (at any rate to make it such, a building
as can be licensed) must be a permanent building, not a mere tert
of the act of 1843. It must, if in the metropolis, conform to the
or booth, unless when licensed by justices at a lawful fair by § 23
regulations as to structure contained in the Metropolis Management
Act 1878, and the Local Government Act 1888. These acts make
a certificate of structural fitness from the county council necessary
superficial area of not less than 500 sq. ft. licensed after the passing
as a condition precedent for licence in the case of all theatres of a
of the act, give power to the council in certain cases to call upon
proprietors of existing theatres to remedy structural defects, and
enable it to make regulations for protection from fire. The existing
regulations were issued on the 30th of July 1901 and 25th of March
1902. As to theatres in provincial towns, the Towns Improve-
ment Act 1847, and the Public Health Act 1875, confer certain
limited powers over the building on municipal corporations and
urban sanitary authorities. In many towns, however, the struc
tural qualifications of buildings used as theatres depend upon local
acts and the by-laws made under the powers of such acts.
Performance. To constitute a building where a performance
takes place a theatre, the performance must be (a) of a stage-play,
and (b) for hire. (a) By § 23 of the act of 1843 the word
play "includes tragedy, comedy, farce, opera, burletta, interlude.
melodrama, pantomime or other entertainment of the stage, or
any part thereof. The two tests of a stage-play appear to be the
excitement of emotion and the representation of action.
question whether a performance is a stage-play or not seems to be
one of degree, and one rather of fact than of law. A ballet d'action
ballet divertissement. § 14 empowers the lord chamberlain to forbid
would usually be a stage-play, but it would be otherwise with a
the acting of any stage-play in Great Britain whenever he may
be of opinion that it is fitting for the preservation of good manners,
decorum, or the public peace to do so. 15 imposes a penalty
such inhibition, and avoids the licence of the theatre where it
of £50 on any one acting or presenting a play or part of a play after
appears. Regulations of police respecting the performance are
contained in 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, and in many local acts.
A per-
formance may also be proceeded against as a nuisance at common
law, if, for instance, it be contra bonos mores or draw together a
great concourse of vehicles, or if so much noise be heard in the
neighbourhood as to interfere with the ordinary occupations of
life. Very curious instances of proceedings at common law are
recorded. In Sir Anthony Ashley's case (2 Rolle's Rep. 109).
1615, players were indicted for riot and unlawful assembly. In
1700 the grand jury of Middlesex presented the two play-houses
and also the bear-garden on Bankside (the Paris garden " of
Henry VIII. act v. sc. 3) as riotous and disorderly nuisances. Per-
formances on Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas day are illegal.
Regulations as to the sale of intoxicating liquors during the per-
formance are made by the licensing acts and other public general
acts, as well as by local acts and rules made by county courcils.
It is frequently a condition of the licence granted to provincial
theatres that no excisable liquors shall be sold or consumed on the
according to the annual value of the theatre up to a maximum
premises. The excise duty where such liquors are sold varies
of £20. The Dangerous Performances Acts, 1879 and 1897, forbid
under a penalty of £10 any public exhibition or performance
whereby the life or limbs of a child under the age of sixteen if a
boy, eighteen if a girl, shall be endangered. It also makes the
employer of any such child indictable for assault where an accident
causing actual bodily harm has happened to the child, and enables
the court on conviction of the employer to order him to pay the
child compensation not exceeding £20. The Prevention of Cruelty
to Children Act 1904 forbids a child to appear in any public enter
tainment without a licence from a petty sessional court. (b) The
performance must be for hire. § 16 of the act of 1843 makes a
building one in which acting for hire takes place, not only where
money is taken directly or indirectly, but also where the purchase
of any article is a condition of admission, and where a play is per-
formed in a place in which excisable liquor is sold. In the case of
Shelley v. Bethell, 1883 (Law Reports, 12 Q.B.D. 11), it was held
that the proprietor of a private theatre was liable to penalties
under the act, though he lent the theatre gratuitously, because
tickets of admission were sold in aid of a charity.

Licensing of Building.-By § 2 of the act of 1843 all theatres (other than patent theatres) must be licensed. By $7 no licenc

earl of Dorset, lord chamberlain) still describe the duties of the Dryden's words in the "Essay on Satire" (addressed to the office. "As lord chamberlain I know you are absolute by your office in all that belongs to the decency and good manners of the stage. You can banish from thence scurrility and profaneness, and restrain the licentious insolence of poets and their actors in al things that shock the public quiet or the reputation of private persons under the notion of humour."