Pages

31 July 2013

Elizabethan Theatre IV: Private Theatres, Design Elements, Actors and Audiences...and the Court Masque



Most scholars consider private theatres quite similar to the public theatres in terms of stage and scenic elements. The King’s Men,
 for example, after 1609 played the same plays in each space, depending on time of year.  But there were quite a few differences twixt public and private as well.  First, the private theatres were indoor spaces and were much smaller in terms of audience space. They probably sat only about 500.  But since ticket prices STARTED at sixpence and a private box could cost as much as 46 pennies, there was more money to be made in private houses than in public theatres.  By the way, in the private theatres fops and gallants were allowed to buy stage seats.  They paid sixpence and up for the honor, and paid an extra sixpence to rent a stool, which they brought onto the stage as ostentatiously as possible, preferably just before the play began, then sat on the sides of the stage, probably enjoying being seen more than enjoying the play, and probably blocking the view from expensive boxes on the sides of the stage! 

As the private theatres were indoors, they had to be artificially lit, by candles. While plays at public theatres ran without
intermission, it was necessary to create intermissions in private houses, as the candle wicks had to be trimmed regularly.  There were two galleries around three quarters of the stage, some of which were divided into boxes; and there was the pit, as well, but with a difference.  Instead of standing room only, there were rows of backless benches, and seats in the rows near the stage were among the highest priced in the theatre.  The stage was very like that of a public theatre, with some sort of second level, some sort of discovery space, a trap, two doors on the back wall for entrances and exits.
        
Another very important difference was the location of the private theatres. Unlike the public theatres, which had to be located 
outside the city’s boundaries, the private theatres were located IN the city of London, in spite of constant complaints and railing from town officials like the Lord Mayor wanted all the theatres closed, attacking them as gathering places for “all vagrant persons and masterless men that hang about the city, thieves, horse stealers, whoremongers, cozeners, coneycatchers, practicers of treason and other such like;” and from other concerned citizens, who asked: “do [theatres] not induce whoredom and uncleanness, and renew the remembrance of heathen idolatry? Nay, are they not plain devourers of maidenly virginity and chastity...?” 
        
With all this ill feeling from the mayor and his friends, how did private theatres get to locate in the city?  Well, they were built in areas called “liberties,” lands that had been used for Catholic
As close as we can get to an exact location for 
Blackfriars Playhouse, in the heart of the City of London 
 monasteries before Henry VIII confiscated them in 1539.  In Elizabeth’s day the crown was much friendlier to the theatre than was the increasingly Puritanical moral majority.  Two principal liberties in London were named Blackfriars and Whitefriars, for the orders of monks who lived there before the confiscation.  The first theatre in Blackfriars was built in 1576, the same year that The Theatre opened its doors, and the occupants were a company of schoolboys, who performed school plays, and enjoyed amateur status.  Theatre done in schools for educational purposes was often condoned in places that condemned professional theatre.  These boys’ troupes became very popular (and lucrative for the adults who ran them!), often competing successfully against the adult troupes. 
        
In 1596, James Burbage wanted a piece of this indoor action, and bought at great expense the Blackfriars space, built a new, 2nd Blackfriars theatre, and prepared to open.  But the Lord Chamberlain’s Men were not allowed to play there. Many powerful people lived in that area and petitioned the crown that liberty or not, professional actors and the undesirables they brought into a theatre had no place in this part of town...very ironically, one of the men who signed the petition was the Lord Chamberlain!  Some scholars think that Burbage never recovered from this, and in fact he died in less than a year.  He willed the space to his sons, and all they could do with it was lease it to a boys’ company. 
        
Andrew Gurr, one of the most respected and knowledgeable recent scholars of Shakespearean production, is convinced that it was in the indoor Blackfriars that Burbage planned to make the kind of money he realized he could with an indoor theatre, and that the Globe was an afterthought.  Indeed, it became pretty clear after the adult troupes were finally allowed to play inside the city, in 1610, that the shareholders of the King’s men much preferred the indoor theatre, where they were able to make over double what they made outdoors.  After 1610 they usually played from mid-October to mid-May at Blackfriars and only in the summer months back at the Globe.  Soon after, other adult companies acquired private theatres, including the Cockpit at Drury lane and the Cockpit at Court.  So a trend towards indoor theatres in England begins with the Jacobean era.   

