Lighting of the Baroque Theatres

Jennifer MacGregor

For: Peter Perina

THEA 4700

May 1, 2001

          Lighting specifically for the theatre came into effect in the Renaissance and was later refined during the Baroque era. There are many documents and pictures left behind that help piece together what the theatre going audience of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries observed, however some of them are partial and do not help to properly  portray the whole picture. The purpose of this paper is, through research and experiments, to shed some light on what it meant to illuminate the stages of the Baroque era.

          The Baroque era, like all other time periods, does not have exact, defined dates. Generally it can be said to encompass the 17^th and 18^th centuries for most of Europe. One aspect of the Baroque era that differs from the Renaissance is that most of the major European countries were “brought into the same orbit [and] . . . there was less cleavage of the sort which, during the sixteenth century, separated the English and Spanish and French playhouses from those of the Italian courts.”[1] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the work that characterizes the Baroque period has “the desire to evoke emotional states by appealing to the senses, often in dramatic ways.”[2] Nicoll states that the two endeavours which provided the foundation for the Baroque theatre were music and perspective.[3]

          This endeavour into music started with a group of artists and noblemen who formed a society known as the ‘Florentine Carmerata’ around the late 1500's. They  focused their attention toward the musical element of  Greek tragedies, and producing them with this element played a central role in the creation of a new type of spectacular performance. It was this experimentation along with the intermezzi’s  that were the parents of opera.  Nicoll also states that Guido Ubaldus’ work Perspectivae libri sex, published in 1600, was the first basic investigation into the laws of perspective that suggested a scenic method and opened up a new world of wonders.[4]  These two new aspects of the Baroque ushered in a new theatre intent on spectacle and music, one that appealed to the senses of an audience that was no longer limited to the upper class. More public playhouses were built and the Baroque era saw how the “prominent and powerful middle class came to play a role in art patronage.”[5] In Paris alone the number of theatres grew from three at the beginning of the 1700's to 51 by 1791.[6]

          The new emphasis on spectacle had its influence on theatre buildings built in the Baroque era. The new Baroque stages became much deeper than they were wide to allow scenes of infinite perspective. Many stages had some way of dividing the stage into two parts to create a separate front stage and an inner stage. More room was now made available in the heavens, beside the wings and under the stages for all of the stage machinery. A new system for changing the scenery, the chariot and pole system (brought in by Giacomo Torelli), allowed the increased number of wing flats to be changed into an entirely new scene in a matter of seconds. Because of the swiftness and ease of theses scene changes, fifteen to twenty scene changes could occur in one performance and  provide the spectacle Italian opera required. Gone were the limiting three classical scenes recreated by Serlio for tragedy, comedy and satire. To this new kind of theatre came hells and heavens, caves, groves, forests, harbours and streets. And with them came many a wonderful spectacle of hell fires blazing, lightning and thunder, and glory machines with the Gods descending from the heavens. Although evidence of similar spectacles can be found in Renaissance and even Medieval plays, it was the Baroque that encompassed and refined them. The Baroque had the ability and advanced machinery to make the spectacles happen. They became something of a requirement of shows: the “spectacle . . . dominated over all other considerations” of the performance.[7]

          The lighting of the Baroque era became more refined as well. In the words of Bergman, “It was only in the early 17^th century that a normalization of lighting technique began and they arrived at a system which would be normative for several centuries.”[8] New inventions and innovations were introduced into the theatre to create more control over the lighting . The innovations which Bergman cites in his book Lighting in the Theatre as coming into play are: turnable poles for the side lighting which make variations in the intensity possible, foot lights that can be raised or lowered to vary light intensity and detachable light boards that can be attached to wing trolleys or set pieces to make the lighting system flexible.[9] This allowed for a change from light to dark to happen on stage with a distinct ease.

