Another important element regarding the stage is the proscenium door. There were two of them, each adjoining the stage boxes. These doors were used for actors to make their entries and exit. The use of the proscenium doors forced the continuacion of the apron in order that the characters´ arrivals or departures should not be delayed by a long walk towards or from the place in which the others were concentrated. It was not necessary for the doors to be shut all the time as it is show in the previous print, where the door on the right is open.
We should also pay attention to the scenery, which at that time consisted of a series of ´wings´ that gave a certain sense of perspective. De Loutherbourg had apparently converted, for The School for Scandal, the five ´wings´ in interiors normally painted to give the illusion of wallpaper, which was something strange and new. De Loutherbourg was the most important designer of the late Eighteenth century and his contributions were many. He introduced reproductions of real places on the stage, broke up the stage picture with ground rows to increase illusion and set pieces to give the idea of perspective and reality.
Apart from the ´wings´, the scenery was normally a large back-flat held in ´grooves´ on the stage and in the flies. In The School for Scandal the shorter scenes generally required a second ´groove´, Charle´s drinking party demanded a third ´groove´ and his picture room a fourth one.
Curtains were also important elements within a performance, Since the Restoration, a green curtain was being used. It rose by being pulled up in three or four shallow festoons in order to inform the audience that the performance had begun. The green curtain did not fall untill the play had finished.
Behind the green curtain there was a drop-curtain painted with a conventional design. It was introduce in 1750 to be lowered at the end of each act and it was also useful to remove the properties (tables, chairs...) from the last scene. A scene which required a change of properties in the middle of an act had to me made in full view of the spectators. Sheridan was not particularlly carefull with these conventions, and the play was characterised by the absence of all non-essencial properties. The surviving copies of the prompt-book agreed that the only properties were the screen, a table, two chairs, a seat and a book.
Two scenic innovations that were introduced at the end of the centuy and that may have been used in the performance of The School for Scandal were the use of gaps between the ´wings´ as a less obtrusive way of exit than by the proscenium doors and the introduction of a central door in the flats themselves for the same purpose. Both devisces were only used in the more crowded scenes. The introduction of a central door, attributable to the innovating John Philip Kemble is exemplified by the temporary absence of Joseph and Maria in Act II, Scene ii.
The last architectonic element regarding the stage is the distribution of the audience into box, pit and gallery. The uuper clasess watched the performance from the boxes, the professional classes from the pit and the servants were put in the galleries.
Once we know the different parts of the theatre in which The School for Scandal was performed at the beginning, it is important to look into different aspects that were important for a performance, such as lighting and costumes.
Little is known about lighting practices during the Restoration. Performances were given in the afternoon and windows probably provided some illumination. Lamps were also used in some positions, since reflectors made candles melt. In 1765 Garrick introduced some changes, removing all visible light sources from the stage and increasing brighteness with improved lamps and reflectors. During the 1770´s, De Lotherbourg provocked new changes. Using silk screen to reflect light he gained considerable control over the color for the first time. This was the situation of lighting at the time The School for Scandal was first performed.
Regarding costumes we must say that comedy reflected the dress of the moment in its most expensive form. Zofanny´s portrait of Baddeley as Moses make the proper social distinction. He is wearing an elaborately curled black wig without powder, showing he is rich but not a gentleman. The male Surfaces and Teazle demonstrate their gentility by refusing to wear a wig but covering their hair with powder. The ladies, on the other hand, have tall and elaborate headresses.
Between 1660 and 1800 the main sources for costumes were the company´s wardrobe and the actor´s own garments. Each company mantained a common stock od costumes, but in the second half of the Eighteenth century a company added only an average of about twelve new women´s and twelve new men´s outfits each year. Since an acting company included seventy to eighty plays, this rate of acqusition would probably have left most actors rather shabbily dressed if all had depended on the company´s wardrobe. It is probably for this reason that actors with suffient means supplied most of their own costumes. Some demanded and received money from the manager for this purpose.
In the late Eighteenth century this freedom of choice ws considerably curtailed as concern for appropriateness grew and as managers began to give wardrobe keepers more authority to decie what garments should be worn.
We should bear in mind that The School for Scandal was a play to be performed, so all the elements mentioned before conditioned the text, the way of acting and the way in which a play was received by the spectators.