Let’s now look at scenery, costumes, audiences and actors.  We know a good bit about set pieces that could be thrust out, lowered or raised onto the main stage in a public or private theatre from the
 account books of the Master of Revels, who noted what scenery was needed whenever plays were performed at court, and from Philip Henslowe’s meticulous records, As you read the main items from Henslowe’s notes, keep in mind that the idea of scenery was much as it had been in medieval English theatre:  mansion and platea, set pieces emblematic rather than specific (chair = throne, for example) and playing space established around a mansion. Establishing a platea would be particularly important, for example, when two armies occupied the same stage.  With that in mind, here is a selection from Henslowe’s inventory of set pieces:

3 trees
2 mossy banks
2 tombs
2 steeples
a hell-mouth
a chariot
a bed
a painted cloth showing Rome   

Another important source of scenery is the text, in two senses:  first, a close reading of the text tells us what an actor needs to have: I love this example from Midsummer: “all I know is this bush is my bush, this lantern is my lantern, and this dog...is my dog!” And second, much of the scenic effect in Shakespeare comes from what we call “spoken decor:” as in ancient Greece the words tell us where we are and sometimes when we are there. A group of actors walks out onto a bare stage and one says, “This castle hath a pleasant seat.”  We know where we are.  Hamlet walks out into the afternoon sun, and says, “’Tis now the very witching hour of night.” We know what time it is.
   
Costumes? Contemporary Elizabethan dress, for the most part, sometimes bought, sometimes handed down from nobles.  But there were special costumes.


1) In ancient plays, usually Roman or Greek, a piece of ancient-style garment was laid over an other wise Elizabethan outfit; there’s an interesting example of this in Henry Peacham’s 1595 drawing of costumes for what is almost surely Titus Andronicus
2) Characters from English tradition, such as Robin Hood, could be identified by special outfits.
3) Fanciful garments might be worn by ghosts and especially fairies and sprites.
4) Racial costumes to indicate Turks and Jews; for example, Shylock speaks of his “Jewish gabardine” and he also wore an oversize, hooked nose.
   
Elizabethan audiences came from all classes to these theatres, and they came in droves.  A study indicates that during the height of the outdoor theatres approximately 21,000 people a week attended the theatre, from an overall London population, or about 1 in 8, a rate, claims scholar Bamber Gascoigne, not equalled except in London’s cinema houses between WWI and WWII. 


And there were all kinds among those classes.  We’ve mentioned the gallants showing off their large plumed hats on stage. At the other end of the economic scale were the “groundlings” who paid one penny to stand in the yard. By the way it was tremendously fashionable to smoke tobacco in this era, and you can bet there was a lot of pipe smoking going on. That at least that would have covered some of the less pleasant smells at the playhouse, one hopes. Perhaps the groundlings got it right, as they stood under the open sky and may have been able to breathe more freely than those in more expensive seats. We know from the Lord Mayor and others that the theatres presented an opportunity for thieves and whores as well, but of course he and his faction loathed the theatre.
   
There were two kinds of acting companies operating, exemplified by the two most important troupes working in London at that time.
The Lord Chamberlain’s men, the company of Shakespeare and the sons of James Burbage, Richard (the lead actor) and Cuthbert, was run on a sharing system. Five or six of the actors became shareholders in the business. In addition to the roles they played, they “shared” various management responsibilities.  They also took “shares” of the profits, and became rather wealthy men.  This core company hired other actors at set salaries, called “hirelings” who received decent wages but never shared profits. The company also made use of apprentices, young boys, who were trained by older actors to play, most usually, women’s roles.  After Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, her successor King James I, took over the protection of this acting company, and it became known as the King’s Men.
        
The prime rival of the Lord Chamberlain’s men was the Lord Admiral’s men, and that troupe was run differently. One man, Philip Henslowe, produced the plays and pocketed the profits.  He paid all his actors, and one at least (Edward Alleyn, the company’s star and the original Faustus) was paid very well.



The Stuart Court Masque

Court masques were quite popular during the reign of Henry VIII, less so under Elizabeth. But in 1603, when James I, the first Stuart king, James I, came to the throne, masques were played frequently and in ever increasing splendor. Under James one masque per year was presented at court, and under his successor Charles I, two per year.
        
The idea of the masque was to dazzle, but also to show an idealized vision of monarchy.  The plots are allegories with the king at the center, usually depicted as a mythological figure that brings order out of disorder.  Woven into the allegorical plot were grand masquing dances, usually three of them, performed by groups of dancers of a single sex, except in the case of even more elaborate “double masques,” which featured equally balanced groups of men and women.  Each dancer was accompanied by a torchbearer, and in the masques the torchbearers occasionally performed a dance of their own.
        