          According to Bergman it was “[the] changes between illuminated, brilliant scenes and terrifying scenes with dimmed light in dusk or darkness belonged to the dramaturgy of the 17^th century opera.”[10] In his book he also shares a lighting change viewed by Nicodemus Tessin the Younger as described in his travel account of 1687 - 88. Tessin describes a scene he witnessed at the San Giovanni Grisostomo Theatre (Venice) where “‘the quite illuminated enchanted room was converted into a terrible cave, which was quite wonderful because of the extremes of two such different sets.’” Tessin describes the use of  turnable poles and the vertical movement of footlights at San Giovanni Grisostomo.[11]

          We  also have earlier descriptions of the dimming of lights from The Dialogues of Leone di Somi. In his dialogues (dated 1556) the character Veridico describes when he had to produce a tragedy that starts off on a happy strain and then ends with death and disasters. He explains how “[during] all the time when the episodes were happy in mood I had the stage brightly illuminated, but so soon as the first unhappy incident occurred . . . I contrived (by prearrangement, of course) that at that very instant most of the stage lights not used for the perspective were darkened or extinguished.”[12] Unfortunately di Somi does not give too much detail of what his prearrangement entailed, one might surmise that either the lights were extinguished or cylinders were dropped over the lamps to cover their light. It also might have been a combination of both. The dropping of cylinders or boxes of tin or black metal over lamps is described as a technique in Sabbattini’s Practica di Fabricar Scene e Machine ne’Teari (1638)[13] and Furttenbach’s Mannhaffter Kunstspiegel (1663).[14] 

          The exact origins of the turnable poles are not mentioned by Bergman in his  book but there is also reference in Book One of Nicola Sabbattini’s work of poles that were in the side wings specifically for lighting. Their  purpose was to create a placement for the lamps that would not touch the stage. This would keep the lamps firm and steady even when the dancing and tumbling made the stage shake.[15] Perhaps someone saw that the idea of turning the poles was a much easier and less awkward way to vary the light intensity.  The ease of these new systems is apparent: the changes in the stage  lighting were now swifter and could happen during the action of a performance without closing the curtain.

          With this new ability to easily change from light to dark there is no mention of specific control over different areas. There are only reports  of a difference between the inner stage and the front stage to show things like a hell mouth. Bergman  makes the statement that light was not synchronized with any movement of nature’s own light (sun or moon) and that “graduation of the intensity of light was the only thing possible.”[16] However, we do have Sabbattini to inform us that illumination that falls from one side of the scene will “have a finer appearance than by any of the other methods.” He then states that the way of presenting illumination from one side is through [the] painting of the scene and placing of the light.[17] It is not known if only illuminating the scene from one side was ever actually practiced but it may have been experimented with. I would be inclined to say that they did try out altering the idea; the period was known for its experimentation of the arts.

          The opinion of dimming the auditorium lights was varied throughout the Renaissance and Baroque periods. The concept of the darkened auditorium was held as sacred in Italy whereas France and England kept there auditoriums brightly lit. The best argument for the darkened auditoriums is given by the character Veridico in di Somi’s dialogues. One of the other characters points out that in Veridico’s auditorium there are only 12 standing candelabra when he recalls as many as 250 torches in the same hall. Veridico responds that it is a natural fact that a man who stands in the shade sees an illuminated, distant object much more clearly due to the fact that the sight can proceed more directly toward the object. Veridico’s companions agree with his logic and also point out two other advantages to the darkened auditorium: lower  amounts of smoke and lesser expenses.[18]

           From the works of Angelo Ingegneri we also have another advocate for the dimming of the auditorium lights, though he actually suggests dimming them before the curtain drops: “‘[the] darker the auditorium, the more luminous seems the stage.’”[19] We can see this convention of the darkened auditorium in Furttenbach’s account of a religious spectacle with he viewed at the Medici palace in 1608. There he talks about the beautiful perspective scene that took place “in a great hall completely closed and made dark.”[20] The convention of the darkened auditorium is a tradition that we still carry over into  today’s theatres.

