CHAPTER X. THE
RECRUITED ACTORS IN THE HAY MARKET ENCOURAGED BY A SUBSCRIPTION, ETC. . .1
CHAPTER XI. SOME CHIMÆRICAL
THOUGHTS OF MAKING THE STAGE USEFUL, ETC. . . 24
CHAPTER XII. A SHORT
VIEW OF THE OPERA WHEN FIRST DIVIDED FROM THE COMEDY, ETC. . . 50
CHAPTER XIII. THE
PATENTEE, HAVING NOW NO ACTORS, REBUILDS THE NEW THEATRE IN
LINCOLNS-INN-FIELDS, ETC. . . . 97
CHAPTER XIV. THE STAGE
IN ITS HIGHEST PROSPERITY, ETC. . . 117
CHAPTER XV. SIR RICHARD
STEELE SUCCEEDS COLLIER IN THE THEATRE-ROYAL, ETC. . . 161
CHAPTER XVI. THE AUTHOR
STEPS OUT OF HIS WAY. PLEADS HIS THEATRICAL CAUSE IN CHANCERY, ETC. . . . 192
SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER .
. . 257
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF COLLEY
CIBBER . . . 289
A BRIEF SUPPLEMENT TO
COLLEY GIBBER, ESQ; HIS LIVES OF THE LATE FAMOUS ACTORS AND ACTRESSES . . . 299
MEMOIRS OF ACTORS AND
ACTRESSES . . . 319
I. COLLEY CIBBER, in
the character of "Sir Novelty Fashion, newley created Lord
Foppington," in Vanbrugh’s play of "The Relapse; or, Virtue in
Danger." From the painting by J. Grisoni. The property of the Garrick Club
. . .Frontispiece
II. OWEN SWINEY. After
the painting by John Baptist Vanloo . . . 54
III. ANNE OLDFIELD.
From the picture by Jonathan Richardson . . . 70
IV. THEOPHILUS CIBBER,
in the character of "Antient Pistol" . . . 86
V. HESTER SANTLOW (Mrs.
Barton Booth). After an original picture from the life . . . 104
VI. ROBERT WILKS. After
the painting by John Ellys, 1732 . . . 122
VII. RICHARD STEELE.
From the painting by Jonathan Richardson, 1712 . . . 172
VIII. BARTON BOOTH.
From the picture by George White . . . 206
IX. SUSANNA MARIA
CIBBER. After a painting by Thomas Hudson . . . 222
X. CHARLES FLEETWOOD.
"Sir Fopling Flutter Arrested." "Drawn from a real Scene."
John Dixon ad vivum del et fect . . . 254
XI. ALEXANDER POPE, at
the age of 28. After the picture by Sir Godfrey Kneller, painted in 1716 . . .
272
XII. SUSANNA MARIA
CIBBER, in the character of Cordelia, "King Lear," act iii. After the
picture by Peter Van Bleeck . . . 288
XIII. CAVE UNDERHILL,
in the character of Obadiah, "The Fanatic Elder." After the picture
by Robert Bing, 1712 . . . 306
X. SCENE ILLUSTRATING
CIBBER’S "CARELESS HUSBAND." After the picture by Philip Mercier.
XI. COFFEE-HOUSE SCENE
OF CIBBER’S DAY, "drawn from the life" by G. Vander Gucht.
XII. SCENE ILLUSTRATING
"THE ITALIAN OPERA," WITH SENESINO, CUZZONI, &c. From a
contemporary design.
XIII. SCENE
ILLUSTRATING FARQUHAR’S "RECRUITING OFFICER." After the picture by
Philip Mercier.
XIV. SCENE ILLUSTRATING
ADDISON’S "CATO." After the contemporary design by Lud. du Guernier.
XV. SCENE ILLUSTRATING
VANBRUGH AND CIBBER’S "PROVOKED HUSBAND." After the contemporary
design by J. Vandcrbank.
XVI. SCENE ILLUSTRATING
VANBRUGH’S "PROVOKED WIFE." After the contemporary design by Arnold
Vanhaecken.
XVII. "THE STAGE
MUTINY, with portraits of Theophilus Cibber as "Antient Pistol," Mrs.
Wilks, and others, in character; Colley Cibber as Poet Laureate, with his lap
filled with bags of money. From a pictorial satire of the time.
XVIII. ANTHONY ASTON’S
"THE FOOL’S OPERA."
The recruited Actors in
the Hay-Market encourag’d by a Subscription. Drury-Lane under a particular
Menagement. The Power of a Lord-Chamberlain over the Theatres consider’d. How
it had been formerly exercis’d. A Digression to Tragick Authors.
HAVING shewn the
particular Conduct of the Patentee in refusing so fair an Opportunity of
securing to himself both Companies under his sole Power and Interest, I shall
now lead the Reader, after a short View of what pass’d in this new
Establishment of the Hay-Market Theatre, to the Accidents that the Year
following compell’d the same Patentee to receive both Companies, united, into
the Drury-Lane Theatre, notwithstanding his Disinclination to it.
It may now be imagin’d
that such a Detachment of Actors from Drury-Lane could not but give a new
Spirit to those in the Hay-Market; not only by enabling them to act each others
Plays to better Advantage, but by an emulous Industry which had lain too long
inactive among them, and without which they plainly saw they could not be sure
of Subsistence. Plays by this means began to recover a good Share of their
former Esteem and Favour; and the Profits of them in about a Month enabled our
new Menager to discharge his Debt (of something more than Two hundred Pounds)
to his old Friend the Patentee, who had now left him and his Troop in trust to
fight their own Battles. The greatest Inconvenience they still laboured under
was the immoderate Wideness of their House, in which, as I have observ’d, the
Difficulty of Hearing may be said to have bury’d half the Auditors
Entertainment. This Defect seem’d evident from the much better Reception
several new Plays (first acted there) met with when they afterwards came to be
play’d by the same Actors in Drury-Lane: Of this Number were the Stratagem
[2.1] and the Wife’s Resentment; [3.1] to which I may add the Double Gallant. [3.2]
This last was a Play made up of what little was tolerable in two or three
others that had no Success, and were laid aside as so much Poetical Lumber; but
by collecting and adapting the best parts of them all into one Play, the Double
Gallant has had a Place every Winter amongst the Publick Entertainments these
Thirty Years. As I was only the Compiler of this Piece I did not publish it in
my own Name; but as my having but a Hand in it could not be long a Secret, I
have been often treated as a Plagiary on that Account: Not that I think I have
any right to complain of whatever would detract from the Merit of that sort of
Labour, yet a Cobler may be allow’d to be useful though he is not famous: [4.1]
And I hope a Man is not blameable for doing a little Good, tho’ he cannot do as
much as another? But so it is--Twopenny Criticks must live as well as
Eighteenpenny Authors! [4.2]
While the Stage was
thus recovering its former Strength, a more honourable Mark of Favour was shewn
to it than it was ever known before or since to have receiv’d. The then Lord
Hallifax was not only the Patron of the Men of Genius of this Time, but had
likewise a generous Concern for the Reputation and Prosperity of the Theatre,
from whence the most elegant Dramatick Labours of the Learned, he knew, had
often shone in their brightest Lustre. A Proposal therefore was drawn up and
addressed to that Noble Lord for his Approbation and Assistance to raise a
publick Subscription for Reviving Three Plays of the best Authors, with the
full Strength of the Company; every Subscriber to have Three Tickets for the
first Day of each Play for his single Payment of Three Guineas. This
Subscription his Lordship so zealously encouraged, that from his Recommendation
chiefly, in a very little time it was compleated. The Plays were Julius Cæsar
of Shakespear; the King and no King of Fletcher, and the Comic Scenes of Dryden’s
Marriage à la mode and of his Maiden Queen put together. [5.1] for it was judg’d
that, as these comic Episodes were’ utterly independent of the serious Scenes
they were originally written to, they might on this occasion be as well
Episodes either to the other, and so make up five livelier Acts between them:
At least the Project so well succeeded, that those comic Parts have never since
been replaced, but were continued to be jointly acted as one Play several Years
after.
By the Aid of this
Subscription, which happen’d in 1707, and by the additional Strength and
Industry of this Company, not only the Actors (several of which were handsomely
advanc’d in their Sallaries) were duly paid, but the Menager himself, too, at
the Foot of his Account, stood a considerable Gainer.
At the same time the
Patentee of Drury-Lane went on in his usual Method of paying extraordinary
Prices to Singers, Dancers, and other exotick Performers, which were as
constantly deducted out of the sinking Sallaries of his Actors: ’Tis true his
Actors perhaps might not deserve much more than he gave them; yet, by what I
have related, it is plain he chose not to be troubled with such as visibly had
deserv’d more: For it seems he had not purchas’d his Share of the Patent to
mend the Stage, but to make Money of it: And to say Truth, his Sense of every
thing to be shewn there was much upon a Level with the Taste of the Multitude,
whose Opinion and whose Money weigh’d with him full as much as that of the best
Judges. His Point was to please the Majority, who could more easily comprehend
any thing they saw than the daintiest things that could be said to them. But in
this Notion he kept no medium; for in my Memory he carry’d it so far that he
was (some few Years before this time) actually dealing for an extraordinary
large Elephant at a certain Sum for every Day he might think fit to shew the
tractable Genius of that vast quiet Creature in any Play or Farce in the
Theatre (then standing) in Dorset-Garden. But from the Jealousy which so
formidable a Rival had rais’d in his Dancers, and by his Bricklayer’s assuring
him that if the Walls were to be open’d wide enough for its Entrance it might
endanger the fall of the House, he gave up his Project, and with it so hopeful
a Prospect of making the Receipts of the Stage run higher than all the Wit and
Force of the best Writers had ever yet rais’d them to. [7.1]
About the same time of
his being under this Disappointment he put in Practice another Project of as
new, though not of so bold a Nature; which was his introducing a Set of
Rope-dancers into the same Theatre; for the first Day of whose Performance he
had given out some Play in which I had a material Part: But I was hardy enough
to go into the Pit and acquaint the Spectators near me, that I hop’d they would
not think it a Mark of my Disrespect to them, if I declin’d acting upon any
Stage that was brought to so low a Disgrace as ours was like to be by that Day’s
Entertainment. My Excuse was so well taken that I never after found any ill
Consequences, or heard of the least Disapprobation of it: And the whole Body of
Actors, too, protesting against such an Abuse of their Profession, our cautious
Master was too much alarm’d and intimidated to repeat it.
After what I have said,
it will be no wonder that all due Regards to the original Use and Institution
of the Stage should be utterly lost or neglected: Nor was the Conduct of this
Menager easily to be alter’d while he had found the Secret of making Money out
of Disorder and Confusion: For however strange it may seem, I have often observ’d
him inclin’d to be cheerful in the Distresses of his Theatrical Affairs, and
Equally reserv’d and pensive when they went smoothly forward with a visible
Profit. Upon a Run of good Audiences he was more frighted to be thought a
Gainer, which might make him accountable to others, than he was dejected with
bad Houses, which at worst he knew would make others accountable to him: And
as, upon a moderate Computation, it cannot be supposed that the contested
Accounts of a twenty Year’s Wear and Tear in a Play-house could be fairly
adjusted by a Master in Chancery under four-score Years more, it will be no
Surprize that by the Neglect, or rather the Discretion, of other Proprietors in
not throwing away good Money after bad, this Hero of a Menager, who alone
supported the War, should in time so fortify himself by Delay, and so tire his
Enemies, that he became sole Monarch of his Theatrical Empire, and left the
quiet Possession of it to his Successors.
If these Facts seem to
trivial for the Attention of a sensible Reader, let it be consider’d that they
are not chosen Fictions to entertain, but Truths necessary to inform him under
what low Shifts and Disgraces, what Disorders and Revolutions, the Stage labour’d
before it could recover that Strength and Reputation wherewith it began to
flourish towards the latter End of Queen Anne’s Reign; and which it continued
to enjoy for a Course of twenty Years following. But let us resume our Account
of the new Settlement in the Hay-Market.
It may be a natural
Question why the Actors whom Swiney brought over to his Undertaking in the
Hay-Market would tie themselves down to limited Sallaries? for though he as
their Menager was obliged to make them certain Payments, it was not certain
that the Receipts would enable him to do it; and since their own Industry was
the only visible Fund they had to depend upon, why would they not for that
Reason insist upon their being Sharers as well of possible Profits as Losses?
How far in this Point they acted right or wrong will appear from the following
State of their Case.
It must first be
consider’d that this Scheme of their Desertion was all concerted and put in
Execution in a Week’s Time, which short Warning might make them overlook that
Circumstance, and the sudden Prospect of being deliver’d from having seldom
more than half their Pay was a Contentment that had bounded all their farther
Views. Besides, as there could be no room to doubt of their receiving their
full Pay previous to any Profits that might be reap’d by their Labour, and as
they had no great Reason to apprehend those Profits could exceed their
respective Sallaries so far as to make them repine at them, they might think it
but reasonable to let the Chance of any extraordinary Gain be on the Side of
their Leader and Director. But farther, as this Scheme had the Approbation of
the Court, these Actors in reality had it not in their Power to alter any Part
of it: And what induced the Court to encourage it was, that by having the
Theatre and its Menager more immediately dependent on the Power of the Lord
Chamberlain, it was not doubted but the Stage would be recover’d into such a
reputation as might now do Honour to that absolute Command which the Court or
its Officers seem’d always fond of having over it.
Here, to set the Constitution
of the Stage in a clearer Light, it may not be amiss to look back a little on
the Power of a Lord Chamberlain, which, as may have been observ’d in all
Changes of the Theatrical Government, has been the main Spring without which no
Scheme of what kind soever could be set in Motion. My Intent is not to enquire
how far by Law this Power has been limited or extended; but merely as an
Historian to relate Facts to gratify the Curious, and then leave them to their
own Reflections: This, too, I am the more inclin’d to, because there is no one
Circumstance which has affected the Stage wherein so many Spectators, from
those of the highest Rank to the Vulgar, have seem’d more positively knowing or
less inform’d in.
Though in all the
Letters Patent for acting Plays, &c. since King Charles the First’s Time
there has been no mention of the Lord Chamberlain, or of any Subordination to
his Command or Authority, yet it was still taken for granted that no Letters
Patent, by the bare Omission of such a great Officer’s Name, could have
superseded or taken out of his Hands that Power which Time out of Mind he
always had exercised over the Theatre. [11.1] The common Opinions then abroad
were, that if the Profession of Actors was unlawful, it was not in the Power of
the Crown to license it; and if it were not unlawful, it ought to be free and
independent as other Professions; and that a Patent to exercise it was only an
honorary Favour from the Crown to give it a better Grace of Recommendation to
the Publick. But as the Truth of this Question seem’d to be wrapt in a great
deal of Obscurity, in the old Laws made in former Reigns relating to Players,
&c. it may be no Wonder that the best Companies of Actors should be
desirous of taking Shelter under the visible Power of a Lord Chamberlain who
they knew had at his Pleasure favoured and protected or born hard upon them:
But be all this as it may, a Lord Chamberlain (from whencesoever his Power
might be derived) had till of later Years had always an implicit Obedience paid
to it: I shall now give some few Instances in what manner it was exercised.
What appear’d to be
most reasonably under his Cognizance was the licensing or refusing new Plays,
or striking out what might be thought offensive in them: Which Province had
been for many Years assign’d to his inferior Officer, the Master of the Revels;
yet was not this License irrevocable; for several Plays, though acted by that
Permission, had been silenced afterwards. The first Instance of this kind that
common Fame has deliver’d down to us, is that of the Maid’s Tragedy of Beaumont
and Fletcher, which was forbid in King Charles the Second’s time, by an Order
from the Lord Chamberlain. For what Reason this Interdiction was laid upon it
the Politicks of those Days have only left us to guess. Some said that the
killing of the King in that Play, while the tragical Death of King Charles the
First was then so fresh in People’s Memory, was an Object too horribly impious
for a publick Entertainment. What makes this Conjecture seem to have some
Foundation, is that the celebrated Waller, in Compliment to that Court, alter’d
the last Act of this Play (which is printed at the End of his Works) and gave
it a new Catastrophe, wherein the Life of the King is loyally saved, and the
Lady’s Matter made up with a less terrible Reparation. Others have given out,
that a repenting Mistress, in a romantick Revenge of her Dishonour, killing the
King in the very Bed he expected her to come into, was shewing a too dangerous
Example to other Evadnes then shining at Court in the same Rank of royal
Distinction; who, if ever their Consciences should have run equally mad, might
have had frequent Opportunities of putting the Expiation of their Frailty into
the like Execution. But this I doubt is too deep a Speculation, or too
ludicrous a Reason, to be relied on; it being well known that the Ladies then
in favour were not so nice in their Notions as to think their Preferment their
Dishonour, or their Lover a Tyrant: Besides, that easy Monarch loved his Roses
without Thorns; nor do we hear that he much chose to be himself the first
Gatherer of them. [13.1]
The Lucius Junius
Brutus of Nat. Lee [13.2] was in the same Reign silenced after the third Day of
Acting it; it being objected that the Plan and Sentiments of it had too boldly
vindicated, and might enflame republican Principles.
A Prologue (by Dryden)
to the Prophetess was forbid by the Lord Dorset after the first Day of its
being spoken. [13.3] This happen’d when King William was prosecuting the War in
Ireland. It must be confess’d that this Prologue had some familiar,
metaphorical Sneers at the Revolution itself; and as the Poetry of it was good,
the Offence of it was less pardonable.
The Tragedy of Mary
Queen of Scotland [14.1] had been offer’d to the Stage twenty Years before it
was acted: But from the profound Penetration of the Master of the Revels, who
saw political Spectres in it that never appear’d in the Presentation, it had
lain so long upon the Hands of the Author; who had at last the good Fortune to
prevail with a Nobleman to favour his Petition to Queen Anne for Permission to
have it acted: The Queen had the Goodness to refer the Merit of his Play to the
Opinion of that noble Person, although he was not her Majesty’s Lord
Chamberlain; upon whose Report of its being every way an innocent Piece, it was
soon after acted with Success.
Reader, by your
Leave--I will be just speak a Word or two to any Author that has not yet writ
one Line of his next Play, and then I will come to my Point again--What I would
say to him is this --Sir, before you set Pen to Paper, think well and
principally of your Design or chief Action, towards which every Line you write
ought to be drawn, as to its Centre: If we can say of your finest Sentiments,
This or That might be left out without maiming the Story, you would tell us,
depend upon it, that fine thing is said in a wrong Place; and though you may
urge that a bright Thought is not to be resisted, you will not be able to deny
that those very fine Lines would be much finer if you could find a proper
Occasion for them: Otherwise you will be thought to take less Advice from
Aristotle or Horace than from Poet Bays in the Rehearsal, who very smartly
says--What the Devil is the Plot good for but to bring in fine things?
Compliment the Taste of your Hearers as much as you please with them, provided
they belong to your Subject, but don’t, like a dainty Preacher who has his Eye
more upon this World than the next, leave your Text for them. When your Fable
is good, every Part of it will cost you much less Labour to keep your Narration
alive, than you will be forced to bestow upon those elegant Discourses that are
not absolutely conducive to your Catastrophe or main Purpose: Scenes of that
kind shew but at best the unprofitable or injudicious Spirit of a Genius. It is
but a melancholy Commendation of a fine Thought to say, when we have heard it,
Well! but what’s all this to the Purpose? Take, therefore, in some part,
Example by the Author last mention’d! There are three Plays of his, the Earl of
Essex, [15.1] Anna Bullen, [16.1] and Mary Queen of Scots, which, tho’ they are
all written in the most barren, barbarous Stile that was ever able to keep
Possession of the Stage, have all interested the Hearts of his Auditors. To
what then could this Success be owing, but to the intrinsick and naked Value of
the well-conducted Tales he has simply told us? There is something so happy in
the Disposition of all his Fables; all his chief Characters are thrown into
such natural Circumstances of Distress, that their Misery or Affliction wants
very little Assistance from the Ornaments of Stile or Words to speak them. When
a skilful Actor is so situated, his bare plaintive Tone of Voice, the Cast of
Sorrow from his Eye, his slowly graceful Gesture, his humble Sighs of
Resignation under his Calamities: All these, I say, are sometimes without a
Tongue equal to the strongest Eloquence. At such a time the attentive Auditor
supplies from his own Heart whatever the Poet’s Language may fall short of in
Expression, and melts himself into every Pang of Humanity which the like
Misfortunes in real Life could have inspir’d.
After what I have
observ’d, whenever I see a Tragedy defective in its Fable, let there be never
so many fine Lines in it; I hope I shall be forgiven if I impute that Defect to
the Idleness, the weak Judgment, or barren Invention of the Author.
If I should be ask’d
why I have not always my self follow’d the Rules I would impose upon others; I
can only answer, that whenever I have not, I lie equally open to the same
critical Censure. But having often observ’d a better than ordinary Stile thrown
away upon the loose and wandering Scenes of an ill-chosen Story, I imagin’d
these Observations might convince some future Author of how great Advantage a
Fable well plann’d must be to a Man of any tolerable Genius.
All this I own is
leading my Reader out of the way; but if he has as much Time upon his Hands as
I have, (provided we are neither of us tir’d) it may be equally to the Purpose
what he reads or what I write of. But as I have no Objection to Method when it
is not troublesome, I return to my Subject.
Hitherto we have seen
no very unreasonable Instance of this absolute Power of a Lord Chamberlain,
though we were to admit that no one knew of any real Law, or Construction of
Law, by which this Power was given him. I shall now offer some Facts relating
to it of a more extraordinary Nature, which I leave my Reader to give a Name
to.
About the middle of
King William’s Reign an Order of the Lord Chamberlain was then subsisting that
no Actor of either Company should presume to go from one to the other without a
Discharge from their respective Menagers [17.1] and the Permission of the Lord
Chamberlain. Notwithstanding such Order, Powel, being uneasy at the Favour
Wilks was then rising into, had without such Discharge left the Drury-Lane
Theatre and engag’d himself to that of Lincolns-Inn-Fields: But by what follows
it will appear that this Order was not so much intended to do both of them
good, as to do that which the Court chiefly favour’d (Lincolns-Inn-Fields) no
harm. [18.1] For when Powel grew dissatisfy’d at his Station there too, he
return’d to Drury-Lane (as he had before gone from it) without a Discharge: But
halt a little! here, on this Side of the Question, the Order was to stand in
force, and the same Offence against it now was not to be equally pass’d over.
He was the next Day taken up by a Messenger and confin’d to the Porter’s-Lodge,
where, to the best of my Remembrance, he remain’d about two Days; when the
Menagers of Lincolns-Inn-Fields, not thinking an Actor of his loose Character
worth their farther Trouble, gave him up; though perhaps he was releas’d for
some better Reason. [19.1] Upon this occasion, the next Day, behind the Scenes
at Drury-Lane, a Person of great Quality in my hearing enquiring of Powel into
the Nature of his Offence, after he had heard it, told him, That if he had had
Patience or Spirit enough to have staid in his Confinement till he had given
him Notice of it, he would have found him a handsomer way of coming out of it.
Another time the same
Actor, Powel, was provok’d at Will’s Coffee-house, in a Dispute about the
Playhouse Affairs, to strike a Gentleman whose Family had been sometimes
Masters of it; a Complaint of this Insolence was, in the Absence of the
Lord-Chamberlain, immediately made to the Vice-Chamberlain, who so highly
resented it that he thought himself bound in Honour to carry his Power of
redressing it as far as it could possibly go: For Powel having a Part in the
Play that was acted the Day after, the Vice-Chamberlain sent an Order to
silence the whole Company for having suffer’d Powel to appear upon the Stage
before he had made that Gentleman Satisfaction, although the Masters of the
Theatre had had no Notice of Powel’s Misbehaviour: However, this Order was obey’d,
and remain’d in force for two or three Days, ’till the same Authority was pleas’d
or advis’d to revoke it. [20.1] From the Measures this injur’d Gentleman took
for his Redress, it may be judg’d how far it was taken for granted that a
Lord-Chamberlain had an absolute Power over the Theatre.
I shall now give an
Instance of an Actor who had the Resolution to stand upon the Defence of his
Liberty against the same Authority, and was reliev’d by it.
