The word ‘puritan’ has become synonymous with frugality and stringent morals, which is not far from its connotations in the 17th century. Originally a contemptuous term, it became the name of the reformist group that derived from the Church of England in the 1500s. Unhappy with the remnant aspects of Catholicism within the new protestant church, they sought to completely reform and ‘purify’ religion in England, and by the mid 17th century, had become an established religious denomination within the English gentry and middle-classes. The Puritans gradually became more dominant in parliament, demanding better representation of the people and more effective social change. This essentially pitted them against King Charles I and led to the English Civil War, which resulted in the end of the monarchy and the start of the English Interregnum. In 1642 under the Long Parliament, the Puritans pushed through a ban of theatre. The ban was strengthened by a further Act in 1648, and it wasn’t lifted until the Restoration in 1660. Like other major historic events, this is multi-faceted. The contrasts between Puritan ideology and the purpose and realities of the theatre and the nature of Stuart society strongly suggest that moral factors played a significant role in the ban. However, upon consideration of wider society, the power of theatre can clearly be seen. As can its heavy associations with both the Tudor and the Stuart courts. This leads to the question; ‘To what extent was the Puritan ban of theatre and political obstruction rather than a moral intervention?” In order to successfully judge this question criteria must be established
Oppression under Charles I was a cause of the Civil War. However there was also great oppression under Cromwell
Oppression theatre
There can be no doubt that the strict moral principles of the Puritans played a significant role in their decision to ban the theatre. A difference in the Puritan denomination was the belief in the Old Testament (which testaments were followed by the Church of England and the Catholic Church?). It tells the story of Adam and Eve, who condemned humanity to bear the Eternal Sin by giving into temptation, and God punished mankind with pain, illness and separation from Him. To the Puritans the Original Sin meant total depravity, and that all people were disposed to sin and temptation. Although they believed total absolution from the Original Sin was not possible, they disapproved of “pointless enjoyment” and lived prudently to avoid sin. Temptation lay everywhere, from drinking to wearing colourful clothing and makeup, and Sunday was to be used only for prayer. The contrasts between their strict ideology and the reality of Stuart society is stark, and it is not difficult to understand why they were averse to the theatre. To begin with, the theatre was an incredibly popular pastime. In 1600 London had a population of around 250,000 of which an estimated 20,00 people visited the theatre each week . Furthermore, for the admittance cost of 1 penny for the cheapest seats, the theatre could be enjoyed by men and women from all strata of society. The pit was the cheapest part of the theatre where the poor would stand, and often fall down drunk, and the floor was covered in straw to soak up any bodily fluids they expelled . Furthermore, the location of theatres gave them an even worse reputation. The Globe, the Rose and The Swan theatres were located on the south bank of the Thames, outside the city boundaries and the reaches of its jurisdictions. Taverns, bear-baiting pits and brothels surrounded them, and prostitutes would wait around outside to attract customers from the audiences, perhaps offering the most obvious of temptations that Puritans were fearful of. Furthermore, the contents of the plays themselves were becoming increasingly secular in nature,
William Prynne, a politician and leading Puritan in the first half of the 17th century wrote a scathing review of theatre and actors in his critique ‘Histriomastix’ in the 1630s. In his paper ‘Puritan Hostility to the Theatre’, published in a volume of the journal ‘Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society’ historian Edmund S. Morgan gives a brief summary of part of Prynne’s argument;
“It was not a suitable recreation for either actors or audience, because it did not fulfill the functions of recreation. In the Puritan view recreation was supposed to benefit the participant by enabling him to return to his work refreshed and invigorated in body and mind. A play engaged a man too deeply, so that it left him exhausted…and effeminate.” .
So whilst the Puritans disapproved of “pointless enjoyment”, they understood the necessity of recreation for stimulation. Morgan further elaborates by directly quoting Prynne’s list of acceptable activities;
“Walking, riding, fishing, fowling, hawking, hunting, ringing, leaping, vaulting, wrestling, running, shooting, singing of Psalmes and pious Ditties; playing upon musical instruments, casting of the Barre, tossing the Pike, riding of the great Horse (an exercise fit for men of quality), running at the ring, with a world of such like lawdable, cheape and harmlesse exercises”
These physical activities were supposed to refresh a man in mind and in body. It seems, then, that for the Puritans a ‘recreation’ was primarily about physical refreshment to allow them to continue with their work, rather than for any personal pleasure or amusement. Perhaps this sort of recreation would have been considered as “pointless” because it meant self-indulgence. The theatre, then, was not considered “harmlesse”, and instead a powerful apparatus which left men drained and unfit for work. Today the purpose of theatre is broadly to send a strong message to an audience by engaging them emotionally, and to leave them with an opinion, at least, on what they have seen. This gives some weight to Prynne’s argument, and suggests that any emotional connection or deep thought should be reserved for prayer and for God.
Despite their own radical ideas and want for reform, Prynne’s criticism of effeminate men is described by Morgan as a cry for the “good old days when men were men”. Morgan further substantiates this argument by quoting Gosson, another leading Puritan, who laments;
“Our wrestling at armes, is turned to wallowing in Ladies’ lappes, our courage to cowardice, our running to riot, our bowes into bolles, and our dartes into dishes. We have robbed Greece of gluttony, Italy of wantonnes, Spayne of pride, France of deceite, and Dutchland of quaffing”
These two Puritan writers condemn the changing values of an increasingly liberal society. This criticism of change seems ironic considering that the Puritans themselves were considered so radical and wanted to bring about their own alterations to society, albeit in the opposite direction of conservatism.
There was growing pressure from an “anti-theatrical movement” who were opposed to the