          The advocates for the lightened auditorium felt the way they did because the theatre events were as much for the audience to see as to be seen; the auditorium lights were also thought to cast “a festive radiance on the stage of the Paris Opera.” Though there is mention by Tessin of the two foremost chandeliers in the auditorium being hoisted up at the start of a performance at the Palais Royal (1687),  Bergman points out that the rest of the auditorium lighting remained  for the duration of the performance. The chandeliers were only raised to give the boxes better sight lines. So in the Paris Opera houses  “[the] gold-shimmering light from all the crystal chandeliers and the lights of the stage wrapped actors and spectators into a common dream-world of mythology and heroic legend.”[21] It wasn’t until about 1800 that Paris thought about introducing a darkened auditorium.[22]

          It is Serlio who introduces us to the idea of transparent light, which he refers to as “artificial lights of translucent colors.”[23] It is here that we first see this idea of transparent light which, Bergman reminds us, plays an important  role in the lighting of the Baroque era.[24] The sole reason for the coloured bozze placed in front of the lights was purely an aesthetic consideration meant to dazzle spectators. There are often descriptions of how the sets of the Baroque era gave off such a brilliant light and looked as thought the stage was filled with thousands of jewels. At the wedding festival of Francesco de’ Medici to Joanna of Austria in 1565 we hear of coloured water lit from behind. [25] Transparent light wasn’t limited to just the precious jewel effect. It  was also used to show off the coat of arms at the top of the proscenium. Also Serlio introduces putting torches behind oiled papers placed in the windows to help give the scene life.[26]  The ideas of  coloured lights and especially transparent light are found in both the French Renaissance theatre (there called transparencies) and with Inigo Jones in England.[27]

          The method of having the source hidden started to take hold and eventually become a new way to place the lights in the theatre. Again di Somi logically explains the reason for this convention best with his character Veridico. He explains “that a brilliant light striking directly upon the eye for any length of time becomes exceedingly irritating.  . .  The shading of the lights [with transparent or coloured glasses] was devised to minimize the annoyance.”[28] Angelo Ingegneri again agrees with di Somi and states that concealed lights “enhance the charm of the performance.”[29] We can see, then, this logic of the hidden lights become convention in the Baroque theatres. Festival accounts of the Medici festivals in the late 1500's repeatedly state that the lighting sources were hidden from the eyes of the spectators.[30]  Furttenbach talks about hidden lights in practice at the Medici festival in 1608 in Florence. He explains that there were lights that were  hidden in the heavens creating a spectacle of riches and that “Several hundred oil lamps were so carefully placed that the actual lamps could not be seen, but their glow sent out such a light that it seemed to be day . . .”[31] He was obviously very impressed with this idea and carried it back to Germany with him. In “Recreational Architecture” (1640) he states the oil lamps within the scene are “all of course completely concealed.”[32]

          The advancement of stage scenery made the proscenium arch serve a dual purpose of framing the perspective picture and of concealing the stage machinery. It now also served the purpose of concealing the lights. We also have Sabbattini explaining that the parapet  was made higher than the stage for the purpose of hiding  oil lamps behind it.[33]

          The concealed light added to the wonder and comfort of the spectator. There were some, however,  who felt that there was not  as much light directly on the stage as a chandelier hung in the center would create.[34] There are accounts of travelling Frenchmen who visited the opera houses in Venice and  remarked that “the decor was poorly illuminated.” The difference noticed by the Frenchmen was probably due to the difference in the auditorium light (Paris opera auditorium was brightly lit while the Italian theatres, as previously discussed, were dark) and to the fact that the Italian stages were wider, making the distance to the center of the stage further than that of the narrower French stages.[35] The light of the candles drops considerably at great distances.[36]

            With an increase in the stage size and spectacle we also have an increase in lighting instruments and the placement of the lights became more of a science. Judith Milhous, in an article researching the paperwork from a dispute over the bills of a man, Hayling, who provided the lighting for the King’s Theatre in Haymarket, notes that there was a “trend is toward a very substantial increase in opera illumination. There were fifty percent more lights in 1781 than there had been six years earlier.”[37] Having more instruments became more functional with the increased control over the sources.

          Lights could now be found on all parts of the Baroque stage as “a practical lighting system well adapted to the requirements of the perspective scene.”[38] Live flame was the only source of light in the Baroque. The instruments that were used came in the forms of candles, lamps or torches. They were placed in all areas of the stage with varying purposes, and  most of them were now hidden from the eyes of the spectator. The works of Sabbattini and Furttenbach lend to us a detailed description of a well used system of lighting the stage and scenery in the 1630's.[39] Modifications were made on their designs further into the Baroque era, but their system gives us its’ origins.