In the same King’s Reign,
Dogget, who tho’, from a severe Exactness in his Nature, he could be seldom
long easy in any Theatre, where Irregularity, not to say Injustice, too often
prevail’d, yet in the private Conduct of his Affairs he was a prudent, honest
Man. He therefore took an unusual Care, when he return’d to act under the
Patent in Drury-Lane, to have his Articles drawn firm and binding: But having
some Reason to think the Patentee had not dealt fairly with him, he quitted the
Stage and would act no more, rather chusing to lose his whatever unsatisfy’d
Demands than go through the chargeable and tedious Course of the Law to recover
it. But the Patentee, who (from other People’s Judgment) knew the Value of him,
and who wanted, too, to have him sooner back than the Law could possibly bring
him, thought the surer way would be to desire a shorter Redress from the
Authority of the Lord-Chamberlain. [21.1] Accordingly, upon his Complaint a
Messenger was immediately dispatch’d to Norwich, where Dogget then was to bring
him up in Custody: but doughty Dogget, who had Money in his Pocket and the
Cause of Liberty at his Heart, was not in the least intimidated by this
formidable Summons. He was observ’d to obey it with a particular Chearfulness,
entertaining his Fellow-traveller, the Messenger, all the way in the Coach (for
he had protested against Riding) with as much Humour as a Man of his Business
might be capable of tasting. And as he found his Charges were to be defray’d,
he, at every Inn, call’d for the best Dainties the Country could afford or a
pretended weak Appetite could digest. At this rate they jollily roll’d on, more
with the Air of a Jaunt than a Journey, or a Party of Pleasure than of a poor
Devil in Durance. Upon his Arrival in Town he immediately apply’d to the Lord
Chief Justice Holt for his Habeas Corpus. As his Case was something particular,
that eminent and learned Minister of the Law took a particular Notice of it:
For Dogget was not only discharg’d, but the Process of his Confinement
(according to common Fame) had a Censure pass’d upon it in Court, which I doubt
I am not Lawyer enough to repeat! To conclude, the officious Agents of this
Affair, finding that in Dogget they had mistaken their Man, were mollify’d into
milder Proceedings, and (as he afterwards told me) whisper’d something in his
Ear that took away Dogget’s farther Uneasiness about it.
By these Instances we
see how naturally Power only founded on Custom is apt, where the Law is silent,
to run into Excesses, and while it laudably pretends to govern others, how hard
it is to govern itself. But since the Law has lately open’d its Mouth, and has
said plainly that some Part of this Power to govern the Theatre shall be, and
is plac’d in a proper Person; and as it is evident that the Power of that white
Staff, ever since it has been in the noble Hand that now holds it, has been us’d
with the utmost Lenity, I would beg leave of the murmuring Multitude who
frequent the Theatre to offer them a simple Question or two, viz. Pray,
Gentlemen, how came you, or rather your Fore-fathers, never to be mutinous upon
any of the occasional Facts I have related? And why have you been so often
tumultuous upon a Law’s being made that only confirms a less Power than was
formerly exercis’d without any Law to support it? You cannot, sure, say such
Discontent is either just or natural, unless you allow it a Maxim in your
Politicks that Power exercis’d without Law is a less Grievance than the same
Power exercis’d according to Law!
Having thus given the
clearest View I was able of the usual Regard paid to the Power of a Lord-
Chamberlain, the Reader will more easily conceive what Influence and Operation
that Power must naturally have in all Theatrical Revolutions, and particularly
in the complete Re-union of both Companies, which happen’d in the Year
following.
[2.1] That is, "The Beaux’ Stratagem," by Farquhar, produced
8th March, 1707. Cibber played the part of Gibbet. [3.1] "Lady’s Last
Stake; or, the Wife’s Resentment," a comedy by Cibber, produced 13th
December, 1707. LORD
WRONGLOVE..........Mr. Wilks.
SIR GEORGE
BRILLIANT....Mr. Cibber.
SIR FRIENDLY
MORAL......Mr. Keene.
LADY
WRONGLOVE..........Mrs. Barry.
LADY
GENTLE.............Mrs. Rogers.
MRS.
CONQUEST...........Mrs. Oldfield.
MISS
NOTABLE............Mrs. Cross.
[3.2] "The Double Gallant; or, the Sick Lady’s Cure," a comedy
by Cibber, produced 1st November, 1707. SIR
SOLOMON SADLIFE.....Mrs. Johnson.
CLERIMONT...............Mr.
Booth.
CARELESS................Mr.
Wilks.
ATALL...................Mr.
Cibber.
CAPTAIN
STRUT...........Mr. Bowen.
SIR SQUABBLE
SPLITHAIR..Mr. Norris.
SAUNTER.................Mr.
Pack.
OLD MR.
WILFUL..........Mr. Bullock.
SIR HARRY
ATALL.........Mr. Cross.
SUPPLE..................Mr.
Fairbank.
LADY
DAINTY.............Mrs. Oldfield.
LADY
SADLIFE............Mrs. Crosse.
CLARINDA................Mrs.
Rogers.
SYLVIA..................Mrs.
Bradshaw.
WISHWELL................Mrs.
Saunders.
SITUP...................Mrs.
Brown.
[4.1] The plays from which Cibber compiled "The Double
Gallant" are "Love at a Venture," "The Lady’s Visiting
Day," and "The Reformed Wife" (Genest, ii. 389). [4.2]
Eighteenpence was for many years the recognized price of plays when published.
[5.1] These were played on 14th January, 21st January, and 4th February, 1707,
in the order Cibber gives them. The alteration of Dryden’s plays was done by
Cibber, and was called "Marriage à la Mode’ or, the Comical Lovers." CELADON..........Mr. Cibber.
PALAMEDE.........Mr.
Wilks.
RHODOPHIL........Mr.
Booth.
MELANTHA.........Mrs.
Bracegirdle.
FLORIMEL.........Mrs.
Oldfield.
DORALICE.........Mrs.
Porter.
I have not seen a copy of this, so take the cast from Genest. [7.1] An
elephant was introduced into the pantomime of "Harlequin and
Padmanaba," at Covent Garden, 26th December, 1811. Genest points out that
one had appeared at Smock Alley Theatre, Dublin, in 1771-2. [11.1] In Mr. Percy
Fitzgerald’s New History of the English Stage" (ii. 436) he gives an
interesting memorandum by the Hon. Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane regarding this
point. It begins: "That the Chamberlain’s authority proceeded from the
Sovereign alone is clear, from the fact that no Act of Parliament, previous to
the 10 Geo. II., c. 28 (passed in 1737), alludes to his licensing powers,
though he was constantly exercising them." [13.1]Langbaine, in his "Account of the English Dramatick
Poets," 1691, says (p. 212): "Maid’s Tragedy, a Play which has always
been acted with great Applause at the King’s Theatre; and which had still
continu’d on the English Stage, had not King Charles the Second, for some
particular Reasons forbid its further Appearance during his Reign. It has since
been reviv’d by Mr. Waller, the last Act having been wholly alter’d to please
the Court."
I think there can be
little doubt that the last reason suggested by Cibber was the real cause of the
prohibition.
[13.2] Produced at Dorset Garden, 1681. [13.3]
Produced at Dorset Garden, 1690. See ante, vol. i. p. 187. I presume that the
lines alluded to by Cibber are:--
"Never content
with what you had before,
But true to change, and
Englishmen all o’er."
Some Chimærical
Thoughts of making the Stage useful: Some, to its Reputation. The Patent
unprofitable to all the Proprietors but one. A fourth Part of it given away to
Colonel Brett. A Digression to his Memory. The two Companies of Actors reunited
by his Interest and Menagement. The first Direction of Operas only given to Mr.
Swiney.
FROM the Time that the
Company of Actors in the Hay-Market was recruited with those from Drury-Lane,
and came into the Hands of their new Director, Swiney, the Theatre for three or
four Years following suffer’d so many Convulsions, and was thrown every other
Winter under such different Interests and Menagement before it came to a firm
and lasting Settlement, that I am doubtful if the most candid Reader will have
Patience to go through a full and fair Account of it: And yet I would fain
flatter my self that those who are not too wise to frequent the Theatre (or
have Wit enough to distinguish what sort of Sights there either to Honour or
Disgrace to it) may think their national Diversion no contemptible Subject for
a more able Historian than I pretend to be: If I have any particular
Qualification for the Task more than another it is that I have been an ocular
Witness of the several Facts that are to fill up the rest of my Volume, and am
perhaps the only Person living (however unworthy) from whom the same Materials
can be collected; but let them come from whom they may, whether at best they
will be worth reading, perhaps a Judgment may be better form’d after a patient
Perusal of the following Digression.
In whatever cold Esteem
the Stage may be among the Wise and Powerful, it is not so much a Reproach to
those who contentedly enjoy it in its lowest Condition, as that Condition of it
is to those who (though they cannot but know to how valuable a publick Use a
Theatre, well establish’d, might be rais’d) yet in so many civiliz’d Nations
have neglected it. This perhaps will be call’d thinking my own wiser than all
the wise Heads in Europe. But I hope a more humble Sense will be given to it;
at least I only mean, that if so many Governments have their Reasons for their
Disregard of their Theatres, those Reasons may be deeper than my Capacity has
yet been able to dive into: If therefore my simple Opinion is a wrong one, let
the Singularity of it expose me: And tho’ I am only building a Theatre in the
Air, it is there, however, at so little Expence and in so much better a Taste
than any I have yet seen, that I cannot help saying of it, as a wiser Man did
(it may be) upon a wiser Occasion:
--Si quid novisti
rectius istis,
Candidus imperti; si
non--
Hor. [26.1] Give me leave to
play with my Project in Fancy.
I say, then, that as I
allow nothing is more liable to debase and corrupt the Minds of a People than a
licentious Theatre, so under a just and proper Establishment it were possible
to make it as apparently the School of Manners and of Virtue. Were I to collect
all the Arguments that might be given for my Opinion, or to inforce it by
exemplary Proofs, it might swell this short Digression to a Volume; I shall
therefore trust the Validity of what I have laid down to a single Fact that may
be still fresh in the Memory of many living Spectators. When the Tragedy of
Cato was first acted, [26.2] let us call to mind the noble Spirit of Patriotism
which that Play then infus’d into the Breasts of a free People that crowded to
it; with what affecting Force was that most elevated of Human Virtues
recommended? Even the false Pretenders to it felt an unwilling Conviction, and
made it a Point of Honour to be foremost in their Approbation; and this, too,
at a time when the fermented Nation had their different Views of Government.
Yet the sublime Sentiments of Liberty in that venerable Character rais’d in
every sensible Hearer such conscious Admiration, such compell’d Assent to the
Conduct of a Suffering Virtue, as even demanded two almost irreconcileable
Parties to embrace and join in their equal Applauses of it. [27.1] Now, not to
take from the Merit of the Writer, had that Play never come to the Stage, how
much of this valuable Effect of it must have been lost? It then could have had
no more immediate weight with the Publick than our poring upon the many ancient
Authors thro’ whose Works the same Sentiments have been perhaps less profitably
dispers’d, tho’ amongst Millions of Readers; but by bringing such Sentiments to
the Theatre and into Action, what a superior Lustre did they shine with? There
Cato breath’d again in Life; and though he perish’d in the Cause of Liberty,
his Virtue was victorious, and left the Triumph of it in the Heart of every
melting Spectator. If Effects like these are laudable, if the Representation of
such Plays can carry Conviction with so much Pleasure to the Understanding,
have they not vastly the Advantage of any other Human Helps to Eloquence? What
equal Method can be found to lead or stimulate the Mind to a quicker Sense of
Truth and Virtue, or warm a People into the Love and Practice of such
Principles as might be at once a Defence and Honour to their Country? In what
Shape could we listen to Virtue with equal Delight or Appetite of Instruction?
The Mind of Man is naturally free, and when he is compell’d or menac’d into any
Opinion that he does not readily conceive, he is more apt to doubt the Truth of
it than when his Capacity is led by Delight into Evidence and Reason. To preserve
a Theatre in this Strength and Purity of Morals is, I grant, what the wisest
Nations have not been able to perpetuate or to transmit long to their
Posterity: But this Difficulty will rather heighten than take from the Honour
of the Theatre: The greatest Empires have decay’d for want of proper Heads to
guide them, and the Ruins of them sometimes have been the Subject of Theatres
that could not be themselves exempt from as various Revolutions: Yet may not
the most natural inference from all this be, That the Talents requisite to form
good Actors, great Writers, and true Judges were, like those of wise and
memorable Ministers, as well the Gifts of Fortune as of Nature, and not always
to be found in all Climes or Ages. Or can there be a stronger modern Evidence
of the Value of Dramatick Performances than that in many Countries where the
Papal Religion prevails the Holy Policy (though it allows not to an Actor
Christian Burial) is so conscious of the Usefulness of his Art that it will
frequently take in the Assistance of the Theatre to give even Sacred History,
in a Tragedy, a Recommendation to the more pathetick Regard of their People.
How can such Principles, in the Face of the World, refuse the Bones of a Wretch
the lowest Benefit of Christian Charity after having admitted his Profession
(for which they deprive him of that Charity) to serve the solemn Purposes of
Religion? How far then is this Religious Inhumanity short of that famous
Painter’s, who, to make his Crucifix a Master-piece of Nature, stabb’d the
Innocent Hireling from whose Body he drew it; and having heighten’d the holy
Portrait with his last Agonies of Life, then sent it to be the consecrated
Ornament of an Altar? Though we have only the Authority of common Fame for this
Story, yet be it true or false the Comparison will still be just. Or let me ask
another Question more humanly political.
How came the Athenians
to lay out an Hundred Thousand Pounds upon the Decorations of one single
Tragedy of Sophocles? [29.1] Not, sure, as it was merely a Spectacle for
Idleness or Vacancy of Thought to gape at, but because it was the most
rational, most instructive and delightful Composition that Human Wit had yet
arrived at, and consequently the most worthy to be the Entertainment of a wise
and warlike Nation: And it may be still a Question whether the Sophocles inspir’d
this Publick Spirit, or this Publick Spirit inspir’d the Sophocles? [30.1]
But alas! as the Power
of giving or receiving such Inspirations from either of these Causes seems
pretty well at an End, now I have shot my Bolt I shall descend to talk more
like a Man of the Age I live in: For, indeed, what is all this to a common
English Reader? Why, truly, as Shakespear terms it-- Caviare to the Multitude!
[30.2] Honest John Trott will tell you, that if he were to believe what I have
said of the Athenians, he is at most but astonish’d at it; but that if the
twentieth Part of the Sum I have mentioned were to be apply’d out of the
Publick money to the Setting off the best Tragedy the nicest Noddle in the
Nation could produce, it would probably raise the Passions higher in those that
did Not like it than in those that did; it might as likely meet with an
Insurrection as the Applause of the People, and so, mayhap, be fitter for the
Subject of a Tragedy than for a publick Fund to support it. --Truly, Mr. Trott,
I cannot but own that I am very much of your Opinion: I am only concerned that
the Theatre has not a better Pretence to the Care and further Consideration of
those Governments where it is tolerated; but as what I have said will not
probably do it any great Harm, I hope I have not put you out of Patience by
throwing a few good Wishes after an old Acquaintance.
To conclude this
Digression. If for the Support of the Stage what is generally shewn there must
be lower’d to the Taste of common Spectators; or if it is inconsistent with
Liberty to mend that Vulgar Taste by making the Multitude less merry there; or
by abolishing every low and senseless Jollity in which the Understanding can
have no Share; whenever, I say, such is the State of the Stage, it will be as
often liable to unanswerable Censure and manifest Disgraces. Yet there was a
Time, not yet out of many People’s Memory, when it subsisted upon its own
rational Labours; when even Success attended an Attempt to reduce it to
Decency; and when Actors themselves were hardy enough to hazard their Interest
in pursuit of so dangerous a Reformation. And this Crisis I am my self as
impatient as any tir’d Reader can be to arrive at. I shall therefore endeavour
to lead him the shortest way to it. But as I am a little jealous of the badness
of the Road, I must reserve to myself the Liberty of calling upon any Matter in
my way, for a little Refreshment to whatever Company may have the Curiosity or
Goodness to go along with me.
When the sole Menaging
Patentee at Drury-Lane for several Years could never be persuaded or driven to
any Account with the Adventurers, Sir Thomas Skipwith (who, if I am rightly
inform’d, had an equal Share with him [32.1] ) grew so weary of the Affair that
he actually made a Present of his entire Interest in it upon the following
Occasion.
Sir Thomas happen’d in
the Summer preceding the Re-union of the Companies to make a Visit to an
intimate Friend of his, Colonel Brett, of Sandywell, in Gloucestershire; where
the Plesantness of the Place, and the agreeable manner of passing his Time
there, had raised him to such a Gallantry of Heart, that in return to the
Civilities of his Friend the Colonel he made him an Offer of his whole Right in
the Patent; but not to overrate the Value of his Present, told him he himself
had made nothing of it these ten Years: But the Colonel (he said) being a
greater Favourite of the People in Power, and (as he believ’d) among the Actors
too, than himself was, might think of some Scheme to turn it to Advantage, and
in that Light, if he lik’d it, it was at his Service. After a great deal of
Raillery on both sides of what Sir Thomas had not made of it, and the
particular Advantages the Colonel was likely to make of it, they came to a
laughing Resolution That an Instrument should be drawn the next Morning of an
Absolute Conveyance of the Premises. A Gentleman of the Law well known to them
both happening to be a Guest there at the same time, the next Day produced the
Deed according to his Instructions, In the Presence of whom and of others it
was Sign’d, seal’d, and deliver’d to the Purposes therein contain’d. [33.1]
This Transaction may be
another Instance (as I have elsewhere observed) at how low a Value the
Interests in a Theatrical License were then held, tho’ it was visible from the
Success of Swiney in that very Year that with tolerable Menagement they could
at no time have fail’d of being a profitable Purchase.
The next Thing to be
consider’d was what the Colonel should do with his new Theatrical Commission,
which in another’s Possession had been of so little Importance. Here it may be
necessary to premise that this Gentleman was the first of any Consideration
since my coming to the Stage with whom I had contracted a Personal Intimacy;
which might be the Reason why in this Debate my Opinion had some Weight with
him: Of this Intimacy, too, I am the more tempted to talk from the natural
Pleasure of calling back in Age the Pursuits and happy Ardours of Youth long
past, which, like the Ideas of a delightful Spring in a Winter’s Rumination,
are sometimes equal to the former Enjoyment of them. I shall, therefore, rather
chuse in this Place to gratify my self than my Reader, by setting the fairest
Side of this Gentleman in view, and by indulging a little conscious Vanity in
shewing how early in Life I fell into the Possession of so agreeable a
Companion: Whatever failings he might have to others, he had none to me; nor
was he, where he had them, without his valuable Qualities to balance or soften
them. Let, then, what was not to be commended in him rest with his Ashes, never
to be rak’d into: But the friendly Favours I received from him while living
give me still a Pleasure in paying this only Mite of my Acknowledgment in my Power
to his Memory. And if my taking this Liberty may find Pardon from several of
his fair Relations still living, for whom I profess the utmost Respect, it will
give me but little Concern tho’ my critical Reader should think it all
Impertinence.
This Gentleman, then,
Henry, was the eldest Son of Henry Brett, Esq; of Cowley, in Gloucestershire,
who coming early to his Estate of about Two Thousand a Year, by the usual
Negligences of young Heirs had, before this his eldest Son came of age, sunk it
to about half that Value, and that not wholly free from Incumbrances. Mr.
Brett, whom I am speaking of, had his Education, and I might say, ended it, at
the University of Oxford; for tho’ he was settled some time after at the
Temple, he so little followed the Law there that his Neglect of it made the Lay
(like some of his fair and frail Admirers) very often follow him. As he had an
uncommon Share of Social Wit and a handsom Person, with a sanguine Bloom in his
Complexion, no wonder they persuaded him that he might have a better Chance of
Fortune by throwing such Accomplishments into the gayer World than by shutting
them up in a Study. The first View that fires the Head of a young Gentleman of
this modish Ambition just broke loose from Business, is to cut a Figure (as
they call it) in a Side-box at the Play, from whence their next Step is to the
Green Room behind the Scenes, sometimes their Non ultra. Hither at last, then,
in this hopeful Quest of his Fortune, came this Gentleman- Errant, not doubting
but the fickle Dame, while he was thus qualified to receive her, might be
tempted to fall into his Lap. And though possibly the Charms of our Theatrical
Nymphs might have their Share in drawing him thither, yet in my Observation the
most visible Cause of his first coming was a more sincere Passion he had
conceived for a fair full- bottom’d Perriwig which I then wore in my first Play
of the Fool in Fashion in the Year 1695. [35.1] For it is to be noted that the
Beaux of those Days were of a quite different Cast from the modern Stamp, and
had more of the Stateliness of the Peacock in their Mien than (which now seems
to be their highest Emulation) the pert Air of a Lapwing. Now, whatever
Contempt Philosophers may have for a fine Perriwig, my Friend, who was not to
despise the World, but to live in it, knew very well that so material an
Article of Dress upon the Head of a Man of Sense, if it became him, could never
fail of drawing to him a more partial Regard and Benevolence than could
possibly be hoped for in an ill-made one. [36.1] This perhaps may soften the
grave Censure which so youthful a Purchase might otherwise have laid upon him:
In a Word, he made his Attack upon this Perriwig, as your young Fellows
generally do upon a Lady of Pleasure, first by a few familiar Praises of her
Person, and then a civil Enquiry into the Price of it. But upon his observing
me a little surprized at the Levity of his Question about a Fop’s Perriwig, he
began to railly himself with so much Wit and Humour upon the Folly of his
Fondness for it, that he struck me with an equal Desire of granting any thing
in my Power to oblige so facetious a Customer. This singular Beginning of our
Conversation, and the mutual Laughs that ensued upon it, ended in an Agreement
to finish our Bargain that Night over a Bottle.
If it were possible the
Relation of the happy Indiscretions which passed between us that Night could
give the tenth Part of the Pleasure I then received from them, I could still
repeat them with Delight: But as it may be doubtful whether the Patience of a
Reader may be quite so strong as the Vanity of an Author, I shall cut it short
by only saying that single Bottle was the Sire of many a jolly Dozen that for
some Years following, like orderly Children, whenever they were call’d for,
came into the same Company. Nor, indeed, did I think from that time, whenever
he was to be had, any Evening could be agreeably enjoy’d without him. [37.1]
But the long continuance of our Intimacy perhaps may be thus accounted for.
He who can taste Wit in
another may in some sort be said to have it himself: Now, as I always had, and
(I bless my self for the Folly) still have a quick Relish of whatever did or
can give me Delight: This Gentleman could not but see the youthful Joy I was
generally raised to whenever I had the Happiness of a Tête à tête with him; and
it may be a moot Point whether Wit is not as often inspired by a proper
Attention as by the brightest Reply to it. Therefore, as he had Wit enough for
any two People, and I had Attention enough for any four, there could not well
be wanting a sociable Delight on either side. And tho’ it may be true that a
Man of a handsome Person is apt to draw a partial Ear to every thing he says;
yet this Gentleman seldom said any thing that might not have made a Man of the
plainest Person agreeable. Such a continual Desire to please, it may be
imagined, could not but sometimes lead him into a little venial Flattery rather
than not succeed in it. And I, perhaps, might be one of those Flies that was
caught in this Honey. As I was then a young successful Author and an Actor in
some unexpected Favour, whether deservedly or not imports not; yet such
Appearances at least were plausible Pretences enough for an amicable Adulation
to enlarge upon, and the Sallies of it a less Vanity than mine might not have
been able to resist. Whatever this Weakness on my side might be, I was not
alone in it; for I have heard a Gentleman of Condition say, who knew the World
as well as most Men that live in it, that let his Discretion be ever so much
upon its Guard, he never fell into Mr. Brett’s Company without being loth to
leave it or carrying away a better Opinion of himself from it. If his
Conversation had this Effect among the Men; what must we suppose to have been
the Consequence when he gave it a yet softer turn among the Fair Sex? Here,
now, a French Novellist would tell you fifty pretty Lies of him; but as I chuse
to be tender of Secrets of that sort, I shall only borrow the good Breeding of
that Language, and tell you in a Word, that I knew several Instances of his
being un Homme à bonne Fortune. But though his frequent Successes might
generally keep him from the usual Disquiets of a Lover, he knew this was a Life
too liquorish to last; and therefore had Reflexion enough to be govern’d by the
Advice of his Friends to turn these his Advantages of Nature to a better use.
Among the many Men of
Condition with whom his Conversation had recommended him to an Intimacy, Sir
Thomas Skipwith had taken a particular Inclination to him; and as he had the
Advancement of his Fortune at Heart, introduced him where there was a Lady
[39.1] who had enough in her Power to disencumber him of the World and make him
every way easy for Life.
While he was in pursuit
of this Affair, which no time was to be lost in (for the Lady was to be in Town
but for three Weeks) I one Day found him idling behind the Scenes before the
Play was begun. Upon sight of him I took the usual Freedom he allow’d me, to
rate him roundly for the Madness of not improving every Moment in his Power in
what was of such consequence to him. Why are you not (said I) where you know
you only should be? If your design should once get Wind in the Town, the
Ill-will of your Enemies of the Sincerity of the Lady’s Friends may soon blow
up your Hopes, which in your Circumstances of Life cannot be long supported by
the bare Appearance of a Gentleman. --But it is impossible to proceed without
some Apology for the very familiar Circumstance that is to follow--Yet, as it
might not be so trivial in its Effect as I fear it may be in the Narration, and
is a Mark of that Intimacy which is necessary should be known had been between
us, I will honestly make bold with my Scruples and let the plain Truth of my
Story take its Chance for Contempt or Approbation.