Masques were expensive.  In 1618, James I spent 4,000 pounds on one masque alone. To put this in context, that amount was more than all the money spent on all the plays by companies brought to court during his entire reign!  In 1634, a masque called The Triumph of Peace cost 21,000 pounds!  Part of this money went to the writer, and given all the money to be made, writers vied ardently to compose court masques.  The primary writer was Ben
 Jonson, but he quit in a huff in 1631 after a dispute with Inigo Jones, the man who designed the Stuart court masques.  Jonson left because at the center of the masque were music and spectacle, with just enough dialogue to hold the action together. The most important story elements were not spoken but danced, and danced by courtiers.  It was considered proper, even elegant, for
 courtiers to dance, and they spent a lot of time learning the current favorites.  The dialogue of the masque was spoken by professional actors, because no proper courtier would stoop to ACT!  Dance, yes, but to insinuate that a courtier was anything like those scandalous professional actors!  It wasn’t done!  The visual is paramount in the masque, offered in the grand dances and in the lavish costumes and scenery provided by Jones and others.  No wonder Jonson, a major egotist, was miffed – his words were being upstaged by scenery!

        
Many of the masques were performed in the banqueting hall of Whitehall Palace.  Inigo Jones designed the building himself, as well as the masques that were played there.  In his designs, Jones
introduced the Italian scenic methods into England.  He’d studied extensively in Italy where he learned to use temporary proscenium arches, with angled wings, periaktoi, and eventually flat wings nested and placed in grooves to dazzle the audience with scene shifts.  Jones learned all this from Giulio Parigi (whom I hope you’ll remember from the Italian Renaissance), and in fact copied many of the Italian’s designs for the English masques.   Jones also provided machines (like Sabbattini’s in Renaissance Italy) that flew mythological figures in on cloud machines.
        
The culmination of Jones’s scenic efforts was the masque Salmacida Spolia, designed in 1640, with a text by William Davenant (a rising young writer who would become one of the
 most important men in English theatre when the king was restored in 1660).  This masque marks the first time we can document the wing and groove system in England, but remember for reference that the more sophisticated chariot and pole system was already being used in Italy and France.  It was Jones’s wing and groove system that would prove the victor over the old style mansion and platea staging of the outdoor public theatres, when the theatres re-opened in the Restoration.
   
To give an idea of what a masque might entail, here’s a brief description of the major action in Salmacida Spolia:

Discord, a malicious fury, appears in a storm, and by the invocation of malignant spirits endeavors to disturb England; but the malignant spirits are surprised by a secret power, Wisdom (in the person of the king and attended by his nobles; then the queen and her ladies are sent down (via machine) from heaven and reward Wisdom because he reduced the storm that threatened into a wonderful (and scenically splendiferous!) calm.

Ironically, just two years after this lavish production, the Puritans dispersed the king’s “calm,” threw him out of office, and then 
executed him in 1649. He was beheaded, ironically enough on a scaffold set up at the banqueting house. During the nasty civil war during this time, Puritand and parliament destroyed most of the theatres as well.  But the king’s son was safe abroad and in 1660 would be restored to the throne as Charles II. But more of that later!

29 July 2013

Elizabethan Theatre III: Other writers of the Era and Public Theatres



We spent a lot of time on Shakespeare last lecture, but while he is the most important he was hardly the only dramatist working at this time.  There was in fact a lot of competition in London.  The University Wits preceded Shakespeare and one man could have become Shakespeare’s chief rival, had he lived – Christopher Marlowe.
           
Ben Jonson is Shakespeare’s most famous contemporary, and is still regarded as one of the “big three” of Elizabethan playwrights
 (along with Marlowe and Shakespeare).  Jonson wrote poetic tragedy based on classical models that failed on the stage, though Sejanus (1603) and Catiline (1611) were respected for their poetry.  He’s much more important for his comedy, much of which is called “humours” comedy, because he relied on character types based on medical science of the day, the four bodily humours (blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile). Since the days of ancient Greece it was thought that a person is healthy when these four fluids were in proper balance in one’s body...but!  When you’ve got too much of one running through you it can affect not only your health but also (and for Jonson more importantly) your character. Too much blood? it rushes to your head and makes you act too quickly and rashly – like Hotspur. Too much phlegm? it can slow you down, make you lazy, slothful – like Falstaff (note that Jonson wasn’t the ONLY writer who made use of humours). Too much yellow bile?  It makes you irritable and cranky – any number of old father types – like Shylock. Too much black bile?  It makes you melancholy – like Hamlet, Orsino, Jaques. These humours focus on a single trait in a character, and are thus a variation on stock characters. 