          At the front of the stage footlights are now typical of the Baroque stage lighting. Furttenbach places these in his front pit which catches the curtain and Sabbattini places them behind the parapet at the front edge of the stage. In the King’s Theatre in Haymarket we there is an account of “Front Lights three Rows, 150 each” for a total of 450 lights downstage with a fourth row that could be added on special occasions.[40]  In France, Lavoisier (1781) tells us that the audiences themselves forced a shift from overhead chandeliers to footlights due to irritation.[41] In the later part of the Baroque era the footlights appear on a system that allowed them to be raised and lowered, as previously mentioned, making a variation in their intensity possible. We there are accounts of this system from Tessin at  San Giovanni Grisostomo in Venice and at the Palais Royal in Paris (1687 - 88). The footlights are most often talked about as being arranged using lamps with multiple wicks or more rarely, as with Furttenbach, with candles.

          For the lighting of the heavens (overhead) there is a wide range of techniques used. At San Giovanni Grisostomo, Tessin reports little overhead lighting. He talks of a batten which could be lowered to the stage for lighting and maintenance. The fact that he only mentions it in the singular implies that there was only one, which was possibly because of the great risk of fire of the overhead battens.[42] From Furttenbach, we have a more elaborate overhead lighting system. He gives diagrams of glass oil lamps (perhaps bozze?) attached to the backs of the arched cloud pieces. The placement is marked at three places vertically on each cloud piece, but he does not tell us how many are placed across each cloud. He remarks several times how these lights “[send] down a glow like day.”[43] There are other references in the French and English theatres of many brilliant lights  overhead.

          Sidelight also came in a few different forms. Of movable lighting there were turnable poles and detachable boards as mentioned at San Giovanni Grisostomo. Other theatres simply had poles that didn’t turn or there were rings which could be attached to boards on the scenery or behind the proscenium. At the court theatre in Krumlov in the Czech Republic, the light was attached to the scenery itself. At  Hayling in the King’s Theatre there  was a significant difference between stationary and removable lights.[44] The binding feature of all of these sidelights is that their placement was chosen so that they were hidden behind the wing pieces and would cast light on the proceeding piece of scenery. These lights were either lamps or candles.

          Lights were also used that were not specifically for the visibility of the scene. One example of those are transparencies or the precious jewel effect as mentioned above. Other lights that were not used for visibility can placed in the category of “Special Effects.” Effects that fall under this category are lights that imitate nature like the sun, moon and stars or lightning. There were also effects for showing a fiery hell. The sun and moon both followed a popular method described  by Furttenbach, Vasari and Tessin. Its base idea consists of having a glass vessel filled with water and placed in front of a bright light which could then move across the backdrop of the sky if desired. If the vessel was to be used as a moon it would have the face of the moon painted on the glass. Furttenbach’s description only tells us of water filling a space between two pieces of glass. He  does not tell us the shape of the glass he used.

          In the theatre festivals of the Medici family we have accounts of Vasari’s setup of “A crystal sphere twenty-three inches in diameter filled with distilled water and placed in front of the lantern, in which two torches were burning.”[45] In this method the sphere acts as a focusing lense and doesn’t really spread the light out. When looked at from an angle an out of focus image appears on the glass. Only when looked at directly does it become a ball of yellow light.[46]

          Tessin shows us a vessel that acts like a concave/ convex lense with the light placed on the concave side. The vessel acts as a lense that would disperse the light (concave) and then give it some focus (convex) which would create a large semi-focused ball of yellow light visible from a range of angles. The method described by Tessin was probably the most effective one for the reasons described above.