After twenty Excuses to
clear himself of the Neglect I had so warmly charged him with, he concluded
them with telling me he had been out all the Morning upon Business, and that
his Linnen was too much soil’d to be seen in Company. O, ho! said I, is that
all? Come along with me, we will soon get over that dainty Difficulty: Upon
which I haul’d him by the Sleeve into my Shifting-Room, he either staring,
laughing, or hanging back all the way. There, when I had lock’d him in, I began
to strip off my upper Cloaths, and bad him do the same; still her either did
not, or would not seem to understand me, and continuing his Laugh, cry’d, What!
is the Puppy mad? No, no, only positive, said I; for look you, in short, the
Play is ready to begin, and the Parts that you and I are to act to Day are not
of equal consequence; mine of young Reveller (in Greenwich-Park [41.1] ) is but
a Rake; but whatever you may be, you are not to appear so; therefore take my
Shirt and give me yours; for depend upon’t, stay here you shall not, and so go
about your Business. To conclude, we fairly chang’d Linnen, nor could his
Mother’s have wrap’d him up more fortunately; for in about ten Days he marry’d
the Lady. [41.2] In a Year or Two after his Marriage he was chosen a Member of
that Parliament which was sitting when King William dy’d. And, upon raising of
some new Regiments, was made Lieutenant-Colonel to that of Sir Charles Hotham.
But as his Ambition extended not beyond the Bounds of a Park Wall and a
pleasant Retreat in the Corner of it, which with too much Expence he had just
finish’d, he, within another Year, had leave to resign his Company to a younger
Brother.
This was the Figure in
Life he mad when Sir Thomas Skipwith thought him the most proper Person to
oblige (if it could be an Obligation) with the Present of his Interest in the
Patent. And from these Anecdotes of my Intimacy with him, it may be less a
Surprise, when he came to Town invested with this new Theatrical Power, that I
should be the first Person to whom he took any Notice of it. And notwithstanding
he knew I was then engag’d, in another Interest, at the Hay-Market, he desired
we might consider together of the best Use he could make of it, assuring me at
the same time he should think it of none to himself unless it could in some
Shape be turn’d to my Advantage. This friendly Declaration, though it might be
generous in him to make, was not needful to incline me in whatever might be
honestly in my Power, whether by Interest or Negotiation, to serve him. My
first Advice, therefore, was, That he should produce his Deed to the other
Menaging Patentee of Drury-Lane, and demand immediate Entrance to a joint
Possession of all Effects and Powers to which that Deed had given him an equal
Title. After which, if he met with no Opposition to this Demand (as upon sight
of it he did not) that he should be watchful against any Contradiction from his
Collegue in whatever he might propose in carrying on the Affair, but to let him
see that he was determin’d in all his Measures. Yet to heighten that Resolution
with an Ease and Temper in his manner, as if he took it for granted there could
be no Opposition made to whatever he had in mind to. For that this Method,
added to his natural Talent of Persuading, would imperceptibly lead his
Collegue into a Reliance on his superior Understanding, That however little he
car’d for Business he should give himself the Air at least of Enquiry into what
had been done, that what he intended to do might be thought more considerable
and be the readier comply’d with: For if he once suffer’d his Collegue to seem
wiser than himself, there would be no end of his perplexing him with absurd and
dilatory Measures; direct and plain Dealing being a Quality his natural
Diffidence would never suffer him to be Master of; of which his not complying with
his Verbal Agreement with Swiney, when the Hay-Market House was taken for both
their Uses, was an Evidence. And though some People thought it Depth and Policy
in him to keep things often in Confusion, it was every my Opinion they
over-rated his Skill, and that, in reality, his Parts were too weak for his
Post, in which he had always acted to the best of his Knowledge. That his late
Collegue, Sir Thomas Shipwith, had trusted too much to his Capacity for this
sort of Business, and was treated by him accordingly, without ever receiving
any Profits from it for several Years: Insomuch that when he found his Interest
in such desperate Hands he thought the best thing he could do with it was (as
he saw) to give it away. Therefore if he (Mr. Brett) could once fix himself, as
I had advis’d, upon a different Foot with this hitherto untractable Menager,
the Business would soon run through whatever Channel he might have a mind to
lead it. And though I allow’d the greatest Difficulty he would meet with would
be in getting his Consent to a Union of the two Companies, which was the only
Scheme that could raise the Patent to its former Value, and which I knew this
close Menager would secretly lay all possible Rubs in the way to; yet it was
visible there was a way of reducing him to Compliance: For though it was true
his Caution would never part with a Straw by way of Concession, yet to a high
Hand he would give up any thing, provided he were suffer’d to keep his Title to
it: If his Hat were taken from his Head in the Street, he would make no farther
Resistance than to say, I am not willing to part with it. Much less would he
have the Resolution openly to oppose any just Measures, when he should find
one, who with an equal Right to his and with a known Interest to bring them about,
was resolv’d to go thro’ with them.
Now though I knew my
Friend was as thoroughly acquainted with this Patentee’s Temper as myself, yet
I thought it not amiss to quicken and support his Resolution, by confirming to
him the little Trouble he would meet with, in pursuit of the Union I had advis’d
him to; for it must be known that on our side Trouble was a sort of Physick we
did not much care to take: But as the Fatigue of this Affair was likely to be
lower’d by a good deal of Entertainment and Humour, which would naturally
engage him in his dealing with so exotick a Partner, I knew that this softening
the Business into a Diversion would lessen every Difficulty that lay in our way
to it.
However copiously I may
have indulg’d my self in this Commemoration of a Gentleman with whom I had pass’d
so many of my younger Days with Pleasure, yet the Reader may by this Insight
into his Character, and by that of the other Patentee, be better able to judge
of the secret Springs that gave Motion to or obstructed so considerable an
Event as that of the Re-union of the two Companies of Actors in 1708. [45.1] In
Histories of more weight, for want of such Particulars we are often deceiv’d in
the true Causes of Facts that most concern us to be let into; which sometimes
makes us ascribe to Policy, or false Appearances of Wisdom, what perhaps in
reality was the mere Effect of Chance or Humour.
Immediately after Mr.
Brett was admitted as a joint Patentee, he made use of the Intimacy he had with
the Vice-Chamberlain to assist his Scheme of this intended Union, in which he
so far prevail’d that it was soon after left to the particular Care of the same
Vice-Chamberlain to give him all the Aid and Power necessary to the bringing
what he desired to Perfection. The Scheme was, to have but one Theatre for
Plays and another for Operas, under separate Interests. And this the generality
of Spectators, as well as the most approv’d Actors, had been some time calling
for as the only Expedient to recover the Credit of the Stage and the valuable
Interests of its Menagers.
As the Condition of the
Comedians at this time is taken notice of in my Dedication of the Wife’s
Resentment to the Marquis (now Duke) of Kent, and then Lord-Chamberlain, which
was publish’d above thirty Years ago, [46.1] when I had no thought of ever
troubling the World with this Theatrical History, I see no Reason why it may
not pass as a Voucher of the Facts I am now speaking of; I shall therefore give
them in the very Light I then saw them. After some Acknowledgment for his
Lordship’s Protection of our (Hay-Market) Theatre, it is further said--
"The Stage has,
for many Years, ’till of late, "groan’d under the greatest
Discouragements, which "have been very much, if not wholly, owing to the
"Mismenagement of those that have aukwardly "govern’d it. Great Sums
have been ventur’d upon "empty Projects and Hopes of immoderate Gains,
"and when those Hopes have fail’d, the Loss has "been tyrannically
deducted out of the Actors "Sallary. And if your Lordship had not redeem’d
"them--This is meant of our being suffer’d to come "over to
Swiney--they were very near being "wholly laid aside, or, at least, the
Use of their "Labour was to be swallow’d up in the pretended "Merit
of Singing and Dancing."
What follows relates to
the Difficulties in dealing with the then impracticable Menager, viz.
"--And though your
Lordship’s Tenderness of "oppressing is so very just that you have rather
"staid to convince a Man of your good Intentions "to him than to do him
even a Service against his "Will; yet since your Lordship has so happily
begun "the Establishment of the separate Diversions, we "live in hope
that the same Justice and Resolution "will still persuade you to go as
successfully through "with it. But while any Man is suffer’d to confound
"the Industry and Use of them by acting publickly "in opposition to
your Lordship’s equal Intentions, "under a false and intricate Pretence of
not being "able to comply with then, the Town is likely to "be more
entertain’d with the private Dissensions "than the publick Performance of
either, and the "Actors in a perpetual Fear and Necessity of
"petitioning your Lordship every Season for new "Relief."
Such was the State of
the Stage immediately preceding the time of Mr. Brett’s being admitted a joint
Patentee, who, as he saw with clearer Eyes what was its evident Interest, left
no proper Measures unattempted to make this so long despair’d-of Union
practicable. The most apparent Difficulty to be got over in this Affair was, what
could be done for Swiney in consideration of his being oblig’d to give up those
Actors whom the Power and Choice of the Lord-Chamberlain had the Year before
set him at the Head of, and by whose Menagement those Actors had found
themselves in a prosperous Condition. But an Accident at this time happily
contributed to make that Matter easy. The Inclination of our People of Quality
for foreign Operas had now reach’d the Ears of Italy, and the Credit of their
Taste had drawn over from thence, without any more particular Invitation, one
of their capital Singers, the famous Signior Cavaliero Nicolini: From whose
Arrival, and the Impatience of the Town to hear him, it was concluded that
Operas being now so completely provided could not fail of Success, and that by
making Swiney sole Director of them the Profits must be an ample Compensation
for his Resignation of the Actors. This Matter being thus adjust by Swiney’s
Acceptance of the Opera only to be perform’d at the Hay-Market House, the
Actors were all order’d to return to Drury-Lane, there to remain (under the
Patentees) her Majesty’s only Company of Comedians. [49.1]
[26.1] Horace, Epis., i. 6, 68. [26.2] At Drury Lane, 14th April, 1713.
[27.1] This is a pretty way of putting what Johnson, in his Life of Addison,
afterwards stated in the well-known words: "The Whigs applauded every line
in which Liberty was mentioned, as a satire on the Tories; and the Tories
echoed every clap to show that the satire was unfelt." In the next
paragraph Johnson describes the play as "supported by the emulation of
factious praise." [29.1] I confess I do not know Cibber’s authority for
this statement. [30.1] "The Laureat" abuses Cibber for this sentence,
declaring that he evidently considered Sophocles" to be the name of a
tragedy. But Cibber’s method of expression, though curious, does not justify
this attack. [30.2] "Caviare to the general."--"Hamlet,"
act ii. sc. 2. [32.1] Malone supposes that Skipwith acquired his shares from
the Killigrew family, but in the indenture by which he transferred his interest
to Brett, it seems as if he had acquired part of it from Alexander Davenant,
and the remainder by buying up shares of the original Adventurers. The
indenture will be found at length in Mr. Percy Fitzgerald’s "New History
of the English Stage," i. 252. Skipwith is described in the "Biog.
Dram." (i. 487) as "a weak, vain, conceited coxcomb." The
proportion in which the shares were divided among the various holders is shown
by the "Opinion" of Northey and Raymond, in 1711, to have been this:
Three-twentieths belonged to Charles Killigrew. The remainder was divided into
tenths, of which two-tenths belonged to Rich; the other eight parts were owned
by the Mortgagees or Adventurers. If Cibber’s supposition is correct, two of
these parts belonged to Shipwith. [33.1] It is dated 6th October, 1707. [35.1]
As noted vol. i. p. 213, January, 1695, Old Style; that is, January, 1696.
[36.1] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 84) says: "The heads of the
English actors were, for a long time, covered with large full-bottomed
perriwigs, a fashion introduced in the reign of Charles II., which was not
entirely disused in public till about the year 1720. Addison, Congreve, and
Steele, met a Button’s coffee-house, in large, flowing, flaxen wigs; Booth,
Wilks, and Cibber, when full-dressed, wore the same. Till within these
twenty-five years, our Tamerlanes and Catos had as much hair on their heads as
our judges on the bench....I have been told, that he [Booth] and Wilks bestowed
forty guineas each on the exorbitant thatching of their heads." [37.1]
"The Laureat," p. 66, relates with great acrimony an anecdote of
Colonel Brett’s reproving Cibber harshly for his treatment of an author who had
submitted a play to him. Cibber is said to have opened the author’s MS., and,
having read two lines only, to have returned it to him saying, "Sir, it
will not do." Going to Button’s, he related his exploit with great glee,
but was rebuked in the strongest terms by Colonel Brett, who is said to have
put him to shame before the whole company. This is related as having occurred
many years after the time Cibber now writes of; the suggestion being that Brett
did not consider Cibber as a friend. [39.1] This was the Countess of
Macclesfield, the supposed mother of Richard Savage, who had a large fortune in
her own right, of which she was not deprived on her divorce from the Earl of
Macclesfield. Shortly after her divorce, probably about 1698, she married
Brett. She lived to be eighty, or over it, dying 11th October, 1753. [41.1] A
comedy by Mountfort the actor, originally played at the Theatre Royal, 1691.
The part of Young Reveller was then taken by the author, and we have no record
of Cibber’s playing it before 1708; but from this anecdote he must have done so
ten years earlier. [41.2] In
Boswell’s Life of Johnson (i. 174) there is a note by Boswell himself:--
A short View of the
Opera when first divided from the Comedy. Plays recover their Credit. The old
Patentee uneasy at their Success. Why. The Occasion of Colonel Brett’s throwing
up his Share in the Patent. The Consequences of it. Anecdotes of Goodman the
Actor. The Rate of favourite Actors in his Time. The Patentees, by endeavouring
to reduce their Price, lose them all a second time. The principal Comedians
return to the Hay-Market in Shares with Swiney. They alter that Theatre. The
original and present Form of the Theatre in Drury-Lane compared. Operas fall
off. The Occasion of it. Farther Observations upon them. The Patentee
dispossess’d of Drury-Lane Theatre. Mr. Collier, with a new License, heads the
Remains of that Company.
PLAYS and Operas being
thus established upon separate Interests, [50.1] they were now left to make the
best of their way into Favour by their different Merit. Although the Opera is
not a Plant of our Native Growth, nor what our plainer Appetites are fond of,
and is of so delicate a Nature that without excessive Charge it cannot live
long among us; especially while the nicest Connoisseurs in Musick fall into
such various Heresies in Taste, every Sect pretending to be the true one: Yet,
as it is call’d a Theatrical Entertainment, and by its Alliance or Neutrality
has more or less affected our Domestick Theatre, a short View of its Progress
may be allow’d a Place in our History.
After this new
Regulation the first Opera that appear’d was Pyrrhus. Subscriptions at that
time were not extended, as of late, to the whole Season, but were limited to
the first Six Days only of a new Opera. The chief Performers in this were
Nicolini, Valentini, and Mrs. Tofts; [51.1] and for the inferior Parts the best
that were then to be found. Whatever Praises may have been given to the most
famous Voices that have been heard since Nicolini, upon the whole I cannot but
come into the Opinion that still prevails among several Persons of Condition
who are able to give a Reason for their liking, that no Singer since his Time
has so justly and gracefully acquitted himself in whatever Character he appear’d
as Nicolini. At most the Difference between him and the greatest Favourite of
the Ladies, Farinelli, amounted but to this, that he might sometimes more
exquisitely surprize us, but Nicolini (by pleasing the Eye as well as the Ear)
fill’d us with a more various and rational Delight. Whether in this Excellence
he has since had any Competitor, perhaps will be better judg’d by what the
Critical Censor of Great Britain says of him in his 115th Tatler, viz.
"Nicolini sets off
the Character he bears in an "Opera by his Action, as much as he does the
"Words of it by his Voice; every Limb and Finger "contributes to the
Part he acts, insomuch that a "deaf Man might go along with him in the
Sense "of it. There is scarce a beautiful Posture in an "old Statue
which he does not plant himself in, as "the different Circumstances of the
Story give occasion "for it-- He performs the most ordinary "Action
in a manner suitable to the Greatness of "his Character, and shews the
Prince even in the "giving of a Letter or dispatching of a Message,
"&c." [52.1]
His Voice at this first
time of being among us (for he made us a second Visit when it was impair’d) had
all that strong, clear Sweetness of Tone so lately admir’d in Senesino. A blind
Man could scarce have distinguish’d them; but in Volubility of Throat the
former had much the Superiority. This so excellent Performer’s Agreement was
Eight Hundred Guineas for the Year, which is but an eighth Part more than half
the Sum that has since been given to several that could never totally surpass
him: The Consequence of which is, that the Losses by Operas, for several
Seasons, to the End of the Year 1738, have been so great, that those Gentlemen
of Quality who last undertook the Direction of them, found it ridiculous any
longer to entertain the Publick at so extravagant an Expence, while no one
particular Person thought himself oblig’d by it.
Mrs. Tofts, [54.1] who
took her first Grounds of Musick here in her own Country, before the Italian
Taste had so highly prevail’d, was then not an Adept in it: [54.2] Yet whatever
Defect the fashionably Skilful might find in her manner, she had, in the
general Sense of her Spectators, Charms that few of the most learned Singers
ever arrive at. The Beauty of her fine proportion’d Figure, and exquisitely
sweet, silver Tone of her Voice, with that peculiar, rapid Swiftness of her
Throat, were Perfections not to be imitated by Art or Labour. Valentini I have
already mention’d, therefore need only say farther of him, that though he was
every way inferior to Nicolini, [55.1] yet, as he had the Advantage of giving
us our first Impression of a good Opera Singer, he had still his Admirers, and
was of great Service in being so skilful a Second to his Superior.
Three such excellent Performers
in the same kind of Entertainment at once, England till this Time had never
seen: Without any farther Comparison, then, with the much dearer bought who
have succeeded them, their Novelty at least was a Charm that drew vast
Audiences of the fine World after them. Swiney, their sole Director, was
prosperous, and in one Winter a Gainer by them of a moderate younger Brother’s
Fortune. But as Musick, by so profuse a Dispensation of her Beauties, could not
always supply our dainty Appetites with equal Variety, nor for ever please us
with the same Objects, the Opera, after one luxurious Season, like the fine
Wife of a roving Husband, began to loose its Charms, and every Day discover’d
to our Satiety Imperfections which our former Fondness has been blind to: But
of this I shall observe more in its Place: in the mean time, let us enquire
into the Productions of our native Theatre.
It may easily be
conceiv’d, that by this entire Reunion of the two Companies Plays must
generally have been perform’d to a more than usual Advantage and Exactness: For
now every chief Actor, according to his particular Capacity, piqued himself
upon rectifying those Errors which during their divided State were almost
unavoidable. Such a Choice of Actors added a Richness to every good Play as it
was then serv’d up to the publick Entertainment: The common People crowded to
them with a more joyous Expectation, and those of the higher Taste return’d to
them as to old Acquaintances, with new Desires after a long Absence. In a Word,
all Parties seem’d better pleas’d but he who one might imagine had most Reason
to be so, the (lately) sole menaging Patentee. He, indeed, saw his Power daily
mould’ring from his own Hands into those of Mr. Brett, [56.1] whose Gentlemanly
manner of making every one’s Business easy to him, threw their old Master under
a Disregard which he had not been us’d to, nor could with all his happy Change
of Affairs support. Although this grave Theatrical Minister of whom I have been
oblig’d to make such frequent mention, had acquired the Reputation of a most
profound Politician by being often incomprehensible, yet I am not sure that his
Conduct at this Juncture gave us not an evident Proof that he was, like other
frail Mortals, more a Slave to his Passions than his Interest; for no Creature
ever seem’d more fond of Power that so little knew how to use it to his Profit
and Reputation; otherwise he could not possibly have been so discontented, in
his secure and prosperous State of the Theatre, as to resolve at all Hazards to
destroy it. We shall now see what infallible Measures he took to bring this
laudable Scheme to Perfection.
He plainly saw that, as
this disagreeable Prosperity was chiefly owing to the Conduct of Mr. Brett,
there could be no hope of recovering the State to its former Confusion but by
finding some effectual Means to make Mr. Brett weary of his Charge: The most
probable he could for the Present think of, in this Distress, was to call in
the Adventurers (whom for many Years, by his Defence in Law, he had kept out)
now to take care of their visibly improving Interests. [57.1] This fair
Appearance of Equity being known to be his own Proposal, he rightly guess’d
would incline these Adventurers to form a Majority of Votes on his Side in all
Theatrical Questions, and consequently become a Check upon the Power of Mr.
Brett, who had so visibly alienated the Hearts of his Theatrical Subjects, and
now began to govern without him. When the Adventurers, therefore, were
re-admitted to their old Government, after having recommended himself to them
by proposing to make some small Dividend of the Profits (though he did not
design that Jest should be repeated) he took care that the Creditors of the
Patent, who were then no inconsiderable Body, should carry off the every Weeks
clear Profits in proportion to their several Dues and Demands. This Conduct, so
speciously just, he had Hopes would let Mr. Brett see that his Share in the
Patent was not so valuable an Acquisition as perhaps he might think it; and
probably make a Man of his Turn to Pleasure soon weary of the little Profit and
great Plague it gave him. Now, though these might be all notable Expedients,
yet I cannot say they would have wholly contributed to Mr. Brett’s quitting his
Post, had not a Matter of much stronger Moment, an unexpected Dispute between
him and Sir Thomas Skipwith, prevailed with him to lay it down: For int he
midst of this flourishing State of the Patent, Mr. Brett was surpriz’d with a
Subpœna into Chancery from Sir Thomas Skipwith, who alledg’d in his Bill that
the Conveyance he had made of his Interest in the Patent to Mr. Brett was only
intended in Trust. (Whatever the Intent might be, the Deed it self, which I
then read, made no mention of any Trust whatever.) But whether Mr. Brett, as
Sir Thomas farther asserted, had previously, or after the Deed was sign’d,
given his Word of Honour that if he should ever make the Stage turn to any
Account or Profit, he would certainly restore it: That, indeed, I can say
nothing to; but be the Deed valid or void, the Facts that apparently follow’d
were, that tho’ Mr. Brett in his Answer to this Bill absolutely deny’d his
receiving this Assignment either in Trust or upon any limited Condition of what
kind soever, yet he made no farther Defence in the Cause. But since he found
Sir Thomas had thought fit on any Account to sue for the Restitution of it, and
Mr. Brett being himself conscious that, as the World knew he had paid no
Consideration for it, his keeping it might be misconstrued, or not favourably
spoken of; or perhaps finding, tho’s the Profits were great, they were
constantly swallowed up (as has been observ’d) by the previous Satisfaction of
old Debts, he grew so tir’d of the Plague and Trouble the whole Affair had
given him, and was likely still to engage him in, that in a few Weeks after he
withdrew himself from all Concern with the Theatre, and quietly left Sir Thomas
to find his better Account in it. And thus stood this undecided Right till,
upon the Demise of Sir Thomas, Mr. Brett being allow’d the Charges he had been
at in this Attendance and Prosecution of the Union, reconvey’d this Share of
the Patent to Sir George Skipwith, the Son and Heir of Sir Thomas. [60.1]
Our Politician, the old
Patentee, having thus fortunately got rid of Mr. Brett, who had so rashly
brought the Patent once more to be a profitable Tenure, was now again at
Liberty to chuse rather to lose all than not to have it all to himself.
I have elsewhere observ’d
that nothing can so effectually secure the Strength, or contribute to the
Prosperity of a good Company, as the Directors of it having always, as near as
possible, an amicable Understanding with three or four of their best Actors,
whose good or ill-will must naturally make a wide Difference in their
profitable or useless manner of serving them: While the Principal are kept
reasonably easy the lower Class can never be troublesome without hurting
themselves: But when a valuable Actor is hardly treated, the Master must be a
very cunning Man that finds his Account in it. We shall now see how far
Experience will verify this Observation.