Jonson gave us a vast array of humours characters in Every Man in his Humour (1598) and he mixed humours comedy with a prototype of the comedy of manners (a comedy that critiques a given era by lampooning people, often wealthy people, of the era). 
Another popular play, still frequently produced today is The Alchemist, but Jonson’s best-known play Volpone (1606). Volpone pretends to be dying in order to trick the “vultures” that are trying to get his fortune when he passes away.  The different characters exhibit “humourous” behavior, but Jonson also makes each of them like an animal. One of them, for example, is named Corvo, for crow, and like a crow he waits for something to die and then picks at it. Volpone is a fox – sly, but not sly enough for his assistant Mosca, the fly, who tricks his trickster master in the end.  Volpone, by the way, was updated to the gold rush days in The Sly Fox, written in the early 70s by Larry Gelbart. It enjoyed a long run and both George C. Scott and Robert Preston played the lead.
        
Jonson’s ego landed him in jail on occasion, but also spurred him to publish his plays, unusual at the time, but not any more!  He also had a temper. He once killed an actor in a duel.  He was an important poet, smart and eloquent, and he was the first poet to be given a royal stipend for life, which made him the first “poet laureate” of England.  We’ll get back to Ben when we talk about the Stuart court masques, for which he was the primary writer.
        
Thomas Middleton began as a writer of clever comedies, such as A Chaste Maid in Cheapside.  He also wrote a play called The Witch
Over the top Young Vic Production of
The Changeling, 2011
probably the best way to approach the play today
which some scholars say is where Act III scene 5 of Macbeth (a scene that most scholars say was NOT written by Shakespeare) comes from.  But Middleton is mainly known for his later writings with William Rowley.  The Changeling (1622) is one of the darkest of tragedies, in which Beatrice meets up with a great over-reaching villain named De Flores -- true to his name, he “de-flowers” her and murders her lover, which drives her to the depths of madness.
        
This dark, rather ugly sort of tragedy, in which it is difficult to find anyone with morals or goodness, is the product of the Jacobean (1603-1625) and Caroline (1625-1642) periods.  King James I and King Charles I, from the house of Stuart, ascended the throne and proceeded to alienate most of the kingdom, especially the parliament and the Puritans.  Some scholars argue that much of the dramatic writing during the reigns of these two monarchs reflects increasingly unhappy time for England, and that the style becomes
 more sensational and melodramatic than tragic. John Fletcher and Francis Beaumont wrote as a team at this time whose plays were nearly unbeatable and highly popular.  They collaborated on The Maid’s Tragedy and A King and No King, in which an incestuous story of a brother and sister in love is happily ended when it’s discovered that they’re not really related.  Fletcher worked alone at times, and at the Globe he was the rising writing star as Shakespeare moved towards retirement.  He collaborated with Shakespeare on The Two Noble Kinsman and Henry VIII in 1613.
   
Perhaps the finest Jacobean tragedian was John Webster, who
John Webster, hangs in the National Portrait Gallery
 wrote some very dark but well crafted plays, The White Devil (1609-12) and The Duchess of Malfi (1613-14), in which the duchess’s brother is so in love with her that he kills her lover, has her killed, and devolves into a lycanth – a wolfman.  His other brother, a cardinal, is equally as corrupt.  The Duchess of Malfi is one of the most frequently revived plays from this period, other of course than Shakespeare’s.

  

John Ford’s Caroline play ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore (1629-33) features yet another brother/sister incest relationship – and they live in the midst of such a dark, corrupt world, that by comparison they’re the only slightly sympathetic characters in the play. 
   
Philip Massinger exemplifies the sensational and melodramatic in plays such as his A New Way to Pay Old Debts (1621-22). The main character, Sir Giles Overreach, was a role that major actors placed in their repertoires well into the 19th century.  Massinger was the leading dramatist of the King’s Men after Fletcher.
        
Massinger himself was succeeded in the King’s Men by James Shirley, who wrote some dark tragedies, such as The Cardinal (1641), but who was better known for his comedies about fashionable London society, such as Hyde Park (1623) and The Lady of Pleasure (1635).  These plays were forerunners of the comedies of manners that would become the major form when the theatres re-opened during the English Restoration.