          There are  two similar descriptions of the creation of lighting and hell fires on stage. One is described by both Serlio and Sabbattini. It consists of a box filled with powdered resin containing holes on the top and a lighted candle or torch in the center. To create the flash of light, the box is raised quickly  to let out the resin which is  lit by the flame. This was probably the method  used by Hayling in the King’s Theatre, as he lists the need for “Ten Lighting Flashers three feet long tubes” and “Six pound Ground Rosin sifted fine.”[47] The other method described by Furttenbach made a “long bright flame in the air like lightning” and is not quite as sophisticated.  He indicates the use of a fine meal-like yellow coloured resin which is put in a shaped piece of tin in the right hand. The arm is extended and the meal is then thrown into the light of a lit wax candle. He  points out that this method will not set fire to anything or cause any damage,  as well, it left a pleasant odour behind.[48] The reason that the resin will not set fire to anything is because, being finely ground, it burns quickly and brightly and therefore has little chance of falling lit onto the stage. Powdered resin in a clump or pile also does not combust, it will only melt and act like a fuel to a wick. The colour of the flame produced by this is a very orange-red colour. The only downfall to either method is the problem of the resin which does not catch fire (as it is not an exact thing to get all the powder into the flame) will fall and make the floor sticky. This  probably did not create too much of a problem as even nowadays dancers use rosin on their feet to prevent slipping. The odour it leaves behind is one of pine.

          There were two main sources of light of the Baroque era that come up countless times in a wide range of literature, records and research. These are beeswax and tallow. Of the range of others there are  rosin or pine sap, olive oil, canola or rape oil, linseed oil, palm oil, kitchen fat, indeed anything that could be used as a fuel to burn with a wick.

          Obviously live fire on stage was very dangerous. There are countless theatres that have been lost to fire such as Drury Lane Theatre, the Globe Theatre, and many others. These lights also ran the risk of dripping onto actors or audience and  were also very smoky.  Some sources were better than others.

          Beeswax candles were commonly held as the light of all lights. Beeswax as a source of fuel can be found as far back as Ancient Egyptian times. Bees themselves can be found all over the world where there is nectar for them to gather. It generally takes 8 pounds of honey to create 1 pound of wax. This output made beeswax candles a lot of work and therefore they were expensive  “upper class” items. The candles were held in high appraisal above the other sources because of their low smoke, bright light and lack of dripping.

          Beeswax, when rendered, comes out as a yellow cake. For an even brighter light with less smoke the beeswax was bleached to make a white wax that was praised by many as being the brightest, least smelliest and best source of light.[49] The beeswax to be bleached would be formed into thin strips, laid in the sunlight and frequently watered. The process could be sped up from four weeks to five days by the addition of a pure spirt of turpentine oil that disappeared by the end of the process.[50] This white wax burned cleaner and brighter due to the lack of impurities in it. Many accounts of the theatre lighting are unclear if, when they say wax, they are referring to white or yellow beeswax.

          Beeswax candles are made by being dipped, drawn or poured. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1910 moulding is said to not be possible as the wax sticks to the moulds.[51]

          Tallow is next on the list as far as formation of candles is concerned. Tallow is the rendered fat of mutton or cows, and is usually made from the hard fat from the loin and kidney area (also called suet). Because of its availability to even the poorest of households it was the most common among the lower classes. It was used more in the public theatres than the court theatres but still in conjunction with beeswax and oil lamps. Candles of tallow were white and greasy to the touch. The melting point of tallow is much lower than that of beeswax.[52] This makes the tallow candles much more susceptible to dripping and takes them longer to harden at room temperature. This means that there was more of a chance of hot liquid tallow dripping onto people below.

          The light given off by the tallow candle was the weakest compared to the other sources: yellow beeswax candles burn two to three times as bright as tallow candles do. Tallow candles only burned a little bit more than half the time of a yellow beeswax candle of the same dimensions.[53]

          Tallow could also be found in the form of lamps. Liquid tallow would be poured into clay pots or molds with a wick. The burning time of these lamps was much longer than that of the candles, mostly due to lack of dripping and slower combustion.

          Tallow candles could be dipped, poured, drawn or molded. Dipped candles were the most common ones in the households as it could be done with homemade equipment. Tallow candles give off a buttery, greasy odour. The main reason that tallow candles were used, despite all of their disadvantages, is because they were cheap and easy to make.