The Patentees thinking
themselves secure in being restor’d to their former absolute Power over this
now only Company, chose rather to govern it by the Reverse of the Method I have
recommended: For tho’ the daily Charge of their united Company amounted not, by
a good deal, to what either of the two Companies now in Drury-Lane or
Covent-Garden singly arises, they notwithstanding fell into their former
Politicks of thinking every Shilling taken from a hired Actor so much clear
Gain to the Proprietor: Many of their People, therefore, were actually, if not
injudiciously, reduced in their Pay, and others given to understand the same
Fate was design’d them; of which last Number I my self was one; which occurs to
my Memory by the Answer I made to one of the Adventurers, who, in Justification
of their intended Proceeding, [61.1] told me that my Sallary, tho’ it should be
less than it was by ten Shillings a Week, would still be more than ever Goodman
had, who was abetter Actor than I could pretend to be: To which I reply’d, This
may be true, but then you know, Sir, it is as true that Goodman was forced to
go upon the High-way for a Livelihood. As this was a known Fact of Goodman, my
mentioning it on that Occasion I believe was of Service to me; at least my
Sallary was not reduced after it. To say a Word or two more of Goodman, so
celebrated an Actor in his Time, perhaps may set the Conduct of the Patentees
in a clearer Light. Tho’ Goodman had left the Stage before I came to it, I had
some slight Acquaintance with him. About the Time of his being expected to be
an Evidence against Sir John Fenwick in the Assassination-Plot, [62.1] in 1696,
I happen’d to meet him at Dinner at Sir Thomas Skipwith’s who, as he was an
agreeable Companion himself, liked Goodman for the same Quality. Here it was
that Goodman, without Disguise or sparing himself, fell into a laughing Account
of several loose Passages of his younger Life; as his being expell’d the
University of Cambridge for being one of the hot-headed Sparks who were concern’d
in the cutting and defacing the Duke of Monmouth’s Picture, then Chancellor of
that Place. But this Disgrace, it seems, had not disqualified him for the
Stage, which, like the Sea-Service, refuses no Man for his Morals that is
able-bodied: There, as an Actor, he soon grew into a different Reputation; but
whatever his Merit might be, the Pay of a hired Hero in those Days was so very
low that he was forced, it seems, to take the Air (as he call’d it) and borrow
what Money the first Man he met had about him. But this being his first Exploit
of that kind which the Scantiness of his Theatrical Fortune had reduced him to,
King James was prevail’d upon to pardon him: Which Goodman said was doing him
so particular an Honour that no Man could wonder if his Acknowledgment had
carried him a little farther than ordinary into the Interest of that Prince:
But as he had lately been out of Luck in backing his old Master, he had now no
way to get home the Life he was out upon his Account but by being under the
same Obligations to King William.
Another Anecdote of
him, though not quite so dishonourably enterprizing, which I had from his own
Mouth at a different Time, will equally shew to what low Shifts in Life the
poor Provision for good Actors, under the early Government of the Patent,
reduced them. In the younger Days of their Heroism, Captain Griffin and Goodman
were confined by their moderate Sallaries to the Oeconomy of lying together in
the same Bed and having but one whole Shirt between them: One of them being
under the Obligation of a Rendezvous with a fair Lady, insisted upon his
wearing it out of his Turn, which occasion’d so high a Dispute that the Combat
was immediately demanded, and accordingly their Pretensions to it were decided
by a fair Tilt upon the Spot, in the Room where they lay: But whether Clytus or
Alexander was obliged to see no Company till a worse could be wash’d for him,
seems not to be a material Point in their History, or to my Purpose. [64.1]
By this Rate of
Goodman, who, ’till the Time of his quitting the Stage never had more than what
is call’d forty Shillings a Week, it may be judg’d how cheap the Labour of
Actors had been formerly; and the Patentees thought it a Folly to continue the
higher Price, (which their Divisions had since raised them to) now there was
but one Market for them; but alas! they had forgot their former fatal Mistake
of squabbling with their Actors in 1695; [64.2] nor did they make any Allowance
for the Changes and Operations of Time, or enough consider the Interest the
Actors had in the Lord Chamberlain, on whose Protection they might always rely,
and whose Decrees had been less restrain’d by Precedent than those of a Lord
Chancellor.
In this mistaken View
of their Interest, the Patentees, by treating their Actors as Enemies, really
made them so: And when once the Masters of a hired Company think not their
Actors Hearts as necessary as their Hands, they cannot be said to have agreed
for above half the Work they are able to do in a Day: Or, if an unexpected
Success should, notwithstanding, make the Profits in any gross Disproportion
greater than the Wages, the Wages will always have something worse than a
Murmur at the Head of them, that will not only measure the Merit of the Actor by
the Gains of the Proprietor, but will never naturally be quiet till every
Scheme of getting into Property has been tried to make the Servant his own
Master: And this, as far as Experience can make me judge, will always be in
either of these Cases the State of our English Theatre. What Truth there may be
in this Observation we are now coming to a Proof of.
To enumerate all the
particular Acts of Power in which the Patentees daily bore hard upon this now
only Company of Actors, might be as tedious as unnecessary; I shall therefore
come at once to their most material Grievance, upon which they grounded their
Complaint to the Lord Chamberlain, who, in the Year following, 1709, took
effectual Measures for their Relief.
The Patentees observing
that the Benefit-Plays of the Actors towards the latter End of the Season
brought the most crowded Audiences in the Year, began to think their own
Interests too much neglected by these partial Favours of the Town to their
Actors; and therefore judg’d it would not be impolitick in such wholesome
annual Profits to have a Fellow-feeling with them. Accordingly an Indulto
[66.1] was laid of one Third out of the Profits of every Benefit for the proper
Use and Behoof of the Patent. [66.2] But that a clear Judgment may be form’d of
the Equity or Hardship of this Imposition, it will be necessary to shew from
whence and from what Causes the Actors Claim to Benefits originally proceeded.
During the Reign of
King Charles an Actor’s Benefit had never been heard of. The first Indulgence of
this kind was given to Mrs. Barry (as has been formerly observed [67.1] ) in
King James’s Time, in Consideration of the extraordinary Applause that had
followed her Performance: But there this Favour rested to her alone, ’till
after the Division of the only Company in 1695, at which time the Patentees
were soon reduced to pay their Actors half in good Words and half in ready
Money. In this precarious Condition some particular Actors (however binding
their Agreements might be) were too poor or too wise to go to Law with a
Lawyer, and therefore rather chose to compound their Arrears for their being
admitted to the Chance of having them made up by the Profits of a Benefit-Play.
This Expedient had this Consequence; that the Patentees, tho’ their daily
Audiences might, and did sometimes mend, still kept the short Subsistance of
their Actors at a stand, and grew more steady in their Resolution so to keep
them, and as they found them less apt to mutiny while their Hopes of being
clear’d off by a Benefit were depending. In a Year or two these Benefits grew
so advantageous that they became at last the chief Article in every Actor’s
Agreement.
Now though the
Agreements of these united Actors I am speaking of in 1708 were as yet only
Verbal, yet that made no difference in the honest Obligation to keep them: But
as Honour at that time happen’d to have but a loose hold of their Consciences,
the Patentees rather chose to give it the slip, and went on with their Work
without it. No Actor, therefore, could have his Benefit fix’d ’till he had
first sign’d a Paper signifying his voluntary Acceptance of it upon the above
Conditions, any Claims from Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Several at
first refus’d to sign this Paper; upon which the next in Rank were offer’d on
the same Conditions to come before the Refusers; this smart Expedient got some
few of the Fearful the Preference to their Seniors; who, at last, seeing the
Time was too short for a present Remedy, and that they must either come into
the Boat or lose their Tide, were forc’d to comply with what they as yet
silently resented as the severest Injury. In this Situation, therefore, they
chose to let the principal Benefits be over, that their Grievances might swell
into some bulk before they made any Application for Redress to the
Lord-Chamberlain; who, upon hearing their general Complaint, order’d the
Patentees to shew cause why their Benefits had been diminish’d one Third,
contrary to the common Usage? The Patentees pleaded the sign’d Agreement, and
the Actors Receipts of the other two Thirds, in Full Satisfaction. But these
were prov’d to have been exacted from them by the Methods already mentioned.
They notwithstanding insist upon them as lawful. But as Law and Equity to not
always agree, they were look’d upon as unjust and arbitrary. Whereupon the
Patentees were warn’d at their Peril to refuse the Actors full Satisfaction.
[69.1] But here it was thought necessary that Judgment should be for some time
respited, ’till the Actors, who had leave so to do, could form a Body strong
enough to make the Inclination of the Lord-Chamberlain to relieve them
practicable.
Accordingly Swiney (who
was then sole Director of the Opera only) had Permission to enter into a
private Treaty with such of the united Actors in Drury-Lane as might be thought
fit to head a Company under their own Menagement, and to be Sharers with him in
the Hay-Market. The Actors chosen for this Charge were Wilks, Dogget, Mrs.
Oldfield, and Myself. But before I proceed, lest it should seem surprizing that
neither Betterton, Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Bracegirdle, or Booth were Parties in this
Treaty, it must be observ’d that Betterton was now Seventy-three, and rather
chose, with the Infirmities of Age upon him, than to involve himself in the
Cares and Hurry that must unavoidably attend the Regulation of a new Company.
As to the two celebrated Actresses I have named, this has been my first proper
Occasion of making it known that they had both quitted the Stage the Year
before this Transaction was thought of. [70.1] And Booth as yet was scarce out
of his Minority as an Actor, or only in the Promise of that Reputation which,
in about four or five Years after, he happily arriv’d at. However, at this
Juncture he was not so far overlook’d as not to be offer’d a valuable Addition
to his Sallary: But this he declin’d, being, while the Patentees were under
this Distress, as much, if not more, in favour with their chief Menager as a
Schematist than as an Actor: And indeed he appear’d, to my Judgment, more
inclin’d to risque his Fortune in Drury-Lane, where he should have no Rival in
Parts or Power, than on any Terms to embark in the Hay-Market, where he was
sure to meet with Opponents in both. [70.2] However, this his Separation from
our Interest when our All was at stake, afterwards kept his Advancement to a
Share with us in our more successful Days longer postpon’d than otherwise it
probably might have been.
When Mrs. Oldfield was
nominated as a joint Sharer in our new Agreement to be made with Swiney,
Dogget, who had no Objection to her Merit, insisted that our Affairs could
never be upon a secure Foundation if there was more than one Sex admitted to
the Menagement of them. He therefore hop’d that if we offer’d Mrs. Oldfield a
Carte Blanche instead of a Share, she would not think herself slighted. This
was instantly agreed to, and Mrs. Oldfield receiv’d it rather as a Favour than
a Disobligation: Her Demands therefore were Two Hundred Pounds a Year certain,
and a Benefit clear of all Charges, which were readily sign’d to. Her Easiness
on this Occasion, some Years after, when our Establishment was in Prosperity,
made us with less Reluctancy advance her Two Hundred Pounds to Three Hundred
Guineas per Annum, with her usual Benefit, which, upon an Average, for several
Years at least doubled that Sum.
When a sufficient
number of Actors were engag’d under our Confederacy with Swiney, it was then
judg’d a proper time for the Lord-Chamberlain’s Power to operate, which, by
lying above a Month dormant, had so far recover’d the Patentees from any
Apprehensions of what might fall upon them from their late Usurpations on the
Benefits of the Actors, that they began to set their Marks upon those who had
distinguish’d themselves in the Application for Redress. Several little Disgraces
were put upon them, particularly in the Disposal of Parts in Plays to be reviv’d,
and as visible a Partiality was shewn in the Promotion of those in their
Interest, though their Endeavours to serve them could be of no extraordinary
use. How often does History shew us, in the same State of Courts, the same
Politicks have been practis’d? All this while the other Party were passively
silent, ’till one Day the Actor who particularly solicited their Cause at the
Lord-Chamberlain’s Office, being shewn there the Order sign’d for absolutely
silencing the Patentees, and ready to be serv’d, flew back with the News to his
Companions, then at a Rehearsal in which he had been wanted; when being call’d
to his Part, and something hastily question’d by the Patentee for his Neglect
of Business: This Actor, I say, with an erected Look and a Theatrical Spirit,
at once threw off the Mask and roundly told him--Sir, I have now no more
Business Here than you have; in half an Hour you will neither have Actors to
command nor Authority to employ them.--The Patentee, who though he could not
readily comprehend his mysterious manner of Speaking, had just a Glimpse of
Terror enough from the Words to soften his Reproof into a cold formal
Declaration, That if he would not do his Work he should not be paid.--But now,
to complete the Catastrophe of these Theatrical Commotions, enters the
Messenger with the Order of Silence in his Hand, whom the same Actor
officiously introduc’d, telling the Patentee that the Gentleman wanted to speak
with him from the Lord-Chamberlain. When the Messenger had delivered the Order,
the Actor, throwing his Head over his Shoulder towards the Patentee, in the
manner of Shakespear’s Harry the Eighth to Cardinal Wolsey, cry’d--Read o’er
that! and now-- to Breakfast, with what Appetite you may. Tho’ these Words
might be spoken in too vindictive and insulting a manner to be commended, yet,
from the Fulness of a Heart injuriously treated and now reliev’d by that
instant Occasion, why might they not be pardon’d? [73.1]
The Authority of the
Patent now no longer subsisting, all the confederated Actors immediately walked
out of the House, to which they never return’d ’till they became themselves the
Tenants and Masters of it.
Here agen we see an
higher Instance of the Authority of a Lord-Chamberlain than any of those I have
elsewhere mentioned: From whence that Power might be deriv’d, as I have already
said, I am not Lawyer enough to know; however, it is evident that a Lawyer obey’d
it, though to his Cost; which might incline one to think that the Law was not
clearly against it: Be that as it may, since the Law has lately made it no
longer a Question, let us drop the Enquiry and proceed to the Facts which
follow’d this Order that silenc’d the Patent.
From this last injudicious
Disagreement of the Patentees with their principal Actors, and from what they
had suffered on the same Occasion in the Division of their only Company in
1695, might we not imagine there was something of Infatuation in their
Menagement? For though I allow Actors in general, when they are too much indulg’d,
or govern’d by an unsteady Head, to be as unruly a Multitude as Power can be
plagued with; yet there is a Medium which, if cautiously observed by a candid
use of Power, making them always know, without feeling, their Superior, neither
suffering their Encroachments nor invading their Rights, with an immoveable
Adherence to the accepted Laws they are to walk by; such a Regulation, I say,
has never fail’d, in my Observation, to have made them a tractable and
profitable Society. If the Government of a well-establish’d Theatre were to be
compar’d to that of a Nation, there is no one Act of Policy or Misconduct in
the one or the other in which the Menager might not, in some parallel Case,
(laugh, if you please) be equally applauded or condemned with the Statesman.
Perhaps this will not be found so wild a Conceit if you look into the 193d
Tatler, Vol. 4. where the Affairs of the State and those of the very Stage
which I am now treating of, are, in a Letter from Downs the Promptor, [75.1]
compar’d, and with a great deal of Wit and Humour, set upon an equal Foot of
Policy. The Letter is suppos’d to have been written in the last Change of the
Ministry in Queen Anne’s Time. I will therefore venture, upon the Authority of
that Author’s Imagination, to carry the Comparison as high as it can possibly
go, and say, That as I remember one of our Princes in the last Century to have
lost his Crown by too arbitrary a Use of his Power, though he knew how fatal
the same Measures had been to his unhappy Father before him, why should we
wonder that the same Passions taking Possession of Men in lower Life, by an
equally impolitick Usage of their Theatrical Subjects, should have involved the
Patentees in proportionable Calamities.
During the Vacation,
which immediately follow’d the Silence of the Patent, both Parties were at
leisure to form their Schemes for the Winter: For the Patentee would still hold
out, notwithstanding his being so miserably maim’d or over-match’d: He had no
more Regard to Blows than a blind Cock of the Game; he might be beaten, but
would never yield; the Patent was still in his Possession, and the Broad- Seal
to it visibly as fresh as ever: Besides, he had yet some actors in his Service,
[77.1] at a much cheaper Rate than those who had left him, the Sallaries of
which last, now they would not work for him, he was not oblig’d to pay. [78.1]
In this way of thinking, he still kept together such as had not been invited
over to the Hay-Market, or had been influenc’d by Booth to follow his Fortune
in Drury-Lane.
By the Patentee’s
keeping these Remains of his broken Forces together, it is plain that he imagin’d
this Order of Silence, like others of the same Kind, would be recall’d, of
course, after a reasonable time of Obedience had been paid to it: But, it
seems, he had rely’d too much upon former Precedents; nor had his Politicks yet
div’d into the Secret that the Court Power, with which the Patent had been so
long and often at variance, had now a mind to take the publick Diversions more
absolutely into their own Hands: Not that I have any stronger Reasons for this
Conjecture than that the Patent never after this Order of Silence got leave to
play during the Queen’s Reign. But upon the Accession of his late Majesty,
Power having then a different Aspect, the Patent found no Difficulty in being
permitted to exercise its former Authority for acting Plays, &c. which,
however, from this time of their lying still, in 1709, did not happen ’till
1714, which the old Patentee never liv’d to see: For he dy’d about six weeks
before the new-built Theatre in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields was open’d, [79.1] where
the first Play acted was the Recruiting Officer, under the Menagement of his
Heirs and Successors. But of that Theatre it is not yet time to give any
further Account.
The first Point resolv’d
on by the Comedians now re-established in the Hay-Market, [79.2] was to alter
the Auditory Part of their Theatre, the Inconveniencies of which have been
fully enlarged upon in a former Chapter. What embarrass’d them most in this
Design, was their want of Time to do it in a more complete manner than it now
remains in, otherwise they had brought it to the original Model of that in
Drury-Lane, only in a larger Proportion, as the wider Walls of it would
require; as there are not many Spectators who may remember what Form the
Drury-Lane Theatre stood in about forty Years ago, before the old Patentee, to
make it hold more Money, took it in his Head to alter it, it were but Justice
to lay the original Figure which Sir Christopher Wren first gave it, and the
Alterations of it now standing, in a fair Light; that equal Spectators may see,
if they were at their choice, which of the Structures would incline them to a
Preference. But in this Appeal I only speak to such Spectators as allow a good
Play well acted to be the most valuable Entertainment of the Stage. Whether
such Plays (leaving the Skill of the dead or living Actors equally out of the
Question) have been more or less recommended in their Presentation by either of
these different Forms of that Theatre, is our present Matter of Enquiry.
It must be observ’d,
then, [84.1] that the Area or Platform of the old Stage projected about four
Foot forwarder, in a Semi-oval Figure, parallel to the Benches of the Pit; and
that the former lower Doors of Entrance for the Actors were brought down
between the two foremost (and then only) Pilasters; in the Place of which Doors
now the two Stage-Boxes are fixt. That where the Doors of Entrance now are,
there formerly stood two additional Side-Wings, in front to a full Set of
Scenes, which had then almost a double Effect in their Loftiness and
Magnificence.
By this Original Form,
the usual Station of the Actors, in almost every Scene, was advanc’d at least
ten Foot nearer to the Audience than they now can be; because, not only from
the Stage’s being shorten’d in front, but likewise from the additional
Interposition of those Stage-Boxes, the Actors (in respect to the Spectators
that fill them) are kept so much more backward from the main Audience than they
us’d to be: But when the Actors were in Possession of that forwarder Space to
advance upon, the Voice was then more in the Centre of the House, so that the
most distant Ear had scarce the least Doubt or Difficulty in hearing what fell
from the weakest Utterance: All Objects were thus drawn nearer to the Sense;
every painted Scene was stronger; every grand Scene and Dance more extended;
every rich or fine-coloured Habit had a more lively Lustre: Nor was the
minutest Motion of a Feature (properly changing with the Passion or Humour it
suited) ever lost, as they frequently must be in the Obscurity of too great a
Distance: And how valuable an Advantage the Facility of hearing distinctly is
to every well-acted Scene, every common Spectator is a Judge. A Voice scarce
raised above the Tone of a Whisper, either in Tenderness, Resignation, innocent
Distress, or Jealousy suppress’d, often have as much concern with the Heart as
the most clamorous Passions; and when on any of these Occasions such affecting
Speeches are plainly heard, or lost, how wide is the Difference from the great
or little Satisfaction received from them? To all this a Master of a Company
may say, I now receive Ten Pounds more than could have been taken formerly in every
full House! Not unlikely. But might not his House be oftener full if the
Auditors were oftener pleas’d? Might not every bad House too, by a Possibility
of being made every Day better, add as much to one Side of his Account as it
could take from the other? If what I have said carries any Truth in it, why
might not the original Form of this Theatre be restor’d? but let this
Digression avail what it may, the Actors now return’d to the Hay-Market, as I
have observ’d, wanting nothing but length of Time to have govern’d their
Alteration of that Theatre by this original Model of Drury-Lane which I have
recommended. As their time therefore was short, they made their best use of it;
they did something to it: They contracted its Wideness by three Ranges of Boxes
on each side, and brought down its enormous high Ceiling within so
proportionable a Compass that it effectually cur’d those hollow Undulations of
the Voice formerly complain’d of. The Remedy had its Effect; their Audiences
exceeded their Expectation. There was now no other Theatre open against them;
[87.1] they had the Town to themselves; they were their own Masters, and the
Profits of their Industry came into their own Pockets.
Yet with all this fair
Weather, the Season of their uninterrupted Prosperity was not yet arriv’d; for
the great Expence and thinner Audiences of the Opera (of which they then were
equally Directors) was a constant Drawback upon their Gains, yet not so far but
that their Income this Year was better than in their late Station at Drury-Lane.
But by the short Experience we had then had of Operas; by the high Reputation
they seem’d to have been arriv’d at the Year before; by their Power of drawing
the whole Body of Nobility as by Enchantment to their Solemnities; by that
Prodigality of Expence at which they were so willing to support them; and from
the late extraordinary Profits Swiney had made of them, what Mountains did we
not hope from this Molehill? But alas! the fairy Vision was vanish’d; this
bridal Beauty was grown familiar to the general Taste, and Satiety began to
make Excuses for its want of Appetite: Or, what is still stranger, its late
Admirers now as much valued their Judgment in being able to find out the Faults
of the Performers, as they had before in discovering their Excellencies. The
Truth is, that this kind of Entertainment being so entirely sensual, it had no
Possibility of getting the better of our Reason but by its Novelty; and that
Novelty could never be supported but by an annual Change of the best Voices,
which, like the finest Flowers, bloom but for a Season, and when that is over
are only dead Nose-gays. From this Natural Cause we have seen within these two
Years even Farinelli singing to an Audience of five and thirty Pounds, and yet,
if common Fame may be credited, the same Voice, so neglected in one Century,
has in another had Charms sufficient to make that Crown sit easy on the Head of
a Monarch, which the Jealousy of Politicians (who had their Views in his
keeping it) fear’d, without some such extraordinary Amusement, his Satiety of
Empire might tempt him a second time to resign. [88.1]
There is, too, in the
very Species of an Italian Singer such an innate, fantastical Pride and
Caprice, that the Government of them (here at least) is almost impracticable.
This Distemper, as we were not sufficiently warn’d or apprized of, threw our
musical Affairs into Perplexities we knew not easily how to get out of. There
is scarce a sensible Auditor in the Kingdom that has not since that Time had
Occasion to laugh at the several Instances of it: But what is still more
ridiculous, these costly Canary- Birds have sometimes infested the whole Body
of our dignified Lovers of Musick with the same childish Animosities: Ladies
have been known to decline their Visits upon account of their being of a
different musical Party. Cæsar and Pompey made not a warmer Division in the
Roman Republick than those Heroines, their Country Women, the Faustina and
Cuzzoni, blew up in our Common-wealth of Academical Musick by their implacable
Pretensions to Superiority. [89.1] And while this Greatness of Soul is their
unalterable Virtue, it will never be practicable to make two capital Singers of
the same Sex do as they should do in one Opera at the same time! no, not tho’
England were to double the Sums it has already thrown after them: For even in
their own Country, where an extraordinary Occasion has called a greater Number
of their best to sing together, the Mischief they have made has been
proportionable; an Instance of which, I am rightly inform’d, happen’d at Parma,
where, upon the Celebration of the Marriage of that Duke, a Collection was made
of the most eminent Voices that Expence or Interest could purchase, to give as
complete an Opera as the whole vocal Power of Italy could form. But when it came
to the Proof of this musical Project, behold! what woful Work they made of it!
every Performer would be a Cæsar or Nothing; their several Pretensions to
Preference were not to be limited within the Laws of Harmony; they could all
choose their own Songs, but not more to set off themselves than to oppose or
deprive another of an Occasion to shine: Yet any one would sing a bad Song,
provided no body else had a good one, till at last they were thrown together,
like so many feather’d Warriors, for a Battle-royal in a Cock-pit, where every
one was oblig’d to kill another to save himself! What Pity it was these froward
Misses and Masters of Musick had not been engag’d to entertain the Court of
some King of Morocco, that could have known a good Opera from a bad one! with
how much Ease would such a Director have brought them to better Order? But
alas! as it has been said of greater Things, Suis et ipsa Roma viribus ruit.
Hor. [90.1] Imperial Rome fell by the too great Strength of its own Citizens!
So fell this mighty Opera, ruin’d by the too great Excellency of its Singers!
For, upon the whole, it proved to be as barbarously bad as if Malice it self
had composed it.