The Theatres
  
      
While there is a good supply of evidence available concerning the Elizabethan theatres, much about them remains conjectural.  And as new discoveries are made, old theories give way, but not always easily. There have been many discoveries recently, very importantly the foundations of the Rose theatre and a bit of the Globe foundation, less than 15 years ago, and more recently still the foundation of the first public theatre, The Theatre. 


        
There were two basic kinds of theatre in Elizabethan England: public, including the three noted above, and private.  Public theatres were open-air, private theatres were indoor. No one was barred from the so-called private theatres, but the price of admission for them was so much higher than at the public theatres that poor citizens were automatically excluded.
        
How did the public theatres evolve?  It used to be thought that the yards of inns were the prototype, and there is no doubt that some inns were used on occasion.  An open courtyard was enclosed on
 three sides by the inn itself.  If you put a platform in the yard, you’d have a stage, places for people to stand, and also 2 or 3 levels of balconies on the inn itself, from which the play could be seen.  An inn called the Red Lion was used regularly for performances and has been called the first public theatre, though that appellation should probably be saved for purpose-built spaces. The George Inn, on the South Bank not far from the site of the Globe, is the only inn that remains from this period. You can have a fine ale there while you debate whether it’s a good model or not.
        
Another prototype was a circular arena with galleries built into it, used for the most popular sports of the day – grisly blood sports,
The South Bank, showing bull and bear-baiting arenas
 like bull and bear baiting. Place a wooden platform against one part of the arena wall, and an audience could see from the galleries, while more could stand in the arena. The most recent theories have argued that the first purpose-built theatres were attempts to reconstruct a Roman theatre.  There’s evidence for the first two prototypes as well, so I leave the rather dry academic debate to scholars.
        
The first important purpose-built theatre, called, as luck would have it The Theatre, was built to the northeast of the city in an area known as Shoreditch, on a major road into town in 1576 by John Brayne and a partner named James Burbage.  Shortly after The Theatre began its business, other theatres began to spring up, either not far from The Theatre in the north of the city, or just across the river Thames, south of the city proper. Several of these spaces are important for several reasons:

The Theatre, for being the first.  It lasted from 1576 to 1598, and when it was torn down, its timbers were used to build the Globe; also, one of its builders, James Burbage, had two sons, Richard and Cuthbert, who were among the shareholders of the Globe, along with Shakespeare. In 2008 the remains of The Theatre were found while workers were digging the foundations for guess what? A new theatre!

The Curtain (1577 - c.1627) was built shortly after the Theatre, not far from it, probably as its competitor; it is said that Shakespeare may have acted here during his early days in London.  In 2012 remains of this theatre were also found, and as of early 2013 it is hoped that an amphitheatre will be constructed above these remains. Below the ground a museum exhibiting the remains will also be built.


The Rose (1587 - c.1606) was the first theatre on the South Bank, built by Philip Henslowe, who produced plays for the Lord Admiral’s Men, which company  became the chief competitor of 
The Rose site is open for occasional performances
and on Saturdays throughout the year
Shakespeare’s.  Edward Alleyn was one of the most popular actors of the day, and probably played the lead in Dr. Faustus here.  Henslowe kept assiduous records, including lists of properties, which has been helpful in understanding Elizabethan staging.  Perhaps most importantly, the foundations of the Rose were rediscovered in a 1989 excavation for a new building.  Despite major protests, the building was finished, but the foundations have been preserved and protected, and can be seen today, in an underground chamber of the new building.

The Swan (1595-c. 1632) is the only theatre for which there exists a copy of a contemporary sketch of the interior.  Although this picture has been much debated, it’s tremendously important.  It seems a visitor to London, the Dutchman Johannes deWitt, sketched the interior in 1596, and also described it in a note.  His friend Arend von Buchell did not get to go to London, but made copy of the drawing.  DeWitt’s sketch was not found, but Von Buchell’s copy was in 1888.


The Globe (1599-1613, 1613-1644) was the home of the most famous group of Elizabethan actors, the Lord Chamberlain’s men, and later The King’s men.  Built from the timbers of The Theatre, it lasted until 1613, when it was burnt during a performance of Henry VIII, when the thatch roof was ignited by the sparks from a 
ceremonial cannon used in the play.  A report by a person who attended the performance gives us relief and also a bit of humor:  even though the roof was lit afire in Act I scene iv and it took less than an hour for the theatre burn to the ground, “nothing did perish but wood and straw, and a few forsaken cloaks; only one man had his breeches set on fire, that would perhaps have broiled him, if he had not, by the benefit of a provident wit, put it out with bottle ale.”  The first Globe was replaced by a second, which lasted until all the theatres were torn down.  In 1989 a small portion of the Globe foundation was found.  In order to unearth more of this important landmark another historically important building, an eighteenth century row house, would have to have been destroyed, and so it remains buried.

