ABSTRACT
Earlier chapters have indicated difficulties with the state of Restoration theatre scholarship, particularly that relating to the early period marked by scenic production at LIF (1661-74) and Bridges Street (1664-72). For the most part, these difficulties arise from the assumption or application of inappropriate models of theatrical staging. These may be specific, as in the cases of Langhans and Visser or, more often, vague and generic – typified by reference to (or implicit assumption of ) a universal Restoration stage – but all are partly or wholly influenced by the sectional drawing of a playhouse ascribed to Wren. Stage directions in early Restoration plays, however, do not necessarily fit such models and if we adopt them to analyse the dramaturgy of the plays it is difficult to escape the conclusion that they are clumsy or maladroit, because they do not exploit the apparent facilities at their disposal. In a classic example of circular reasoning, commentators have used theatrical models that may have some relevance to later Restoration plays to prove that the early plays are less theatrically interesting, which also of course neatly fits prior evaluations of literary worth. Clearly we need to set aside the Wren drawing and investigate a new model that does full justice to these plays. While the drawing is ubiquitous for a reason – there are no drawings of any public stage in the period – there are, however, well preserved drawings of a Restoration Court stage built specifically to accommodate plays produced by the two patent companies, namely the 1665 Hall Theatre designed by John Webb for theatre production at Whitehall (Figures 1.19-1.20). Several early Restoration plays were staged there, including Tuke’s The Adventures of Five Hours. A possible relation of Webb’s drawings to the LIF stage has been suggested before, but no one has thoroughly tested the idea, and that is the aim here.1