Now though something of
this kind, equally provoking, has generally embarrass’d the State of Operas these
thirty Years, yet it has the Misfortune of the menaging Actors at the
Hay-Market to have felt the first Effects of it: The Honour of the Singer and
the Interest of the Undertaker were so often at Variance, that the latter began
to have but a bad Bargain of it. But not to impute more to the Caprice of those
Performers than was really true, there were two different Accidents that drew
Numbers from our Audiences before the Season was ended; which were another
Company permitted to act in Drury-Lane, [91.1] and the long Trial of Doctor
Sacheverel in Westminster-Hall: [91.2] By the way, it must be observed that
this Company was not under the Director of the Patent (which continued still
silenced) but was set up by a third Interest, with a License from Court. The
Person to whom this new License was granted was William Collier, Esq., a Lawyer
of an enterprizing Head and a jovial Heart; what sort of Favour he was in with
the People then in Power may be judg’d from his being often admitted to partake
with them those detach’d Hours of Life when Business was to give way to
Pleasure: But this was not all his Merit, he was at the same time a Member of
Parliament for Truro in Cornwall, and we cannot suppose a Person so qualified
could be refused such a Trifle as a License to head a broken Company of Actors.
This sagacious Lawyer, then, who had a Lawyer to deal with, observing that his
Antagonist kept Possession of a Theatre without making use of it, and for which
he was not obliged to pay Rent unless he actually did use it, wisely conceived
it might be the Interest of the joint Landlords, since their Tenement was in so
precarious a Condition, to grant a Lease to one who had an undisputed Authority
to be liable, by acting Plays in it, to pay the Rent of it; especially when he
tempted them with an Offer of raising it from three to four Pounds per Diem.
His Project succeeded, the Lease was sign’d; but the Means of getting into
Possession were to be left to his own Cost and Discretion. This took him up but
little Time; he immediately laid Siege to it with a sufficient Number of
Forces, whether lawless or lawful I forget, but they were such as obliged the
old Governor to give it up; who, notwithstanding, had got Intelligence of his
Approaches and Design time enough to carry off every thing that was worth
moving, except a great Number of old Scenes and new Actors that could not
easily follow him. [93.1]
A ludicrous Account of
this Transaction, under fictitious Names, may be found in the 99th Tatler, Vol.
2. which this Explanation may now render more intelligible to the Readers of
that agreeable Author. [93.2]
This other new License
being now in Possession of the Drury-Lane Theatre, those Actors whom the
Patentee ever since the Order of Silence had retain’d in a State of Inaction,
all to a Man came over to the Service of Collier. Of these Booth was then the
chief. [94.1] The Merit of the rest had as yet made no considerable Appearance,
and as the Patentee had not left a Rag of their Cloathing behind him, they were
but poorly equip’d for a publick Review; consequently at their first Opening
they were very little able to annoy us. But during the Trial of Sacheverel our
Audiences were extremely weaken’d by the better Rank of People’s daily
attending it: While, at the same time, the lower Sort, who were not equally
admitted to that grand Spectacle, as eagerly crowded into Drury-Lane to a new
Comedy call’d The fair Quaker of Deal. This Play having some low Strokes of
natural Humour in it, was rightly calculated for the Capacity of the Actors who
play’d it, and to the Taste of the Multitude who were now more disposed and at
leisure to see it: [95.1] But the most happy Incident in its Fortune was the
Charm of the fair Quaker which was acted by Miss Santlow, (afterwards Mrs.
Booth) whose Person was then in the full Bloom of what Beauty she might pretend
to: Before this she had only been admired as the most excellent Dancer, which
perhaps might not a little contribute to the favourable Reception she now met
with as an Actress, in this Character which so happily suited her Figure and
Capacity: The gentle Softness of her Voice, the composed Innocence of her
Aspect, the Modesty of her Dress, the reserv’d Decency of her Gesture, and the
Simplicity of the Sentiments that naturally fell from her, made her seem the
amiable Maid she represented: In a Word, not the enthusiastick Maid of Orleans
was more serviceable of old to the French Army when the English had distressed
them, than this fair Quaker was at the Head of that dramatick Attempt upon which
the Support of their weak Society depended. [96.1]
But when the Trial I
have mention’d and the Run of this Play was over, the Tide of the Town
beginning to turn again in our Favour, Collier was reduced to give his
Theatrical Affairs a different Scheme; which advanced the Stage another Step
towards that Settlement which, in my Time, was of the longest Duration.
[50.1] At the Union, 1707-8, the Lord Chamberlain took measures to
assert his supremacy. Under date 6th January, 1708, he orders that no actors
are to be engaged at Drury-Lane who are not Her Majesty’s servants, and he
therefore directs the managers to send a list of all actors to be sworn in.
[51.1] Bellchambers notes that Mrs. Tofts "sang in English, while her
associates responded in Italian." [52.1]
The whole passage regarding Nicolini is:--
"I went on Friday last to the Opera, and was surprised to find a
thin House at so noble an Entertainment, till I heard that the Tumbler was not
to make his Appearance that Night. For my own Part, I was fully satisfied with
the Sight of an Actor, who, by the Grace and Propriety of his Action and
Gesture, does Honour to an human Figure, as much as the other vilifies and
degrades it. Every one will easily imagine I mean Signior Nicolini, who sets
off the Character he bears in an Opera by his Action, as much as he does the
Words of it by his Voice. Every Limb, and every Finger, contributes to the Part
he acts, insomuch that a deaf Man might go along with him in the Sense of it.
There is scarce a beautiful Posture in an old Statue which he does not plant
himself in, as the different Circumstances of the Story give Occasion for it.
He performs the most ordinary Action in a Manner suitable to the Greatness of
his Character, and shows the Prince even in the giving of a Letter, or the
dispatching of a Message. Our best Actors are somewhat at a Loss to support
themselves with proper Gesture, as they move from any considerable Distance to
the Front of the Stage; but I have seen the Person of whom I am now speaking,
enter alone at the remotest Part of it, and advance from it with such Greatness
of Air and Mien, as seemed to fill the Stage, and at the same Time commanded
the Attention of the Audience with the Majesty of his
Appearance."--"Tatler," No. 115, January 3rd, 1710.[54.1] An
excellent account of Mrs. Tofts is given by Mr. Henry Morley in a note on page
38 of his valuable edition of the "Spectator." She was the daughter
of one of Bishop Burnet’s household, and had great natural gifts. In 1709 she
was obliged to quit the stage, her mental faculties having failed; but she
afterwards recovered, and married Mr. Joseph Smith, a noted art patron, who was
appointed English Counsel at Venice. Her intellect again became disordered, and
she died about the year 1760. [54.2] Cibber’s most notorious blunder in
language was made in this sentence. In his first edition he wrote "was
then but an Adept in it," completely reversing the meaning of the word
"Adept." Fielding ("Champion," 22nd April, 1740) declares
Cibber to be a most absolute Master of English, "for surely he must be
absolute Master of that whose Laws he can trample under Feet, and which he can
use as he pleases. This Power he hath exerted, of which I shall give a
barbarous Instance in the Case of the poor Word Adept....This Word our great
Master hath tortured and wrested to signify a Tyro or Novice, being directly
contrary to the Sense in which it hath been hitherto used." It is of
course conceivable that the error was a printer’s error not corrected in
reading the proof. [55.1] Nicolini was the stage name of the Cavalier Nicolo
Grimaldi. Dr. Burney says: "This great singer, and still greater actor,
was a Neapolitan; his voice was at first a soprano, but afterwards descended
into a fine contralto." He first appeared, about 1694, in Rome, and paid
his first visit to England in 1708. Valentini Urbani was a castrato, his voice
was not so strong as Nicolini’s, but his action was so excellent that his vocal
defects were not notices.--"General History of Music," 1789, iv. 207,
205. [56.1] Colonel Brett, by an indenture dated 31st March 1708, made Wilks,
Estcourt, and Cibber, his deputies in the management of the theatre. Genest
(ii. 405) says this was probably "31st March, 1708, Old Style," by
which I suppose he means March, 1709. But I cannot see why he should think
this. Brett entered into management in January, 1708, and was probably out of
it by March, 1709. It may be that Genest supposes that this indenture marks the
end of Brett’s connection with the theatre; whereas it was probably one of his
first actions. It will be remembered that he stated his intention of
benefitting Cibber by taking the Patent (see ante, p. 42). A copy of the
indenture is given by Mr. Percy Fitzgerald ("New History," ii. 443).
It is dated 31st March in the seventh year of Queen Anne’s reign, that is,
1708. [57.1] On p. 328 of vol. i., Cibber says that Rich (about 1705) had led
the Adventurers "a Chace in Chancery several years." From the
petition presented in 1709 against the order silencing Rich, we learn that the
principal Adventurers were: Lord Guilford, Lord John Harvey, Dame Alice
Brownlow, Mrs. Shadwell, Sir Edward Smith, Bart., Sir Thomas Skipwith, Bart.,
George Sayer, Charles Killegrew, Christopher Rich, Charles Davenant, John
Metcalf, Thomas Goodall, Ashburnham Toll, Ashburnham Frowd, William East,
Richard Middlemore, Robert Gower, and William Collier. It is curious that
everyone who has produced this list has, as far as I know, mistaken the name
"Frowd," calling it "Trowd." The earliest reproduction of
the list of names which I know is in the "Dramatic Censor," 1811,
col. iii. [60.1] I do not know when Sir Thomas Skipwith died; but in 1709 the
petition of the Adventurers, &c., is signed by, among others, Sir Thomas
Skipwith. [61.1] This anecdote shows that Rich had some sort of Committee of
Shareholders to aid (or hinder) him. Subsequent experience has shown, as
witness the Drury Lane Committee at the beginning of this century, how
disastrous such form of management it. [62.1]
Dr. Doran ("Their Majesties’ Servants," 1888 edition, i. 103) gives
the following account of Goodman’s connection with this plot:--
"King James having saved Cardell’s neck, Goodman, out of pure
gratitude, perhaps, became a Tory, and something more, when William sat in the
seat of his father-in-law. After Queen Mary’s death, Scum was in the Fenwick
and Charnock plot to kill the King. When the plot was discovered, Scum was
ready to peach. As Fenwick’s life was thought by his friends to be safe if
Goodman could be bought off and got out of the way, the rogue was looked for,
at the Fleece, in Covent Garden, famous for homicides, and at the robbers’ and
the revellers’ den, the Dog, in Drury Lane. Fenwick’s agent, O’Bryan, erst
soldier and highwayman, now a Jacobite agent, found Scum at the Dog, and would
then and there have cut his throat, had not Scum consented to the pleasant
alternative of accepting £500 a year, and a residence abroad....Scum suddenly
disappeared, and Lord Manchester, our Ambassador in Paris, inquired after him
in vain. It is impossible to say whether the rogue died by an avenging hand, or
starvation."[64.1] This anecdote is valuable as establishing the identity
of Captain Griffin with the Griffin who retired (temporarily) from the stage
about 1688. See note on page 83 of vol. i. [64.2] When Betterton and his
associates left the Theatre Royal and opened Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theatre. See
Chapter VI. [66.1] Indulto--In Spain, a duty, tax, or custom, paid to the King
for all goods imported. [66.2] In the "Answer to Steele’s State of the
Case," 1720 (Nichols’s ed. p. 527), it is said: "After Mr. Rich was
again restored to the management of the Play-house, he made an order to stop a
certain proportion of the clear profits of every Benefit-play without
exception; which being done, and reaching the chief Players as well as the
underlings, zealous application was made to the Lord Chamberlain, to oblige Mr.
Rich to return the money stopped to each particular. The dispute lasted some
time, and Mr. Rich, not giving full satisfaction upon that head, was silenced;
during the time of which silence, the chief Players, either by a new License,
or by some former (which I cannot absolutely determine, my Memoirs being not at
this time by me) set up for themselves, and got into the possession of the
Play-house in Drury-lane." [67.1] See ante, vol. i., p. 161. [69.1] This
warning is dated 30th April, 1709, and is a very preemptory document. Rich’s
treasurer is ordered to pay the actors the full receipts of their benefits,
under deduction only of £40 for the charges of the house. See the Order for
Silence quoted post, page 73. [70.1] Mrs. Bracegirdle retired in February,
1707. Mrs. Barry played up to the end of the season, 1708, that is, up to June,
1708. She does not seem to have been engaged in 1708-9, but she was a member of
the Haymarket Company in 1709-10. [70.2] From Chapter XVI. it will be seen that
Wilks’s unfair partiality for John Mills, whom he forced into prominence at
Booth’s expense, was the leading reason for Booth’s remaining with Rich. [73.1] The Order for Silence has never, I
believe, been quoted. I therefore give it in full. The theatre closed on the
4th of June, 1709, which was Saturday, and did not open again under Rich’s
management, the Order for Silence being issued on the next Monday.
"Play House in
Covent Garden silenc’d. Whereas by an Order dated the 30th day of Aprll last
upon the peticon of sevll Players &c: I did then direct and require you to
pay to the respective Comedians who had benfit plays last winter the full receipts
of such plays deducting only from each the sume of 40l. for the Charges of the
House pursuant to the Articles made wthym at ye theatre in the Haymarkett and
wch were promisd to be made good upon their removall to the Theatre in Covent
Garden.
"And whereas I am
informd yt in Contempt of the said Ordr yu still refuse to pay and detain from
the sd Comedians ye profits of ye sd benefit plays I do therefore for the sd
Contempt hereby silence you from further acting & require you not to
perform any Plays or other Theatricall entertainmts till further Ordr; And all
her Majts Sworn Comedians are hereby forbid to act any Plays at ye Theatre in
Covent Gardn or else where wthout my leave as they shall answer the contrary at
their perill And &c: Given &c: this 6th day of June 1709 in the Eighth
Year of Her Majesty’s Reign. (Signed) KENT. "To the Manager or Managrs of
her Majts Company of Comedins for their Patentees."
I have copied this from
the Lord Chamberlain’s Records.
[75.1] "Honoured
Sir, July 1. 1710.
"Finding by divers
of your late Papers, that you are a Friend to the Profession of which I was
many Years an unworthy Member, I the rather make bold to crave your Advice,
touching a Proposal that has been lately made me of coming into Business, and
the Sub-Administration of Stage Affairs. I have, from my Youth, been bred up
behind the Curtain, and been a Prompter from the Time of the Restoration. I
have seen many Changes, as well of Scenes as of Actors, and have known Men
within my Remembrance arrive to the highest Dignities of the Theatre, who made
their Entrance in the Quality of Mutes, Joynt-stools, Flower-pots, and Tapestry
Hangings. It cannot be unknown to the Nobility and Gentry, That a Gentleman of
the Inns of Court, and a deep Intriguer, had some Time since worked himself
into the sole Management and Direction of the Theatre. Nor is it less
notorious, That his restless Ambition, and subtle Machinations, did manifestly
tend to the Extirpation of the good old British Actors, and the Introduction of
foreign Pretenders; such as Harlequins, French Dancers, and Roman Singers;
which, tho’ they impoverish’d the Proprietors, and imposed on the Audience,
were for some Time tolerated, by Reason of his dextrous Insinuations, which
prevailed upon a few deluded Women, especially the Vizard Masks, to believe,
that the Stage was in Danger. But his Schemes were soon exposed, and the Great
Ones that supported him withdrawing their Favour, he made his Exit, and
remained for a Season in Obscurity. During this Retreat the Machiavilian was
not idle, but secretly fomented Divisions, and wrought over to his Side some of
the inferior Actors, reserving a Trap Door to himself, to which only he had a
Key. This Entrance secured, this cunning Person, to compleat his Company,
bethought himself of calling in the most eminent of Strollers from all Parts of
the Kingdom. I have seen them all ranged together behind the Scenes; but they
are many of them Persons that never trod the Stage before, and so very aukward
and ungainly, that it is impossible to believe the Audience will bear them. He
was looking over his Catalogue of Plays, and indeed picked up a good tolerable
Set of grave Faces for Counsellors, to appear in the famous Scene of Venice
Preserved, which the Danger is over; but they being but meer Outsides, and the
Actors having a great Mind to play the Tempest, there is not a Man of them when
he is to perform any Thing above Dumb Show is capable of acting with a good
Grace to much as the Part of Trincalo. However, the Master persists in his
Design, and is fitting up the old Storm; but I am afraid he will not be able to
procure able Sailors or experienced Officers for Love or Money.
"Besides all this,
when he comes to cast the Parts there is so great a Confusion amongst them for
Want of proper Actors, that for my Part I am wholly discouraged. The Play with
which they design to open is, The Duke and no Duke; and they are so put to it,
That the master himself is to act the Conjurer, and they have no one for the
General but honest George Powell.
"Now, Sir, they
being so much as a Loss for the Dramatis Personæ, viz. the Persons to enact,
and the whole Frame of the House being designed to be altered, I desire your
Opinion, whether you think it advisable for me to undertake to prompt ’em: For
tho’ I can clash Swords when they represent a Battel, and have yet Lungs enough
to huzza their Victories, I question, if I should prompt ’em right, whether
they would act accordingly.--I am "Your Honour’s most humble Servant,
"J.Downes.
P.S. Sir, Since I writ
this, I am credibly informed, That they design a New House in Lincoln’s-Inn-fields,
near the Popish Chapel, to be ready by Michaelmas next; which indeed is but
repairing an Old One that has already failed. You know the honest Man who kept
the Office is gone already."
[77.1] The chief actor who remained with Rich was Booth. Among the
others were Powell, Bickerstaffe, Pack, Keene, Francis Leigh, Norris, Mrs.
Bignell, Mrs. Moor, Mrs. Bradshaw, and Mrs. Knight. [78.1] An interesting advertisement was published on Rich’s
behalf in July, 1709, which gives curious particulars regarding the actors’
salaries. I quote it from "Edwin’s Eccentricities," i. 219-224,
without altering the figures, which, as regards the pence, are rather
eccentric:--
"ADVERTISEMENT
CONCERNING THE POOR ACTORS, WHO, UNDER PRETENCE OF HARD USAGE FROM THE
PATENTEES, ARE ABOUT TO DESERT THEIR SERVICE.
"Some persons
having industriously spread about amongst the Quality and others, what small
allowances the chief Actors have had this last Winter from the Patentees of
Drury Lane Play-house, as if they had received no more than so many poor
palatines; it was thought necessary to print the following Account.
"The whole company
began to act on the 12th of October, 1708, and left off on the 26th of the same
month, by reason of Prince George’s illness and death; and began again the 14th
of December following, and left off upon the Lord Chamberlain’s order, on the
4th of June last, 1709. So acted, during that time, in all 135 days, which is
22 weeks and three days, accounting six acting days to a week.
"Had not acting
been forbid seven weeks on the occasion of Prince George’s death, and my Lord
Chamberlain forbad acting about five weeks before the tenth of July instant;
each of these actors would have had twelve weeks salary more than is
above-mentioned.
"As to the
certainties expressed in this paper, to be paid to the six Actors, the same are
positively true: and as to the sums they got over and above such certainties, I
believe the same to be true, according to the best of my computation.
"Witness my hand,
who am Receiver and Treasurer at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, "July 8th,
1709. "Zachary Baggs."
[79.1] It was opened 18th December, 1714. [79.2] The Lord Chamberlain’s
Records enable an exact account to be given of the transactions which led to
the formation of this Haymarket Company. After Rich was silenced, his actors
petitioned the Lord Chamberlain on three separate occasions, namely, 10th June,
20th June, and 5th July, 1709, and in answer to their petitions, the Haymarket,
which was then devoted solely to Opera, was permitted to be used for Plays
also. In an Answer to the actors’ petitions, the Lord Chamberlain permits the
manager of the Haymarket to engage such of them as he wished, and to act Plays
four times a week, the other days being devoted to Operas. This License is
dated 8th July, 1709. This is, of course, only a formal sanction of the private
arrangement mentioned by Cibber ante p. 69; and was resented by Booth and
others who were in Rich’s favour. They therefore petitioned the Queen direct,
in despite of the Lord Chamberlain (see "Dramatic Censor," 1811, col.
112; Genest, ii. 426; Mr. Fitzgerald’s "New History," i. 273), but no
result followed, until Collier’s advent, as is related further on. [84.1] The
description of the shape of the stage which follows is interesting and
valuable. In early times the stage was a platform surrounded by the audience,
not, as now, a picture framed by the proscenium. This is evident, not only from
descriptive allusions, but from the two drawings which have come down to us of
the interior of pre-Restoration theatres--DeWitt’s drawing of the Swan Theatre
in 1596, reproduced in Herr Gaedertz’s "Zur Kenntniss der altenglischen Bühne"
(Bremen, 1888), and the well-known print of the Red Bull Theatre during the
Commonwealth, which forms the frontispiece to Kirkman’s "The Wits, or
Sport upon Sport" (1672). In both of them the pit entirely surrounds the
stage on three sides, while the fourth side also contains spectators in boxes
placed above the entrance-doors. By gradual modifications the shape of the
stage has changed, till now the audience is confined to one side. The doors
used for entrances and exits, to which Cibber alludes, have disappeared
comparatively recently. They may be seen, for instance, in Cruikshank’s plates
to Dickens’s "Grimaldi." [87.1] The Haymarket opened on 15th
September, 1709, and there was no rival theatre till 23rd November, when Drury
Lane opened; but from this latter date till the end of the season both theatres
were open. [88.1] Bellchambers has here the following note:--"The monarch
alluded to, I suppose, was Victor Amadeus, King of Sardinia. Carlo Broschi, better
known by the name of Farinelli, was born in the dukedom of Modena, in 1705, and
suffered emasculation, from an accident, when young. The Spanish king Ferdinand
created him a knight of Calatrava, honoured him with his friendship, and added
to his fortune. He returned to Italy on his patron’s death, and died in
1782." [89.1] Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni Hasse, whose famous
rivalry in 1726 and 1727 is here referred to, were singers of remarkable
powers. Cuzzoni’s voice was a soprano, her rival’s a mezzo-soprano, and while
the latter excelled in brilliant execution, the former was supreme in pathetic
expression. Dr. Burney ("History of Music," iv. 319) quotes from M.
Quantz the statement that so keen was their supporters’ party spirit, that when
one party began to applaud their favourite, the other party hissed! [90.1]
Horace, Epod. xvi. 2. [91.1] See note on page 87. [91.2] The trial opened on
27th February, 1710, and lasted for more than three weeks. The political
excitement it caused must have done great harm to theatricals. Shadwell, in the
Preface to "The Fair Quaker of Deal," mentioned post, page 95, says
it was a success, "Notwithstanding the trial in Westminster-Hall, and the
rehearsal of the new opera." [93.1] In the British Museum will be found a
copy of the report by the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, who were
ordered by Queen Anne to inquire into this business. Rich declared that Collier
broke into the theatre with an armed mob of soldiers, &c., but Collier
denied the soldiers, though he admitted the breaking in. He gave as his
authority for taking possession a letter signed by Sir James Stanley, dated
19th November, 1709, by which the Queen gave him authority to act, and required
him not to allow Rich to have any concern in the theatre. His authority was
appointed to run from 23rd November, 1709. [93.2]
"Tatler," No. 99, 26th November, 1709: "Divito [Rich] was too
modest to know when to resign it, till he had the Opinion and Sentence of the
Law for his Removal....The lawful Ruler [of Drury-Lane] sets up an Attorney to
expel an Attorney, and chose a Name dreadful to the Stage [that is Collier],
who only seemed able to beat Divito out of his Intrenchments.
"On the 22d
Instant, a Night of public Rejoycing, the Enemies of Divito made a Largess to
the People of Faggots, Tubs, and other combustible Matter, which was erected
into a Bonfire before the Palace. Plentiful Cans were at the same time
distributed among the Dependences of that Principality; and the artful Rival of
Divito observing them prepared for Enterprize, presented the lawful Owner of
the neighbouring Edifice, and showed his Deputation under him. War immediately
ensured upon the peaceful Empire of Wit and the Muses; the Goths and Vandals
sacking Rome did not threaten a more barbarous Devastation of Arts and
Sciences. But when they had forced their Entrance, the experienced Divito had
detached all his Subjects, and evacuated all his Stores. The neighbouring
Inhabitants report, That the Refuse of Divito’s Followers marched off the Night
before disguised in Magnificence; Door-Keepers came out clad like Cardinals,
and Scene-Drawers like Heathen Gods. Divito himself was wrapped up in one of
his black Clouds, and left to the Enemy nothing but an empty Stage, full of
Trap-Doors, known only to himself and his Adherents.
The Patentee, having
now no Actors, rebuilds the new Theatre in Lincolns-Inn-Fields. A Guess at his
Reasons for it. More Changes in the State of the Stage. The Beginning of its
better Days under the Triumvirate of Actors. A Sketch of their governing
Characters.