          Lamps were either be made of glass, clay or metal (tin or iron for cheaper ones, brass or silver for the courts). The wicks were floated in the oil or held up by rings of iron or cork or by modification of the lamp to hold the wick in its center. Usually, water would be placed in the bottom of the lamps to keep the oil at level with the wick, since the oil would float on top of the water. As the oil burnt down during a show, someone would go around and fill up the lamps with more oil. Furttenbach tells us that this method of water under the oil saved considerable trouble and expense.[54] Lamps had the advantage of being able to have many wicks in one lamp; Tessin mentions five wicks burning in each of the tin lamps at the Palais Royal.[55] The many wicks in one place would help shed more light but they would also produce more smoke.

          In some ways the lamps were smokier than the candles and sometime it would be the other way around. The shape of most lamps did not allow for fresh oxygen to come up to the base of the flame to allow for clean combustion (soot, given off as black smoke, is caused by the imperfect burning of the wick). [56](New York: Harper & Brothers, 1860-1), 21 & 48. Candles also smoke if they are not properly trimmed or “snuffed”. Snuffing is the trimming of the part of the twisted wick which was not wholly consumed by the flame. If the candles were not snuffed charred matter would accumulate and choke the flame.[57]

          It is rare to find specific mention of the different types of fuel used in the lamps in preserved writings about Baroque theatre lighting. The lamps are simply referred to as oil lamps. We do have Furttenbach kindly informs us that he  uses olive oil for his lamps. Other sources mention the use of linseed oil and rape (now known as canola) oil. The rape oil was said to burn brightest and cleanest of the two.[58] The light given off by the olive oil is the brightest and least smoky of all three, with the canola coming in second. More then likely the oil in the lamps at the King’s Theatre in Haymarket burned olive oil as it was stated that their “tallow and candles are much dirtier than oil, if the oil is of good quality.”[59]  The only oil of the previously mentioned types that might compare to beeswax candles is olive oil. Most of the lamps produced visible black smoke when burned. Candles sometimes tend to be less smoky because they have smaller wicks.

          The other form that light could be found as in the Baroque theatre was as a torch. Torches were made by bounding four or more long wicks with either wire or wood cores. These were then dipped into resin from pine trees, wax or tallow. The torches tended to give off the brightest light due to having the largest flame but they were also susceptible to giving off the most smoke. The torches were generally  placed in view of the audience either in the auditorium or as a set decoration.

          The most common material for the wicks is cotton but they are also made of flax or of the soft inside part of rushes. The wicks were made by twisting the fibers together like yarn and then twisting together until the desired thickness was achieved. Van der Heyden was the man responsible for the street lighting system in Amsterdam in the 1600's. He leaves behind detailed descriptions to the creation of the wicks. The thickness and tightness were of large importance for a well burning lamp; even after he gave over the job of Director of Street Lighting he still kept the making of the wicks under his private control. Van der Heyden also points out the downfall of many other street lighting systems, like that of Paris’: they didn’t  provide air holes on the bottom of the lamps in addition to the chimney’s at the top. Van der Heyden insists that these air holes “are absolutely essential to expel the singularly heavy smoke from the oil.”[60] 

          Air flow in the form of drafts and wind is also an aspect not normally addressed in writings of lighting preserved from the Baroque, yet surely it must have been an issue of concern. A draft of any amount can cause burning lamps, candles and torches to smoke excessively, burn unevenly or faster and to drip. It is interesting to see the lack of attention paid to this detail by authorities on the subject at the time.

          What we have for the lighting in the Baroque theatres is a flickering, smokey source that illuminates performers and an infinite perspective scene. The Baroque gave us many conventions which today we take for granted: controlled intensity, hidden lights, a flexible, movable system and lighting’s art.  There were men like Furttenbach who “showed the germs of creative thinking that has borne full fruit only in the recent theatre . . .”[61] The sole purpose of the theatres of the Baroque was to delight, impress and entertain. From accounts of performances they seem to have done that quite well. Unfortunately for us, the only view of the “festive radiance” of the Baroque that we will experience is in our heads. We can only imagine the brilliance and spectacle a performance at the court theatre of the time would convey.