The Fortune (1600-1621, 1621-1661) Henslowe built this theatre too, as direct competition for the Globe, north of the city.  Uniquely, a building contract exists for it, which among other things lets us know that unlike nearly all the other theatres, it was not polygonal, but rectangular.


The Hope (1613-1617) a building contract also exists for this theatre, along with some specifications.  The stage was built on trestles, so it could be removed, we learn from the contract, as theatrical performances alternated at the Hope with bear baiting. Apparently the baiting was more popular than theatre at the Hope. 
There were other public theatres as well, but these briefly described are the most important.

       
The shape of the Elizabethan public theatre building was usually polygonal (so looked round, like a “wooden O”). The Rose, thanks to the discovery of the foundations, was found to have 14 sides.
The audience areas consisted of 3 levels of galleries around the building.  At the first level adjacent to the stage, and on the level above the stage itself were “gentlemen’s” or “Lords’ rooms;” they were the most expensive seats (from 3 to 6 pence each), and were divided into private boxes. The rest of the galleries were undivided, with benches for seats, which cost  twopence each.  
Three "groundlings" at the Globe Fall 2011
Anna Rothfus, Anna Barth, Kaylyn Syvret
all from the IC class of 2013
The cheapest “seats” were not seats at all -- for one penny you could be a "groundling" and stand in the yard.  The larger Elizabethan theatres seated and stood approximately 3000. Smaller theatres like the Rose (the ‘89 discovery made scholars aware that you could fit the entire Rose theatre inside the Globe [snugly]),  seated/stood significantly fewer. Galleries and stage were covered by a roof. The roofing area over the stage was known as the shadow, or the heavens. The yard, however, was open to the skies – and the elements!

       
The audience in the yard stood around a wooden platform raised 4-6’ that thrust into the yard.  In the stage floor there was a trap door, for scenes leading to the underworld, or for disappearances, such as the witches and their cauldron in Macbeth.  At the stage level 
there were two doors for entrances and exits.  These doors led to the tiring (short for “attiring”) house, in which actors changed costumes and prepared, and in which set pieces and machinery were housed. 
   
On the 2nd level of the playing space, which housed the Lords’ rooms, there was also a playing space when it was needed, as in, to give the most obvious example, the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet
        
The level above the Lords’ rooms was a musician’s gallery; it was also used for special effects (such as the cannon that sounds in Henry VIII).  The entire stage was quite ornately painted (the heavens painted quite literally with the sun, moon, and signs of the zodiac). At the Swan for example, DeWitt (who also drew a sketch of the space) noted that the theatre was “magnificent” and that “ the wooden columns [were] painted in such excellent imitation of marble that it is able to deceive even the most cunning.” 
        
On the main stage there was some kind of “discovery space,” an area hotly debated by scholars of Elizabethan theatre.  There are several instances in which discoveries are called for plays of the period, one of the most famous in The Tempest, when in Act V “Ferdinand and Miranda are discovered playing at chess;” and in Hamlet, when Polonius is stabbed behind the arras; and Desdemona’s bed in Othello has to come from somewhere.  Other examples of beds pulled out onto the stage include Act V of Tis Pity She’s a Whore:  “Enter Giovanni and Annabella lying on a bed.”  And “a bed thrust out upon the stage; Allwit’s wife in it” occurs in the third act of Middleton’s play A Chaste Maid in Cheapside

But HOW were these discoveries revealed?  Theory after theory has been set forth and rejected – some scholars point to the Swan drawing and say that there was not a separate discovery space, but that when a discovery was made, or a bed or some other object thrust on the stage, one of the two doors was used for the entry. 
The 'inner above" and "inner below" at the Folger -
as you see, if you opened those curtains and played
scenes behind them not too many would be able to see them
Victorian scholars imagined an “inner below,” a small proscenium arch built into the upstage wall – they also theorized about an “inner above” on the second level of the stage, though not many of the patrons would have been able to see either. Others have argued that when called for a collapsible pavilion was set up center on the stage floor; if it were sturdy enough it might be used for Romeo and Juliet and other plays needing a second level.  Once again we’ll probably have certain proof in this matter, but that doesn’t keep the scholars from squabbling! 

Next time we'll finish the Elizabethan era by briefly examining prvate theatres, design aspects, audiences, companies and actors!