AS coarse Mothers may
have comely Children, so Anarchy has been the Parent of many a good Government;
and by a Parity of possible Consequences, we shall find that from the frequent
Convulsions of the Stage arose at last its longest Settlement and Prosperity;
which many of my Readers (or if I should happen to have but few of them, many
of my Spectators at least) who I hope have not yet liv’d half their Time, will
be able to remember.
Though the Patent had
been often under Distresses, it had never felt any Blow equal to this unrevoked
Order of Silence; which it is not easy to conceive could have fallen upon any
other Person’s Conduct than that of the old Patentee: For if he was conscious
of his being under the Subjection of that Power which had silenc’d him, why
would he incur the Danger of a Suspension by his so obstinate and impolitick
Treatment of his Actors? If he thought such Power over him illegal, how came he
to obey it now more than before, when he slighted a former Order that injoin’d
him to give his Actors their Benefits on their usual Conditions? [98.1] But to
do him Justice, the same Obstinacy that involv’d him in these Difficulties, at
last preserv’d to his Heirs the Property of the Patent in its full Force and
Value; [98.2] yet to suppose that he foresaw a milder use of Power in some
future Prince’s Reign might be more favourable to him, is begging at best but a
cold Question. But whether he knew that this broken Condition of the Patent
would not make his troublesome Friends the Adventurers fly from it as from a
falling House, seems not so difficult a Question. However, let the Reader form
his own Judgment of them from the Facts that follow’d: It must therefore be
observ’d, that the Adventurers seldom came near the House but when there was
some visible Appearance of a Dividend: But I could never hear that upon an ill
Run of Audiences they had ever returned or brought in a single Shilling, to
make good the Deficiencies of their daily Receipts. Therefore, as the Patentee
in Possession had alone, for several Years, supported and stood against this
Uncertainty of Fortune, it may be imagin’d that his Accounts were under so
voluminous a Perplexity that few of those Adventurers would have Leisure or
Capacity enough to unravel them: And as they had formerly thrown away their
Time and Money at law in a fruitless Enquiry into them, they now seem’d to have
intirely given up their Right and Interest: And, according to my best
Information, notwithstanding the subsequent Gains of the Patent have been
sometimes extraordinary, the farther Demands or Claims of Right of the
Adventurers have lain dormant above these five and twenty Years. [99.1]
Having shewn by what
means Collier had dispossess’d this Patentee, not only of the Drury-Lane House,
but likewise of those few Actors which he had kept for some time unemploy’d in
it, we are now led to consider another Project of the same Patentee, which, if
we are to judge of it by the Event, has shewn him more a Wise than a Weak Man;
which I confess at the time he put it in Execution seem’d not so clear a Point:
For notwithstanding he now saw the Authority and Power of his Patent was
superseded, or was at best but precarious, and that he had not one Actor left in
his Service, yet, under all these Dilemma’s and Distresses, he resolv’d upon
rebuilding the New Theatre in Lincolns-Inn-Fields, of which he had taken a
Lease, at a low Rent, ever since Betterton’s Company had first left it. [100.1]
This Conduct seem’d too deep for my Comprehension! What are we to think of his
taking this Lease in the height of his Prosperity, when he could have no
Occasion for it? Was he a Prophet? Could he then foresee he should, one time or
other, be turn’d out of Drury-Lane? Or did his mere Appetite of Architecture
urge him to build a House, while he could not be sure he should ever have leave
to make use of it? But of all this we may think as we please; whatever was his
Motive, he, at his own Expence, in this Interval of his having nothing else to
do, rebuilt that Theatre from the Ground, as it is now standing. [101.1] As for
the Order of Silence, he seem’d little concern’d at it while it gave him so
much uninterrupted Leisure to supervise a Work which he naturally took Delight
in.
After this Defeat of
the Patentee, the Theatrical Forces of Collier in Drury-Lane, notwithstanding
their having drawn the Multitude after them for about three Weeks during the
Trial of Sacheverel, had made but an indifferent Campaign at the end of the
Season. Collier at least found so little Account in it, that it obliged him to
push his Court-Interest (which, wherever the Stage was concern’d, was not
inconsiderable) to support him in another Scheme; which was, that in
consideration of his giving up the Drury-Lane, Cloaths, Scenes, and Actors, to
Swiney and his joint Sharers in the Hay-Market, he (Collier) might be put into
an equal Possession of the Hay- Market Theatre, with all the Singers, &c.
and be made sole Director of the Opera. Accordingly, by Permission of the Lord
Chamberlain, a Treaty was enter’d into, and in a few Days ratified by all
Parties, conformable to the said Preliminaries. [102.1] This was that happy
Crisis of Theatrical Liberty which the labouring Comedians had long sigh’d for,
and which, for above twenty Years following, was so memorably fortunate to
them.
However, there were two
hard Articles in this Treaty, which, though it might be Policy in the Actors to
comply with, yet the Imposition of them seem’d little less despotick than a Tax
upon the Poor when a Government did not want it.
The first of these
Articles was, That whereas the sole License for acting Plays was presum’d to be
a more profitable Authority than that for acting Operas only, that therefore
Two Hundred Pounds a Year should be paid to Collier, while Master of the Opera,
by the Comedians; to whom a verbal Assurance was given by the Plenipo’s on the
Court-side, that while such Payment subsisted no other Company should be
permitted to act Plays against them within the Liberties, &c. The other
Article was, That on every Wednesday whereon an Opera could be perform’d, the
Plays should, toties quoties, be silent at Drury-Lane, to give the Opera a
fairer Chance for a full House.
This last Article,
however partial in the Intention, was in its Effect of great Advantage to the
sharing Actors: For in all publick Entertainments a Day’s Abstinence naturally
increases the Appetite to them: Our every Thursday’s Audience, therefore, was
visibly the better by thus making the Day before it a Fast. But as this was not
a Favour design’d us, this Prohibition of a Day, methinks, deserves a little
farther Notice, because it evidently took a sixth Part of their Income from all
the hired Actors, who were only paid in proportion to the Number of acting Days.
This extraordinary Regard to Operas was, in effect, making the Day-labouring
Actors the principal Subscribers to them, and the shutting out People from the
Play every Wednesday many murmur’d at as an Abridgment of their usual Liberty.
And tho’ I was one of those who profited by that Order, it ought not to bribe
me into a Concealment of what was then said and thought of it. I remember a
Nobleman of the first Rank, then in a high Post, and not out of Court-Favour,
said openly behind the Scenes--It was shameful to take part of the Actors Bread
from them to support the silly Diversion of People of Quality. But alas! what
was all this Grievance when weighed against the Qualifications of so grave and
stanch a Senator as Collier? Such visible Merit, it seems, was to be made easy,
tho’ at the Expence of the--I had almost said, Honour of the Court, whose
gracious Intention for the Theatrical Common-wealth might have shone with
thrice the Lustre if such a paltry Price had not been paid for it. But as the
Government of the Stage is but that of the World in Miniature, we ought not to
have wonder’d that Collier had Interest enough to quarter the Weakness of the
Opera upon the Strength of the Comedy. General good Intentions are not always
practicable to a Perfection. The most necessary Law can hardly pass, but a
Tenderness to some private Interest shall often hang such Exceptions upon
particular Clauses, ’till at last it comes out lame and lifeless, with the Loss
of half its Force, Purpose, and Dignity. As, for Instance, how many fruitless
Motions have been made in Parliaments to moderate the enormous Exactions in the
Practice of the Law? And what sort of Justice must that be call’d, which, when
a Man has not a mind to pay you a Debt of Ten Pounds, it shall cost you Fifty
before you can get it? How long, too, has the Publick been labouring for a
Bridge at Westminster? But the Wonder that it was not built a Hundred Years ago
ceases when we are told, That the Fear of making one End of London as rich as
the other has been so long an Obstruction to it: [104.1] And though it might
seem a still greater Wonder, when a new Law for building one had at last got
over that Apprehension, that it should meet with any farther Delay; yet
Experience has shewn us that the Structure of this useful Ornament to our
Metropolis has been so clogg’d by private Jobs that were to be pick’d out of
the Undertaking, and the Progress of the Work so disconcerted by a tedious
Contention of private Interests and Endeavours to impose upon the Publick
abominable Bargains, that a whole Year was lost before a single Stone could be
laid to its Foundation. But Posterity will owe its Praises to the Zeal and
Resolution of a truly Noble Commissioner, whose distinguish’d Impatience has
broke thro’ those narrow Artifices, those false and frivolous Objections that
delay’d it, and has already began to raise above the Tide that future Monument
of his Publick Spirit. [105.1]
How far all this may be
allow’d applicable to the State of the Stage is not of so great Importance, nor
so much my Concern, as that what is observ’d upon it should always remain a
memorable Truth, to the Honour of that Nobleman. But now I go on: Collier being
thus possess’d of his Musical Government, thought his best way would be to farm
it out to a Gentleman, Aaron Hill, Esq. [106.1] (who he had reason to suppose
knew something more of Theatrical Matters than himself) at a Rent, if I mistake
not, of Six Hundred Pounds per Annum: But before the Season was ended (upon
what occasion, if I could remember, it might not be material to say) took it
into his Hands again: But all his Skill and Interest could not raise the
Direction of the Opera to so good a Post as he thought due to a Person of his
Consideration: He therefore, the Year following, enter’d upon another
high-handed Scheme, which, ’till the Demise of the Queen, turn’d to his better
Account.
After the Comedians
were in Possession of Drury-Lane, from whence during my time upon the Stage
they never departed, their Swarm of Audiences exceeded all that had been seen
in thirty Years before; which, however, I do not impute so much to the
Excellence of their Acting as to their indefatigable Industry and good
Menagement; for, as I have often said, I never thought in the general that we
stood in any Place of Comparison with the eminent Actors before us; perhaps,
too, by there being now an End of the frequent Divisions and Disorders that had
from time to time broke in upon and frustrated their Labours, not a little
might be contributed to their Success.
Collier, then, like a
true liquorish Courtier, observing the Prosperity of a Theatre, which he the
Year before had parted with for a worse, began to meditate an Exchange of
Theatrical Posts with Swiney, who had visibly very fair Pretensions to that he
was in, by his being first chosen by the Court to regulate and rescue the Stage
from the Disorders it had suffer’d under its former Menagers: [107.1] Yet
Collier knew that sort of Merit could stand in no Competition with his being a
Member of Parliament: He therefore had recourse to his Court-Interest (where
meer Will and Pleasure at that time was the only Law that dispos’d of all
Theatrical Rights) to oblige Swiney to let him be off from his bad Bargain for
a better. To this it may be imagin’d Swiney demurr’d, and as he had Reason,
strongly remonstrated against it: But as Collier had listed his Conscience
under the Command of Interest, he kept it to strict Duty, and was immoveable;
insomuch that Sir John Vanbrugh, who was a Friend to Swiney, and who, by his
Intimacy with the People in Power, better knew the Motive of their Actions,
advis’d Swiney rather to accept of the Change, than by a Non-compliance to
hazard his being excluded from any Post or Concern in either of the Theatres:
To conclude, it was not long before Collier had procured a new License for
acting Plays, &c. for himself, Wilks, Dogget, and Cibber, exclusive of
Swiney, who by this new Regulation was reduc’d to his Hobson’s Choice of the
Opera. [108.1]
Swiney being thus
transferr’d to the Opera [108.2] in the sinking of it in the Winter following,
1711, so far short of the Expences, that he was driven to attend his Fortune in
some more favourable Climate, where he remain’d twenty Years an Exile from his
Friends and Country, tho’ there has been scarce an English Gentleman who in his
Tour of France or Italy has not renew’d or created an Acquaintance with him. As
this is a Circumstance that many People may have forgot, I cannot remember it
without that Regard and Concern it deserves from all that know him: Yet it is
some Mitigation of his Misfortune that since his Return to England, his grey
Hairs and cheerful Disposition have still found a general Welcome among his
foreign and former domestick Acquaintance.
Collier being now
first-commission’d Menager with the Comedians, drove them, too, to the last
Inch of a hard Bargain (the natural Consequence of all Treaties between Power
and Necessity.) He not only demanded six hundred a Year neat Money, the Price
at which he had farm’d out his Opera, and to make the Business a Sine-cure to
him, but likewise insisted upon a Moiety of the Two hundred that had been
levied upon us the Year before in Aid of the Operas; in all 700l. These large
and ample Conditions, considering in what Hands we were, we resolv’d to swallow
without wry Faces; rather chusing to run any Hazard than contend with a
formidable Power against which we had no Remedy: But so it happen’d that
Fortune took better care of our Interest than we ourselves had like to have
done: For had Collier accepted of our first Offer, of an equal Share with us,
he had got three hundred Pounds a Year more by complying with it than by the
Sum he imposed upon us, our Shares being never less than a thousand annually to
each of us, ’till the End of the Queen’s Reign in 1714. After which Collier’s
Commission was superseded, his Theatrical Post, upon the Accession of his late
Majesty, being given to Sir Richard Steele. [109.1]
From these various
Revolutions in the Government of the Theatre, all owing to the Patentees
mistaken Principle of increasing their Profits by too far enslaving their
People, and keeping down the Price of good Actors (and I could almost insist
that giving large Sallaries to bad Ones could not have had a worse Consequence)
I say, when it is consider’d that the Authority for acting Plays, &c. was
thought of so little worth that (as has been observ’d) Sir Thomas Skipwith gave
away his Share of it, and the Adventurers had fled from it; that Mr. Congreve,
at another time, had voluntarily resign’d it; and Sir John Vanbrugh (meerly to
get the Rent of his new House paid) had, by Leave of the Court, farm’d out his
License to Swiney, who not without some Hesitation had ventur’d upon it; let me
say again, out of this low Condition of the Theatre, was it not owing to the Industry
of three or four Comedians that a new Place was now created for the Crown to
give away, without any Expence attending it, well worth the Acceptance of any
Gentleman whose Merit or Services had no higher Claim to Preferment, and which
Collier and Sir Richard Steele, in the two last Reigns, successively enjoy’d?
Tho’ I believe I may have said something like this in a former Chapter, [110.1]
I am not unwilling it should be twice taken notice of.
We are now come to that
firm Establishment of the Theatre, which except the Admittance of Booth into a
Share and Dogget’s retiring from it, met with no Change or Alteration for above
twenty Years after.
Collier, as has been
said, having accepted of a certain Appointment of seven hundred per Annum,
Wilks, Dogget, and Myself were not the only acting Menagers under the Queen’s
License; which being a Grant but during Pleasure oblig’d us to a Conduct that
might not undeserve the Favour. At this Time we were All in the Vigour of our
Capacities as Actors, and our Prosperity enable us to pay at least double the
Sallaries to what the same Actors had usually receiv’d, or could have hoped for
under the Government of the Patentees. Dogget, who was naturally an Oeconomist,
kept our Expences and Accounts to the best of his Power within regulated Bounds
and Moderation. Wilks, who had a stronger Passion for Glory than Lucre, was a
little apt to be lavish in what was not always as necessary for the Profit as
the Honour of the Theatre: For example, at the Beginning of almost every
Season, he would order two or three Suits to be made or refresh’d for Actors of
moderate Consequence, that his having constantly a new one for himself might
seem less particular, tho’ he had as yet no new Part for it. This expeditious
Care of doing us good without waiting for our Consent to it, Dogget always look’d
upon with the Eye of a Man in Pain: But I, who hated Pain, (tho’ I as little
liked the Favour as Dogget himself) rather chose to laugh at the Circumstance,
than complain of what I knew was not to be cured but by a Remedy worse than the
Evil. Upon these Occasions, therefore, whenever I saw him and his Followers so
prettily dress’d out for an old Play, I only commended his Fancy; or at most
but whisper’d him not to give himself so much trouble about others, upon whose
Performance it would but be thrown away: To which, with a smiling Air of
Triumph over my want of Penetration, he has reply’d--Why, now, that was what I
really did it for! to shew others that I love to take care of them as well as
of myself. Thus, whenever he made himself easy, he had not the least
Conception, let the Expence be what it would, that we could possibly dislike
it. And from the same Principle, provided a thinner Audience were liberal of
their Applause, he gave himself little Concern about the Receipt of it. As in
these different Tempers of my Brother-Menagers there might be equally something
right and wrong, it was equally my Business to keep well with them both: And
tho’ of the two I was rather inclin’d to Dogget’s way of thinking, yet I was
always under the disagreeable Restraint of not letting Wilks see it: Therefore,
when in any material Point of Menagement they were ready to come to a Rupture,
I found it adviseable to think neither of them absolutely in the wrong; but by giving
to one as much of the Right in his Opinion this way as I took from the other in
that, their Differences were sometimes soft’ned into Concessions, that I have
reason to think prevented many ill Consequences in our Affairs that otherwise
might have attended them. But this was always to be done with a very gentle
Hand; for as Wilks was apt to be easily hurt by Opposition, so when he felt it
he was as apt to be insupportable. However, there were some Points in which we
were always unanimous. In the twenty Years while we were our own Directors, we
never had a Creditor that had occasion to come twice for his Bill; every Monday
Morning discharged us of all Demands before we took a Shilling for our own Use.
And from this time we neither ask’d any Actor, nor were desired by them, to
sign any written Agreement (to the best of my Memory) whatsoever: The Rate of
their respective Sallaries were only enter’d in our daily Pay-Roll; which plain
Record every one look’d upon as good as City-Security: For where an honest
Meaning is mutual, the mutual Confidence will be Bond enough in Conscience on
both sides: But that I may not ascribe more to our Conduct than was really its
Due, I ought to give Fortune her Share of the Commendation; for had not our
Success exceeded our Expectation, it might not have been in our Power to
throughly to have observ’d those laudable Rules of Oeconomy, Justice, and
Lenity, which so happily supported us: But the Severities and Oppression we had
suffer’d under our former Masters made us incapable of imposing them on others;
which gave our whole Society the cheerful Looks of a rescued People. But
notwithstanding this general Cause of Content, it was not above a Year or two
before the Imperfection of human Nature began to shew itself in contrary Symptoms.
The Merit of the Hazards which the Menagers had run, and the Difficulties they
had combated in bringing to Perfection that Revolution by which they had all so
amply profited in the Amendment of their general Income, began now to be
forgotten; their Acknowledgments and thankful Promises of Fidelity were no more
repeated, or scarce thought obligatory: Ease and Plenty by an habitual
Enjoyment had lost their Novelty, and the Largeness of their Sallaries seem’d
rather lessen’d than advanc’d by the extraordinary Gains of the Undertakers;
for that is the Scale in which the hired Actor will always weigh his
Performance; but whatever Reason there may seem to be in his Case, yet, as he
is frequently apt to throw a little Self-partiality into the Balance, that Consideration
may a good deal alter the Justness of it. While the Actors, therefore, had this
way of thinking, happy was it for the Menagers that their united Interest was
so inseparably the same, and that their Skill and Power in Acting stood in a
Rank so far above the rest, that if the whole Body of private Men had deserted
them, it would yet have been an easier matter for the Menagers to have pick’d
up Recruits, than for the Deserters to have found proper Officers to head them.
Here, then, in this Distinction lay our Security: Our being Actors ourselves
was an Advantage to our Government which all former Menagers, who were only
idle Gentlemen, wanted: Nor wa sour Establishment easily to be broken, while
our Health and Limbs enabled us to be Joint-labourers in the Work we were
Masters of.
The only Actor who, in
the Opinion of the Publick, seem’d to have had a Pretence of being advanc’d to
a Share with us was certainly Booth: But when it is consider’d how strongly he
had oppos’d the Measures that had made us Menagers, by setting himself (as has
been observ’d) at the Head of an opposite Interest, [115.1] he could not as yet
have much to complain of: Beside, if the Court had thought him, now, an equal
Object of Favour, it could not have been in our Power to have oppos’d his
Preferment: This I mention, not to take from his Merit, but to shew from what
Cause it was not as yet better provided for. Therefore it may be no Vanity to
say, our having at that time no visible Competitors on the Stage was the only
Interest that rais’d us to be the Menagers of it.
But here let me rest a
while, and since at my time of Day our best Possessions are but Ease and Quiet,
I must be content, if I will have Sallies of Pleasure, to take up with those
only that are to be found in Imagination. When I look back, therefore, on the
Storms of the Stage we had been toss’d in; when I consider that various
Vicissitude of Hopes and Fears we had for twenty Years struggled with, and
found ourselves at last thus safely set on Shore to enjoy the Produce of our
own Labours, and to have rais’d those Labours by our Skill and Industry to a
much fairer Profit, than our Task-masters by all their severe and griping
Government had ever reap’d from them, a good-natur’d Reader, that is not
offended at the Comparison of great things with small, will allow was a Triumph
in proportion equal to those that have attended the most heroick Enterprizes
for Liberty! What Transport could the first Brutus feel upon his Expulsion of
the Tarquins greater than that which now danc’d in the Heart of a poor Actor,
who, from an injur’d Labourer, unpaid his Hare, had made himself, without
Guilt, a legal Menager of his own Fortune? Let the Grave and Great contemn or
yawn at these low Conceits, but let me be happy in the Enjoyment of them! TO
this Hour my Memory runs o’er that pleasing Prospect of Life past with little
less Delight than when I was first in the real Possession of it. This is the
natural Temper of my Mind, which my Acquaintance are frequently Witnesses of:
And as this was all the Ambition Providence had made my obscure Condition
capable of, I am thankful that Means were given me to enjoy the Fruits of it.
--Hoc est
Vivere bìs, vitâ posse
priore frui.
[116.1] Something like
the Meaning of this the less learned Reader may find in my Title Page.
The Stage in its
highest Prosperity. The Menagers not without Errors. Of what Kind. Cato first
acted. What brought it to the Stage. The Company go to Oxford. Their Success
and different Auditors there. Booth made a Sharer. Dogget objects to him. Quits
the State upon his Admittance. That not his true Reason. What was. Dogget’s
Theatrical Character.
NOTWITHSTANDING the
Menaging Actors were now in a happier Situation than their utmost Pretensions
could have expected, yet it is not to be suppos’d but wiser Men might have
mended it. As we could not all govern our selves, there were Seasons when we
were not all fit to govern others. Our Passions and our Interest drew not
always the same way. Self had a great Sway in our Debates: We had our
Partialities; our Prejudices; our Favourites of less Merit; and our Jealousies
of those who came too near us; Frailties which Societies of higher
Consideration, while they are compos’d of Men, will not always be free from. To
have been constantly capable of Unanimity had been a Blessing too great for our
Station: One Mind among three People were to have had three Masters to one
Servant; but when that one Servant is called three different ways at the same
time, whose Business is to be done first? For my own Part, I was forced almost
all my Life to give up my Share of him. And if I could, by Art or Persuasion,
hinder others from making what I thought a wrong use of their Power, it was the
All and utmost I desired. Yet, whatever might be our Personal Errors, I shall
think I have no Right to speak of them farther than where the Publick
Entertainment was affected by them. If therefore, among so many, some
particular Actors were remarkable in any part of their private Lives, that
might sometimes make the World merry without Doors, I hope my laughing Friends
will excuse me if I do not so far comply with their Desires or Curiosity as to
give them a Place in my History. I can only recommend such Anecdotes to the
Amusement of a Noble Person, who (in case I conceal them) does me the
flattering Honour to threaten my Work with a Supplement. ’Tis enough for me
that such Actors had their Merits to the Publick: Let those recite their
Imperfections who are themselves without them: It is my Misfortune not to have
that Qualification. Let us see then (whatever was amiss in it) how our
Administration went forward.
When we were first
invested with this Power, the Joy of our so unexpectedly coming into it kept us
for some time in Amity and Good-Humour with one another: And the Pleasure of
reforming the many false Measures, Absurdities, and Abuses, that, like Weeds,
had suck’d up the due Nourishment from the Fruits of the Theatre, gave us as
yet no leisure for private Dissentions. Our daily Receipts exceeded our
Imagination: And we seldom met as a Board to settle our weekly Accounts without
the Satisfaction of Joint-Heirs just in Possession of an unexpected Estate that
had been distantly intail’d upon them. Such a sudden Change of our Condition it
may be imagin’d could not but throw out of us a new Spirit in almost every Play
we appear’d in: Nor did we ever sink into that common Negligence which is apt
to follow Good-fortune: Industry we knew was the Life of our Business; that it
not only conceal’d Faults, but was of equal Value to greater Talents without
it; which the Decadence once of Betterton’s Company in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields had
lately shewn us a Proof of.
This then was that
happy Period, when both Actors and Menagers were in their highest Enjoyment of
general Content and Prosperity. Now it was that the politer World, too, by
their decent Attention, their sensible Taste, and their generous Encouragements
to Authors and Actors, once more saw that the Stage, under a due Regulation,
was capable of being what the wisest Ages thought it might be, The most
rational Scheme that Human Wit could form to dissipate with Innocence the Cares
of Life, to allure even the Turbulent or Ill-disposed from worse Meditations,
and to give the leisure Hours of Business and Virtue an instructive Recreation.
If this grave Assertion
is less recommended by falling from the Pen of a Comedian, I must appeal for
the Truth of it to the Tragedy of Cato, which was first acted in 1712. [120.1]
I submit to the Judgment of those who were then the sensible Spectators of it,
if the Success and Merit of that Play was not an Evidence of every Article of
that Value which I have given to a decent Theatre? But (as I was observing) it
could not be expected the Summer Days I am speaking of could be the constant
Weather of the Year; we had our clouded Hours as well as our sun-shine, and
were not always in the same Good-Humour with one another: Fire, Air, and Water
could not be more vexatiously opposite than the different Tempers of the Three
Menagers, though they might equally have their useful as well as their destructive
Qualities. How variously these Elements in our several Dispositions operated
may be judged from the following single Instance, as well as a thousand others,
which, if they were all to be told, might possibly make my Reader wish I had
forgot them.
Much about this time,
then, there came over from Dublin Theatre two uncelebrated Actors to pick up a
few Pence among us in the Winter, as Wilks had a Year or two before done on
their side the Water in the Summer. [121.1] But it was not so clear to Dogget and
myself that it was in their Power to do us the same Service in Drury-Lane as
Wilks might have done them in Dublin. However, Wilks was so much a Man of
Honour that he scorned to be outdone in the least Point of it, let the Cost be
what it would to his Fellow-Menagers, who had no particular Accounts of Honour
open with them. To acquit himself therefore with a better Grace, Wilks so order’d
it, that his Hibernian Friends were got upon our Stage before any other Menager
had well heard of their Arrival. This so generous Dispatch of their Affair gave
Wilks a very good Chance of convincing his Friends that Himself was sole Master
of the Masters of the Company. Here, now, the different Elements in our Tempers
began to work with us. While Wilks was only animated by a grateful Hospitality
to his Friends, Dogget was ruffled into a Storm, and look’d upon this
Generosity as so much Insult and Injustice upon himself and the Fraternity.
During this Disorder I stood by, a seeming quiet Passenger, and, since talking
to the Winds I knew could be to no great Purpose (whatever Weakness it might be
call’d) could not help smiling to observe with what officious Ease and Delight
Wilks was treating his Friends at our Expence, who were scarce acquainted with
them: For it seems all this was to end in their having a Benefit-Play in the
Height of the Season, for the unprofitable Service they had done us without our
Consent or Desire to employ them. Upon this Dogget bounc’d and grew almost as
untractable as Wilks himself. Here, again, I was forc’d to clap my Patience to
the Helm to weather this difficult Point between them: Applying myself
therefore to the Person I imagin’d was most likely to hear me, I desired Dogget
"to consider that "I must naturally be as much hurt by this vain and
"over-bearing Behaviour in Wilks as he could be; "and that tho’ it
was true these Actors had no Pretence "to the Favour design’d them, yet we
could "not say they had done us any farther Harm, than "letting the
Town see the Parts they had been "shewn in, had been better done by those
to whom "they properly belong’d: Yet as we had greatly "profited by
the extraordinary Labour of Wilks, who "acted long Parts almost every Day,
and at least "twice to Dogget’s once; [123.1] and that I granted it
"might not be so much his Consideration of our "common Interest, as
his Fondness for Applause, "that set him to Work, yet even that Vanity, if
he "supposed it such, had its Merit to us; and as we "had found our
Account in it, it would be Folly "upon a Punctilio to tempt the Rashness
of a Man, "who was capable to undo all he had done, by any "Act of
Extravagance that might fly into his Head: "That admitting this Benefit
might be some little "Loss to us, yet to break with him upon it could not
"but be ten times of worse Consequence, than our "overlooking his
disagreeable manner of making the "Demand upon us."
Though I found this had
made Dogget drop the Severity of his Features, yet he endeavoured still to seem
uneasy, by his starting a new Objection, which was, That we could not be sure
even of the Charge they were to pay for it: For Wilks, said he, you know, will
go any Lengths to make it a good Day to them, and may whisper the Door-keepers
to give them the Ready-money taken, and return the Account in such Tickets only
as these Actors have not themselves disposed of. To make this easy too, I gave
him my Word to be answerable for the Charge my self. Upon this he acceded, and
accordingly they had the Benefit-Play. But so it happen’d (whether as Dogget
had suspected or not, I cannot say) the Ready-money receiv’d fell Ten Pounds
short of the Sum they had agreed to pay for it. Upon the Saturday following,
(the Day on which we constantly made up our Accounts) I went early to the
Office, and inquired if the Ten Pounds had yet been paid in; but not hearing
that one Shilling of it had found its way thither, I immediately supply’d the
Sum our of my own Pocket, and directed the Treasurer to charge it received from
me in the deficient Receipt of the Benefit-Day. Here, now, it might be imagined,
all this silly Matter was accommodated, and that no one could so properly say
he was aggrieved as myself: But let us observe what the Consequence says--why,
the Effect of my insolent interposing honesty prov’d to be this: That the Party
most oblig’d was the most offended; and the Offence was imputed to me who had
been Ten Pounds out of Pocket to be able to commit it: For when Wilks found in
the Account how spitefully the Ten Pounds had been paid in, he took me aside
into the adjacent Stone-Passage, and with some Warmth ask’d me, What I meant by
pretending to pay in this Ten Pounds? And that, for his part, he did not
understand such Treatment. To which I reply’d, That tho’ I was amaz’d at his
thinking himself ill-treated, I would give him a plain, justifiable
Answer.--That I had give my Word to Dogget the Charge of the Benefit should be
fully paid, and since his Friends had neglected it, I found myself bound to
make it good. Upon which he told me I was mistaken if I thought he did not see
into the bottom of all this--That Dogget and I were always endeavouring to
thwart and make him uneasy; but he was able to stand upon his own Legs, and we
should find he would not be used so: That he took this Payment of the Ten
Pounds as an Insult upon him and a Slight to his Friends; but rather than
suffer it he would tear the whole Business to pieces: That I knew it was in his
Power to do it; and if he could not do a civil thing to a Friend without all
this senseless Rout about it, he could be received in Ireland upon his own
Terms, and could as easily mend a Company there as he had done here: That if he
were gone, Dogget and I would not be able to keep the Doors open a Week; and,
by G--, he would not be a Drudge for nothing. As I knew all this was but the
Foam of the high Value he had set upon himself, I thought it not amiss to seem
a little silently concerned, for the helpless Condition to which his Resentment
of the Injury I have related was going to reduce us: For I knew I had a Friend
in his Heart that, if I gave him a little time to cool, would soon bring him to
Reason: The sweet Morsel of a Thousand Pounds a Year was not to be met with at
every Table, and might tempt a nicer Palate than his own to swallow it, when he
was not out of Humour. This I knew would always be of weight with him, when the
best Arguments I could use would be of none. I therefore gave him no farther
Provocation than by gravely telling him, We all had it in our Power to do one
another a Mischief; but I believed none of us much cared to hurt ourselves;
that if he was not of my Opinion, it would not be in my Power to hinder
whatever new Scheme he might resolve upon; that London would always have a
Play-house, and I should have some Chance in it, tho’ it might not be so good
as it had been; that he might be sure, if I had thought my paying in the Ten
Pounds could have been so ill received, I should have been glad to have saved
it. Upon this he seem’d to mutter something to himself, and walk’d off as if he
had a mind to be alone. I took the Occasion, and return’d to Dogget to finish
our Accounts. In about six Minutes Wilks came in to us, not in the best Humour,
it may be imagined; yet not in so ill a one but that he took his Share of the
Ten Pounds without shewing the least Contempt of it; which, had he been proud
enough to have refused, or to have paid in himself, I might have thought he
intended to make good his Menaces, and that the Injury I had done him would
never have been forgiven; but it seems we had different ways of thinking.
Of this kind, more or
less delightful, was the Life I led with this impatient Man for full twenty
Years. Dogget, as we shall find, could not hold it so long; but as he had more
Money than I, he had not Occasion for so much Philosophy. And thus were our
Theatrical Affairs frequently disconcerted by this irascible Commander, this
Achilles of our Confederacy, who, I may be bold to say, came very little short
of the Spirit Horace gives to that Hero in his-- Impiger, iracundus,
inexorabilis, acer. [127.1] This, then, is one of those Personal Anecdotes of
our Variances, which, as our publick Performances were affected by it, could
not, with regard to Truth and Justice, be omitted.
From this time to the
Year 1712 my Memory (from which Repository alone every Article of what I write
is collected) has nothing worth mentioning, ’till the first acting of the
Tragedy of Cato. [127.2] As to the Play itself, it might be enough to say, That
the Author and the Actors had their different Hopes of Fame and Profit amply
answer’d by the Performance; but as its Success was attended with remarkable
Consequences, it may not be amiss to trace it from its several Years
Concealment in the Closet, to the Stage.
In 1703, nine Years
before it was acted, I had the Pleasure of reading the first four Acts (which
was all of it then written) privately with Sir Richard Steele: It may be
needless to say it was impossible to lay them out of my Hand ’till I had gone
thro’ them, or to dwell upon the Delight his Friendship to the Author receiv’d
upon my being so warmly pleas’d with them: But my satisfaction was as highly
disappointed when he told me, Whatever Spirit Mr. Addison had shewn in his
writing it, he doubted he would never have Courage enough to let his Cato stand
the Censure of an English Audience; that it had only been the Amusement of his
leisure Hours in Italy, and was never intended for the Stage. This Poetical
Diffidence [128.1] Sir Richard himself spoke of with some Concern, and in the
Transport of his Imagination could not help saying, Good God! what a Part would
Betterton make of Cato! But this was seven Years before Betterton died, and
when Booth (who afterwards made his Fortune by acting it) was in his Theatrical
Minority. In the latter end of Queen Anne’s Reign, when our National Politicks
had changed Hands, the Friends of Mr. Addison then thought it a proper time to
animate the Publick with the Sentiments of Cato; in a word, their Importunities
were too warm to be resisted; and it was no sooner finish’d than hurried to the
Stage, in April, 1712, [129.1] at a time when three Days a Week were usually
appointed for the Benefit Plays of particular Actors: But a Work of that
critical Importance was to make its way through all private Considerations; nor
could it possibly give place to a Custom, which the Breach of could very little
prejudice the Benefits, that on so unavoidable an Occasion were (in part, tho’
not wholly) postpon’d; it was therefore (Mondays excepted) acted every Day for
a Month to constantly crowded Houses. [129.2] As the Author had made us a
Present of whatever Profits he might have claim’d from it, we thought our
selves oblig’d to spare no Cost in the proper Decorations of it. Its coming so
late in the Season to the Stage prov’d of particular Advantage to the sharing
Actors, because the Harvest of our annual Gains was generally over before the
middle of March, many select Audiences being then usually reserv’d in favour to
the Benefits of private Actors; which fixt Engagements naturally abated the
Receipts of the Days before and after them: But this unexpected Aftercrop of
Cato largely supplied to us those Deficiencies, and was almost equal to two
fruitful Seasons in the same Year; at the Close of which the three menaging
Actors found themselves each a Gainer of thirteen hundred and fifty Pounds: But
to return to the first Reception of this Play from the Publick.
Although Cato seems
plainly written upon what are called Whig Principles, yet the Torys of that
time had Sense enough not to take it as the least Reflection upon their
Administration; but, on the contrary, they seem’d to brandish and vaunt their
Approbation of every Sentiment in favour of Liberty, which, by a publick Act of
their Generosity, was carried so high, that one Day, while the Play was acting,
they collected fifty Guineas in the Boxes, and made a Present of them to Booth,
with this Compliment--For his honest Opposition to a perpetual Dictator, and
his dying so bravely in the Cause of Liberty: What was insinuated by any Part
of these Words is not my Affair; [130.1] but so publick a Reward had the
Appearance of a laudable Spirit, which only such a Play as Cato could have
inspired; nor could Booth be blam’d if, upon so particular a Distinction of his
Merit, he began himself to set more Value upon it: How far he might carry it, in
making use of the Favour he stood in with a certain Nobleman [130.2] then in
Power at Court, was not difficult to penetrate, and indeed ought always to have
been expected by the menaging Actors: For which of them (making the Case every
way his own) could with such Advantages have contented himself in the humble
Station of an hired Actor? But let us see how the Menagers stood severally
affected upon this Occasion.
Dogget, who expected,
though he fear’d not, the Attempt of what after happen’d, imagin’d he had
thought of an Expedient to prevent it: And to cover his Design with all the Art
of a Statesman, he insinuated to us (for he was a staunch Whig) that this
Present of fifty Guineas was a sort of a Tory Triumph which they had no
Pretence to; and that for his Part he could not bear that so redoubted a
Champion for Liberty as Cato should be bought off to the Cause of a Contrary
Party: He therefore, in the seeming Zeal of his Heart, proposed that the
Menagers themselves should make the same Present to Booth which had been made
him from the Boxes the Day before. This, he said, would recommend the Equality
and liberal Spirit of our Menagement to the Town, and might be a Means to
secure Booth more firmly in our Interest, it never having been known that the
Skill of the best Actor had receiv’d so round a Reward or Gratuity in one Day
before. Wilks, who wanted nothing but Abilities to be as cunning as Dogget, was
so charm’d with the Proposal that he long’d that Moment to make Booth the
Present with his own Hands; and though he knew he had no Right to do it without
my Consent, had no Patience to ask it; upon which I turned to Dogget with a
cold Smile, and told him, that if Booth could be purchas’d at so cheap a Rate,
it would be one of the best Proofs of his Oeconomy we had ever been beholden
to: I therefore desired we might have a little Patience; that our doing it too
hastily might be only making sure of an Occasion to throw the fifty Guineas
away; for if we should be obliged to do better for him, we could never expect
that Booth would think himself bound in Honour to refund them. This seem’d so
absurd an Argument to Wilks that he began, with his usual Freedom of Speech, to
treat it as a pitiful Evasion of their intended Generosity: But Dogget, who was
not so wide of my Meaning, clapping his Hand upon mine, said, with an Air of
Security, O! don’t trouble yourself! there must be two Words to that Bargain;
let me alone to menage that Matter. Wilks, upon this dark Discourse, grew
uneasy, as if there were some Secret between us that he was to be left out of.
Therefore, to avoid the Shock of his Intemperance, I was reduc’d to tell him
that it was my Opinion, that Booth would never be made easy by any thing we
could do for him, ’till he had a Share in the Profits and Menagement; and that,
as he did not want Friends to assist him, whatever his Merit might be before,
every one would think, since his acting of Cato, he had now enough to back his
Pretensions to it. To which Dogget reply’d, that nobody could think his Merit
was slighted by so handsome a Present as fifty Guineas; and that, for his
farther Pretensions, whatever the License might avail, our Property of House,
Scenes, and Cloaths were our own, and not in the Power of the Crown to dispose
of. To conclude, my Objections that the Money would be only thrown away,
&c. were over-rul’d, and the same Night Booth had the fifty Guineas, which
he receiv’d with a Thankfulness that made Wilks and Dogget perfectly easy,
insomuch that they seem’d for some time to triumph in their Conduct, and often
endeavour’d to laugh my Jealousy out of Countenance: But in the following
Winter the Game happen’d to take a different Turn; and then, if it had been a
laughing Matter, I had as strong an Occasion to smile at their former Security.
But before I make an End of this Matter, I cannot pass over the good Fortune of
the Company that followed us to the Act at Oxford, which was held in the
intervening Summer: Perhaps, too, a short View of the Stage in that different
Situation may not be unacceptable to the Curious.
After the Restoration
of King Charles, before the Cavalier and Round-head Parties, under their new
Denomination of Whig and Tory, began again to be politically troublesome,
publick Acts at Oxford (as I find by the Date of several Prologues written by
Dryden [134.1] for Hart on those Occasions) had been more frequently held than
in late Reigns. Whether the same Party-Dissentions may have occasion’d the
Discontinuance of them, is a Speculation not necessary to be enter’d into. But
these Academical Jubilees have usually been look’d upon as a kind of
congratulatory Compliment to the Accession of every new Prince to the Throne,
and generally, as such, have attended them. King James [134.2] ,
notwithstanding his Religion, had the Honour of it; at which the Players, as
usual, assisted. This I have only mention’d to give the Reader a Theatrical
Anecdote of a Liberty which Tony Leigh the Comedian took with the Character of
the well known Obadiah Walker, [134.3] then Head of University College, who in
that Prince’s Reign had turn’d Roman Catholick: The Circumstance is this.
In the latter End of
the Comedy call’d the Committee, Leigh, who acted the Part of Teague, hauling
in Obadiah with an Halter about his Neck, whom, according to his written Part,
he was to threaten to hang for no better Reason than his refusing to drink the
King’s Health, (but here Leigh) to justify his Purpose with a stronger
Provocation, put himself into a more than ordinary Heat with his Captive
Obadiah, which having heightened his Master’s Curiosity to know what Obadiah
had done to deserve such Usage, Leigh, folding his Arms, with a ridiculous
Stare of Astonishment, reply’d--Upon my Shoule, he has shange his Religion. As
the Merit of this Jest lay chiefly in the Auditors’ sudden Application of it to
the Obadiah of Oxford, it was received with all the Triumph of Applause which
the Zeal of a different Religion could inspire. But Leigh was given to
understand that the King was highly displeased at it, inasmuch as it had shewn
him that the University was in a Temper to make a Jest of his Proselyte. But to
return to the Conduct of our own Affairs there in 1712. [135.1]
It had been a Custom
for the Comedians while at Oxford to act twice a Day; the first Play ending
every Morning before the College Hours of dining, and the other never to break
into the time of shutting their Gates in the Evening. This extraordinary Labour
gave all the hired Actors a Title to double Pay, which, at the Act in King
William’s Time, I had myself accordingly received there. But the present
Menagers considering that, by acting only once a Day, their Spirits might be
fresher for every single Performance, and that by this Means they might be able
to fill up the Term of their Residence, without the Repetition of their best
and strongest Plays; and as their Theatre was contrived to hold a full third
more than the usual Form of it had done, one House well fill’d might answer the
Profits of two but moderately taken up: Being enabled, too, by their late
Success at London, to make the Journey pleasant and profitable to the rest of
their Society, they resolved to continue to them their double Pay,
notwithstanding this new Abatement of half their Labour. This Conduct of the
Menagers more than answer’d their Intention, which was rather to get nothing
themselves than not let their Fraternity be the better for the Expedition. Thus
they laid an Obligation upon their Company, and were themselves considerably,
though unexpected, Gainers by it. But my chief Reason for bringing the Reader
to Oxford was to shew the different Taste of Plays there from that which
prevail’d at London. A great deal of that false, flashy Wit and forc’d Humour,
which had been the Delight of our Metropolitan Multitude, was only rated there
at its bare intrinsick Value; [136.1] Applause was not to be purchased there
but by the true Sterling, the Sal Atticum of a Genius, unless where the Skill
of the Actor pass’d it upon them with some extraordinary Strokes of Nature.
Shakespear and Johnson had there a sort of classical Authority; for whose
masterly Scenes they seem’d to have as implicit a Reverence as formerly for the
Ethicks of Aristotle; and were as incapable of allowing Moderns to be their
Competitors, as of changing their Academical Habits for gaudy Colours or
Embroidery. Whatever Merit, therefore, some few of our more politely-written
Comedies might pretend to, they had not the same Effect upon the Imagination
there, nor were received with that extraordinary Applause they had met with
from the People of Mode and Pleasure in London, whose vain Accomplishments did
not dislike themselves in the Glass that was held to them: The elegant Follies
of higher Life were not at Oxford among their Acquaintance, and consequently
might not be so good Company to a learned Audience as Nature, in her plain
Dress and unornamented, in her Pursuits and Inclinations seem’d to be.
The only distinguish’d
Merit allow’d to any modern Writer [137.1] was to the Author of Cato, which
Play being the Flower of a Plant raised in that learned Garden, (for there Mr.
Addison had his Education) what favour may we not suppose was due to him from
an Audience of Brethren, who from that local Relation to him might naturally
have a warmer Pleasure in their Benevolence to his Fame? But not to give more Weight
to this imaginary Circumstance than it may bear, the Fact was, that on our
first Day of acting it our House was in a manner invested, and Entrance
demanded by twelve a Clock at Noon, and before one it was not wide enough for
many who came too late for Places. The same Crowds continued for three Days
together, (an uncommon Curiosity in that Place) and the Death of Cato triumph’d
over the Injuries of Cæsar every where. To conclude, our Reception at Oxford,
whatever our Merit might be, exceeded our Expectation. At our taking Leave we
had the Thanks of the Vice-Chancellor for the Decency and Order observ’d by our
whole Society, an Honour which had not always been paid upon the same
Occasions; for at the Act in King William’s Time I remember some Pranks of a
different Nature had been complain’d of. Our Receipts had not only enabled us
(as I have observ’d) to double the Pay of every Actor, but to afford out of
them towards the Repair of St. Mary’s Church the Contribution of fifty Pounds:
Besides which, each of the three Menagers had to his respective Share, clear of
all Charges, one hundred and fifty more for his one and twenty Day’s Labour,
which being added to his thirteen hundred and fifty shared in the Winter
preceding, amounted in the whole to fifteen hundred, the greatest Sum ever
known to have been shared in one Year to that Time: And to the Honour of our
Auditors here and elsewhere be it spoken, all this was rais’d without the Aid
of those barbarous Entertainments with which, some few Years after (upon the
Re-establishment of two contending Companies) we were forc’d to disgrace the
Stage to support it.
This, therefore, is
that remarkable Period when the Stage, during my Time upon it, was the least
reproachable: And it may be worth the publick Observation (if any thing I have
said of it can be so) that One Stage may, as I have prov’d it has done, very
laudably support it self by such Spectacles only as are fit to delight a
sensible People; but the equal Prosperity of Two Stages has always been of a
very short Duration. If therefore the Publick should ever recover into the true
Taste of that Time, and stick to it, the Stage must come into it, or starve;
as, whenever the general Taste is vulgar, the Stage must come down to it to
live.--But I ask Pardon of the Multitude, who, in all Regulations of the Stage,
may expect to be a little indulg’d in what they like: If therefore they will
have a May-pole, why, the Players must give them a May-pole; but I only speak
in case they should keep an old Custom of changing their Minds, and by their
Privilege of being in the wrong, should take a Fancy, by way of Variety, of
being in the right--Then, in such a Case, what I have said may appear to have
been no intended Design against their Liberty of judging for themselves.
After our Return from
Oxford, Booth was at full Leisure to solicit his Admission to a Share in the
Menagement, [140.1] in which he succeeded about the Beginning of the following
Winter: Accordingly a new License (recalling all former Licenses) was issued, wherein
Booth’s Name was added to those of the other Menagers. [140.2] But still there
was a Difficulty in his Qualification to be adjusted; what Consideration he
should allow for an equal Title to our Stock of Cloaths, Scenes, &c.
without which the License was of no more use than the Stock was without the
License; or, at least, if there were any Difference, the former Menagers seem’d
to have the Advantage in it; the Stock being intirely theirs, and three Parts
in four of the License; for Collier, though now but a fifth Menager, still
insisted on his former Appointment of 700l. a Year, which in Equity ought
certainly to have been proportionably abated: But Court-Favour was not always
measur’d by that Yard; Collier’s Matter was soon out of the Question; his Pretensions
were too visible to be contested; but the Affair of Booth was not so clear a
Point: The Lord Chamberlain, therefore, only recommended it to be adjusted
among our selves; which, to say the Truth, at that Time was a greater
Indulgence than I expected. Let us see, then, how this critical Case was
handled.
Wilks was of Opinion,
that to set a good round Value upon our Stock, was the only way to come near an
Equivalent for the Diminution of our Shares, which the Admission of Booth must
occasion: But Dogget insisted that he had no mind to dispose of any Part of his
Property, and therefore would set no Price upon it at all. Though I allow’d
that Both these Opinions might be grounded on a good deal of Equity, yet I was
not sure that either of them was practicable; and therefore told them, that
when they could Both agree which of them could be made so, they might rely on
my Consent in any Shape. In the mean time I desired they would consider, that
as our License subsisted only during Pleasure, we could not pretend that the
Queen might not recall or alter it: But that to speak out, without mincing the
matter on either Side, the Truth was plainly this: That Booth had a manifest
Merit as an Actor; and as he was not supposed to be a Whig, it was as evident
that a good deal for that Reason a Secretary of State had taken him into his
Protection, which I was afraid the weak Pretence of our invaded Property would
not be able to contend with: That his having signaliz’d himself in the
Character of Cato (whose Principles the Tories had affected to have taken into
their own Possession) was a very popular Pretence of making him free of the
Stage, by advancing him to the Profits of it. And, as we had seen that the
Stage was frequently treated as if it was not suppos’d to have any Property at
all, this Favour intended to Booth was thought a right Occasion to avow that
Opinion by disposing of its Property at Pleasure: But be that as it might, I
own’d it was not so much my Apprehensions of what the Court might do, that sway’d
me into an Accommodation with Booth, as what the Town, (in whose Favour he now
apparently stood) might think ought to be done: That there might be more danger
in contesting their arbitrary Will and Pleasure than in disputing this less
terrible Strain of the Prerogative. That if Booth were only impos’d upon us
from his Merit to the Court, we were then in the Condition of other Subjects:
Then, indeed, Law, Right, and Possession might have a tolerable Tug for our
Property: But as the Town would always look upon his Merit to them in a
stronger Light, and be Judges of it themselves, it would be a weak and idle
Endeavour in us not to sail with the Stream, when we might possibly make a
Merit of our cheerfully admitting him: That though his former Opposition to our
Interest might, between Man and Man, a good deal justify our not making an
earlier Friend of him; yet that was a Disobligation out of the Town’s Regard,
and consequently would be of no weight against so approv’d an Actor’s being
preferr’d. But all this notwithstanding, if they could both agree in a
different Opinion, I would, at the Hazard of any Consequence, be guided by it.
Here, now, will be
shewn another Instance of our different Tempers: Dogget (who, in all Matters
that concern’d our common Weal and Interest, little regarded our Opinion, and
even to an Obstinacy walk’d by his own) look’d only out of Humour at what I had
said, and, without thinking himself oblig’d to give any Reason for it, declar’d
he would maintain his Property. Wilks (who, upon the same Occasions, was as
remarkably ductile, as when his Superiority on the Stage was in question he was
assuming and intractable) said, for his Part, provided our Business of acting
was not interrupted, he did not care what we did: But, in short, he was for playing
on, come what would of it. This last Part of his Declaration I did not dislike,
and therefore I desir’d we might all enter into an immediate Treaty with Booth,
upon the Terms of his Admission. Dogget still sullenly reply’d, that he had no
Occasion to enter into any Treaty. Wilks then, to soften him, propos’d that, if
I liked it, Dogget might undertake it himself. I agreed. No! he would not be
concern’d in it. I then offer’d the same trust to Wilks, if Dogget approv’d of
it. Wilks said he was not good at making of Bargains, but if I was willing, he
would rather leave it to me. Dogget at this rose up and said, we might both do
as we pleas’d, but that nothing but he Law should make him part with his
Property--and so went out of the Room. After which he never came among us more,
either as an Actor of Menager. [144.1]
By his having in this
abrupt manner abdicated his Post in our Government, what he left of it
naturally devolv’d upon Wilks and myself. However, this did not so much
distress our Affair as I have Reason to believe Dogget thought it would: For
though by our Indentures tripartite we could not dispose of his Property
without his Consent; Yet those Indentures could not oblige us to fast because
he had no Appetite; and if the Mill did not grind, we could have no Bread: We
therefore determin’d, at any Hazard, to keep our Business still going, and that
our safest way would be to make the best Bargain we could with Booth; one
Article of which was to be, That Booth should stand equally answerable with us
to Dogget for the Consequence: To which Booth made to Objection, and the rest
of his Agreement was to allow us Six Hundred Pounds for his Share in our
Property, which was to be paid by such Sums as should arise form half his
Profits of Acting, ’till the whole was discharg’d: Yet so cautious were we in
this Affair, that this Agreement was only Verbal on our Part, tho’ written and
sign’d by Booth as what intirely contented him: However, Bond and Judgment
could not have made it more secure to him; for he had his Share, and was able
to discharge the Incumbrance upon it by his Income of that Year only. Let us
see what Dogget did in this Affair after he had left us.
Might it not be imagin’d
that Wilks and Myself, by having made this Matter easy to Booth, should have
deserv’d the Approbation at least, if not the Favour of the Court that had
exerted so much Power to prefer him? But shall I be believed when I affirm that
Dogget, who had so strongly oppos’d the Court in his Admission to a Share, was
very near getting the better of us both upon that Account, and for some time
appeared to have more Favour there than either of us? Let me tell out my Story,
and then think what you please of it.
Dogget, who was equally
oblig’d with us to act upon the Stage, as to assist in the Menagement of it,
tho’ he had refus’d to do either, still demanded of us his whole Share of the
Profits, without considering what Part of them Booth might pretend to from our
late Concessions. After many fruitless Endeavours to bring him back to us,
Booth join’d with us in making him an Offer of half a Share if he had a mind
totally to quit the Stage, and make it a Sinecure. No! he wanted the whole, and
to sit still himself, while we (if we pleased) might work for him or let it
alone, and none of us all, neither he nor we, be the better for it. What we
imagin’d encourag’d him to hold us at this short Defiance was, that he had laid
up enough to live upon without the Stage (for he was one of those close
Oeconomists whom Prodigals call a Miser) and therefore, partly from an
Inclination as an invincible Whig to signalize himself in defence of his
Property, and as much presuming that our Necessities would oblige us to come to
his own Terms, he was determin’d (even against the Opinion of his Friends) to
make no other Peace with us. But not being able by this inflexible Perseverance
to have his wicked Will of us, he was resolv’d to go to the Fountain-head of
his own Distress, and try if from thence he could turn the Current against us.
He appeal’d to the Vice-Chamberlain, [146.1] to whose Direction the adjusting
of all these Theatrical Difficulties was then committed: But there, I dare say,
the Reader does not expect he should meet with much Favour: However, be that as
it may; for whether any regard was had to his having some Thousands in his
Pocket; or that he was consider’d as a Man who would or could make more Noise
in the Matter than Courtiers might care for: Or what Charms, Spells, or
Conjurations he might make use of, is all Darkness to me; yet so it was, he one
way or other play’d his part so well, that in a few Days after we received an
Order from the Vice-Chamberlain, positively commanding us to pay Dogget his
whole Share, notwithstanding we had complain’d before of his having withdrawn
himself from acting on the Stage, and from the Menagement of it. This I thought
was a dainty Distinction, indeed! that Dogget’s Defiance of the Commands in
favour of Booth should be rewarded with so ample a Sine-cure, and that we for
our Obedience should be condemn’d to dig in the Mine to pay it him! This bitter
Pill, I confess, was more than I could down with, and therefore soon determin’d
at all Events never to take it. But as I had a Man in Power to deal with, it
was not my business to speak out to him, or to set forth our Treatment in its
proper Colours. My only Doubt was, Whether I could bring Wilks into the same
Sentiments (for he never car’d to litigate any thing that did not affect his
Figure upon the Stage.) But I had the good Fortune to lay our Condition in so
precarious and disagreeable a Light to him, if we submitted to this Order, that
he fir’d before I could get thro’ half the Consequences of it; and I began now
to find it more difficult to keep him within Bounds than I had before to alarm
him. I then propos’d to him this Expedient: That we should draw up a
Remonstrance, neither seeming to refuse or comply with this Order; but to start
such Objections and perplexing Difficulties that should make the whole
impracticable: That under such Distractions as this would raise in our Affairs
we could not be answerable to keep open our Doors, which consequently would
destroy the Fruit of the Favour lately granted to Booth, as well as of This
intended to Dogget himself. To this Remonstrance we received an Answer in
Writing, which varied something in the Measures to accommodate Matters with
Dogget. This was all I desir’d; when I found the Style of Sic jubeo was alter’d,
when this formidable Power began to parley with us, we knew there could not be
much to be fear’d from it: For I would have remonstrated ’till I had died,
rather than have yielded to the roughest or smoothest Persuasion, that could
intimidate or deceive us. By this Conduct we made the Affair at last too
troublesome for the Ease of a Courtier to go thro’s with. For when it was
consider’d that the principal Point, the Admission of Booth, was got over,
Dogget was fairly left to the Law for Relief. [148.1]
Upon this
Disappointment Dogget accordingly preferred a Bill in Chancery against us.
Wilks, who hated all Business but that of entertaining the Publick, left the
Conduct of our Cause to me; in which we had, at our first setting out, this
Advantage of Dogget, that we had three Pockets to support our Expence, where he
had but One. My first Direction to our Solicitor was, to use all possible Delay
that the Law would admit of, a Direction that Lawyers seldom neglect; by this
means we hung up our Plaintiff about two Years in Chancery, ’till we were at
full Leisure to come to a Hearing before the Lord-Chancellor Cooper, which did
not happen ’till after the Accession of his late Majesty. The Issue of it was
this. Dogget had about fourteen Days allow’d him to make his Election whether
he would return to act as usual: But he declaring, by his Counsel, That he
rather chose to quit the Stage, he was decreed Six Hundred Pounds for his Share
in our Property, with 15 per Cent. Interest from the Date of the last License: Upon
the Receipt of which both Parties were to sign General-Releases, and severally
to pay their own Costs. By this Decree, Dogget, when his Lawyer’s Bill was
paid, scarce got one Year’s Purchase of what we had offer’d him without Law,
which (as he surviv’d but seven Years after it) would have been an Annuity of
Five Hundred Pounds and a Sine Cure for Life. [150.1]
Tho’ there are many
Persons living who know every Article of these Facts to be true: Yet it will be
found that the strongest of them was not the strongest Occasion of Dogget’s
quitting the Stage. If therefore the Reader should not have Curiosity enough to
know how the Publick came to be depriv’d of so valuable an Actor, let him
consider that he is not obliged to go through the rest of this Chapter, which I
fairly tell him before-hand will only be fill’d up with a few idle Anecdotes
leading to that Discovery.
After our Law-suit was
ended, Dogget for some few Years could scarce bear the Sight of Wilks or
myself; tho’ (as shall be shewn) for different Reasons: Yet it was his
Misfortune to meet with us almost every Day. Button’s Coffee-house, so
celebrated in the Tatlers for the Good-Company that came there, was at this
time in its highest Request. Addison, Steele, Pope, and several other Gentlemen
of different Merit, then made it their constant Rendezvous. Nor could Dogget
decline the agreeable Conversation there, tho’ he was daily sure to find Wilks
or myself in the same Place to sour his Share of it: For as Wilks and He were
differently Proud, the one rejoicing in a captious, over-bearing, valiant
Pride, and the other in a stiff, sullen, Purse-Pride, it may be easily conceiv’d,
when two such Tempers met, how agreeable the Sight of one was to the other. And
as Dogget knew I had been the Conductor of our Defence against his Law-suit,
which had hurt him more for the Loss he had sustain’d in his Reputation of
understanding Business, which he valued himself upon, than his Disappointment
had of getting so little by it; it was no wonder if I was intirely out of his
good Graces, which I confess I was inclin’d upon any reasonable Terms to have
recover’d; he being of all my Theatrical Brethren the Man I most delighted in:
For when he was not in a Fit of Wisdom, or not over-concerned about his
Interest, he had a great deal of entertaining Humour: I therefore,
notwithstanding his Reserve, always left the Door open to our former Intimacy,
if he were inclined to come into it. I never failed to give him my Hat and Your
Servant wherever I met him; neither of which he would ever return for above a
Year after; but I still persisted in my usual Salutation, without observing
whether it was civilly received or not. This ridiculous Silence between two
Comedians, that had so lately liv’d in a constant Course of Raillery with one
another, was often smil’d at by our Acquaintance who frequented the same
Coffee-house: And one of them carried his Jest upon it so far, that when I was
at some Distance from Town he wrote me a formal Account that Dogget was
actually dead. After the first Surprize his Letter gave me was over, I began to
consider, that this coming from a droll Friend to both of us, might possibly be
written to extract some Merriment out of my real belief of it: In this I was
not unwilling to gratify him, and returned an Answer as if I had taken the
Truth of his News for granted; and was not a little pleas’d that I had so fair
an Opportunity of speaking my Mind freely of Dogget, which I did, in some
Favour of his Character; I excused his Faults, and was just to his Merit. His
Law-suit with us I only imputed to his having naturally deceived himself in the
Justice of his Cause. What I most complain’d of was, his irreconcilable
Disaffection to me upon it, whom he could not reasonably blame for standing in
my own Defence; that not to endure me after it was a Reflection upon his Sense,
when all our Acquaintance had been Witnesses of our former Intimacy, which my
Behaviour in his Life-time had plainly shewn him I had a mind to renew. But
since he was now gone (however great a Churl he was to me) I was sorry my
Correspondent had lost him.
This Part of my Letter
I was sure, if Dogget’s Eyes were still open, would be shewn to him; if not, I
had only writ it to no Purpose. But about a Month after, when I came to Town, I
had some little Reason to imagine it had the Effect I wish’d from it: For one
Day, sitting over-against him at the same Coffee-house where we often mixt at
the same Table, tho’ we never exchanged a single Syllable, he graciously
extended his Hand for a Pinch of my Snuff: As this seem’d from him a sort of
breaking the Ice of his Temper, I took Courage upon it to break Silence on my
Side, and ask’d him how he lik’d it? To which, with a slow Hesitation naturally
assisted by the Action of his taking the Snuff, he reply’d--Umh! the
best--Umh!--I have tasted a great while!--If the Reader, who may possibly think
all this extremely trifling, will consider that Trifles sometimes shew
Characters in as strong a Light as Facts of more serious Importance, I am in
hopes he may allow that my Matter less needs an Excuse than the Excuse itself
does; if not, I must stand condemn’d at the end of my Story.--But let me go on.
After a few Days of
these coy, Lady-like Compliances on his Side, we grew into a more conversable
Temper: At last I took a proper Occasion, and desired he would be so frank with
me as to let me know what was his real Dislike, or Motive, that made him throw
up so good an Income as his Share with us annually brought him in? For though
by our Admission of Booth, it might not probably amount to so much by a Hundred
or two a Year as formerly, yet the Remainder was too considerable to be quarrel’d
with, and was likely to continue more than the best Actors before us had ever
got by the Stage. And farther, to encourage him to be open, I told him, If I
had done any thing that had particularly disobliged him, I was ready, if he
could put me in the way, to make him any Amends in my Power; if not, I desired
he would be so just to himself as to let me know the real Truth without
Reserve: But Reserve he could not, from his natural Temper, easily shake off.
All he said came from him by half Sentences and Inuendos, as--No, he had not
taken any thing particularly ill--for his Part, he was very easy as he was; but
where others were to dispose of his Property as they pleas’d--if you had stood
it out as I did, Booth might have paid a better Price for it. --You were too
much afraid of the Court--but that’s all over.--There were other things in the
Playhouse. --No Man of Spirit.--In short, to be always pester’d and provok’d by
a trifling Wasp--a--vain--shallow! --A Man would sooner beg his Bread than bear
it. --(Here it was easy to understand him: I therefore ask’d him what he had to
bear that I had not my Share of?) No! it was not the same thing, he said. --You
can play with a Bear, or let him alone and do what he would, but I could not
let him lay his Paws upon me without being hurt; you did not feel him as I
did.--And for a Man to be cutting of Throats upon every Trifle at my time of
Day!--If I had been as covetous as he thought me, may be I might have born it
as well as you--but I would not be a Lord of the Treasury if such a Temper as
Wilks’s were to be at the Head of it.--
Here, then, the whole
Secret was out. The rest of our Conversation was but explaining upon it. In a
Word, the painful Behaviour of Wilks had hurt him so sorely that the Affair of
Booth was look’d upon as much a Relief as a Grievance, in giving him so
plausible a Pretence to get rid of us all with a better Grace.
Booth too, in a little
time, had his Share of the same Uneasiness, and often complain’d of it to me:
Yet as we neither of us could then afford to pay Dogget’s Price for our Remedy,
all we could do was to avoid every Occasion in our Power of inflaming the
Distemper: So that we both agreed, tho’ Wilks’s Nature was not to be changed,
it was a less Evil to live with him than without him.
Tho’ I had often
suspected, from what I had felt myself, that the Temper of Wilks was Dogget’s
real Quarrel to the Stage, yet I could never thoroughly believe it ’till I had
it from his own Mouth. And I then thought the Concern he had shewn at it was a
good deal inconsistent with that Understanding which was generally allow’d him.
When I give my Reasons for it, perhaps the Reader will not have a better
Opinion of my own: Be that as it may, I cannot help wondering that he who was
so much more capable of Reflexion than Wilks, could sacrifice so valuable an
Income to his Impatience of another’s natural Frailty! And though my Stoical
way of thinking may be no Rule for a wiser Man’s Opinion, yet, if it should
happen to be right, the Reader may make his Use of it. Why then should we not
always consider that the Rashness of Abuse is but the false Reason of a weak
Man? and that offensive Terms are only used to supply the want of Strength in
Argument? Which, as to the common Practice of the sober World, we do not find
every Man in Business is oblig’d to resent with a military Sense of Honour: Or
if he should, would not the Conclusion amount to this? Because another wants
Sense and Manners I am obliged to be a Madman: For such every Man is, more or
less, while the Passion of Anger is in Possession of him. And what less can we
call that proud Man who would put another out of the World only for putting him
out of Humour? If Accounts of the Tongue were always to be made up with the
Sword, all the Wisemen in the World might be brought in Debtors to Blockheads.
And when Honour pretends to be Witness, Judge, and Executioner in its own
Cause, if Honour were a Man, would it be an Untruth to say Honour is a very
impudent Fellow? But in Dogget’s Case it may be ask’d, How was he to behave
himself? Were passionate Insults to be born for Years together? To these
Questions I can only answer with two or three more, Was he to punish himself
because another was in the wrong? How many sensible Husbands endure the teizing
Tongue of a froward Wife only because she is the weaker Vessel? And why should
not a weak Man have the same Indulgence? Daily Experience will tell us that the
fretful Temper of a Friend, like the Personal Beauty of a fine Lady, by Use and
Cohabitation may be brought down to give us neither Pain nor Pleasure. Such, at
least, and no more, was the Distress I found myself in upon the same
Provocations, which I generally return’d with humming an Air to myself; or if
the Storm grew very high, it might perhaps sometimes ruffle me enough to sing a
little out of Tune. Thus too (if I had any ill Nature to gratify) I often saw
the unruly Passion of the Aggressor’s Mind punish itself by a restless Disorder
of the Body.
What inclines me,
therefore, to think the Conduct of Dogget was as rash as the Provocations he
complain’d of, is that in some time after he had left us he plainly discover’d
he had repented it. His Acquaintance observ’d to us, that he sent many a long
Look after his Share in the still prosperous State of the Stage: But as his
Heart was too high to declare (what we saw too) his shy Inclination to return,
he made us no direct Overtures. Nor, indeed, did we care (though he was a
golden Actor) to pay too dear for him: For as most of his Parts had been pretty
well supply’d, he could not now be of his former Value to us. However, to shew
the Town at least that he had not forsworn the Stage, he one Day condescended
to play for the Benefit of Mrs. Porter, [158.1] in the Wanton Wife, at which he
knew his late Majesty was to be present. [158.2] Now (tho’ I speak it not of my
own Knowledge) yet it was not likely Mrs. Porter would have ask’d that Favour
of him without some previous Hint that it would be granted. His coming among us
for that Day only had a strong Appearance of his laying it in our way to make
him Proposals, or that he hoped the Court or Town might intimate to us their
Desire of seeing him oftener: But as he acted only to do a particular Favour,
the Menagers ow’d him no Compliment for it beyond Common Civilities. And, as
that might not be all he proposed by it, his farther Views (if he had any) came
to nothing. For after this Attempt he never returned to the Stage.
To speak of him as an
Actor: He was the most an Original, and the strictest Observer of Nature, of
all his Contemporaries. [158.3] He borrow’d from none of them: His Manner was
his own: He was a Pattern to others, whose greatest Merit was that they had
sometimes tolerably imitated him. In dressing a Character to the greatest
Exactness he was remarkably skilful; the least Article of whatever Habit he
wore seem’d in some degree to speak and mark the different Humour he presented;
a necessary Care in a Comedian, in which many have been too remiss or ignorant.
He could be extremely ridiculous without stepping into the least Impropriety to
make him so. His greatest Success was in Characters of lower Life, which he
improv’d form the Delight he took in his Observations of that Kind in the real
World. In Songs, and particular Dances, too, of Humour, he had no Competitor.
Congreve was a great Admirer of him, and found his Account in the Characters he
expresly wrote for him. In those of Fondlewife, in his Old Batchelor, and Ben,
in Love for Love, no Author and Actor could be more obliged to their mutual
masterly Performances. He was very acceptable to several Persons of high Rank
and Taste: Tho’ he seldom car’d to be the Comedian but among his more intimate
Acquaintance.
And now let me ask the
World a Question. When Men have any valuable Qualities, why are the generality
of our modern Wits so fond of exposing their Failings only, which the wisest of
Mankind will never wholly be free from? Is it of more use to the Publick to
know their Errors than their Perfections? Why is the Account of Life to be so
unequally stated? Though a Man may be sometimes Debtor to Sense or Morality, is
it not doing him Wrong not to let the World see, at the same time, how far he
may be Creditor to both? Are Defects and Disproportions to be the only labour’d
Features in a Portrait? But perhaps such Authors may know how to please the
World better than I do, and may naturally suppose that what is delightful to
themselves may not be disagreeable to other. For my own part, I confess myself
a little touch’d in Conscience at what I have just now observ’d to the
Disadvantage of my other Brother-Menager.
If, therefore, in
discovering the true Cause of the Publick’s losing so valuable an Actor as Dogget,
I have been obliged to shew the Temper of Wilks in its natural Complexion,
ought I not, in amends and Balance of his Imperfections, to say at the same
time of him, That if he was not the most Correct or Judicious, yet (as Hamlet
says of the King his Father) Take him for All in All, &c. he was certainly
the most diligent, most laborious, and most useful Actor that I have seen upon
the Stage in Fifty Years. [160.1]
[120.1] This is a blunder, which, by the way, Bellchambers does not
correct. "Cato" was produced at Drury Lane on 14th April, 1713. The
cast was:-- CATO.................Mr.
Booth.
LUCIUS...............Mr.
Keen.
SEMPRONIUS...........Mr.
Mills.
JUBA.................Mr.
Wilks.
SYPHAX...............Mr.
Cibber.
PORTIUS..............Mr.
Powell.
MARCUS...............Mr.
Ryan.
DECIUS...............Mr.
Bowman.
MARCIA...............Mrs.
Oldfield.
LUCIA................Mrs.
Porter.
[121.1] "The Laureat" says these Irish actors were Elrington
and Griffith, but I venture to think that Evans’s name should be substituted
for that of Griffith. All three came from Ireland to Drury Lane in 1714; but,
while Elrington and Evans played many important characters, Griffith did very
little. Again, I can find no record of the latter’s benefit, but the others had
benefits in the best part of the season. The fact that they had separate
benefits makes my theory contradict Cibber on this one point; but what he says
may have occurred in connection with one of the two benefits. Cibber’s memory
is not infallible. [123.1] Genest’s record gives Wilks about one hundred and
fifty different characters, Dogget only about sixty. [127.1] Horace, Ars
Poetica, 121. [127.2] See note on page 120. [128.1] Johnson (Life of Addison)
terms this "the despicable cant of literary modesty." [129.1] 14th
April, 1713. See note on page 120. [129.2] Mrs. Oldfield, Powell, Mills, Booth,
Pinkethman, and Mrs. Porter, had their benefits before "Cato" was
produced. "Cato" was then acted twenty times--April 14th to May
9th--that is, every evening except Monday in each week, as Cibber states. On
Monday nights the benefits continued--being one night in the week instead of
three. Johnson, Keen, and Mrs. Bicknell had their benefits during the run of
"Cato," and on May 11th the regular benefit performances recommenced,
Mrs. Rogers taking her benefit on that night. [130.1] The Duke of Marlborough
is the person pointed at. [130.2] Theo. Cibber ("Life of Booth," p.
6) says that Booth in his early days as an actor became intimate with Lord
Bolingbroke, and that this "was of eminent advantage to Mr. Booth,-- when,
on his great Success in the Part of CATO (of which he was the original Actor)
my Lord’s Interest (then Secretary of State) established him as a Manager of
the Theatre." [134.1] There are five Prologues by Dryden spoken at Oxford;
one in 1674, and the others probably about 1681. [134.2] James II. [134.3]
Obadiah Walker, born 1616, died 1699, is famous only for the change of religion
to which Cibber’s anecdote refers. Macaulay ("History," 1858, ii.
85-86) relates the story of his perversion, and in the same volume, page 283,
refers to the incident here told by Cibber. [135.1] 1713. The performance on
23rd June, 1713, was announced as the last that season, as the company were
obliged to go immediately to Oxford. [136.1]
Dryden writes, in one of his Prologues (about 1681), to the University of
Oxford:--
"When our fop
gallants, or our city folly,
Clap over-loud, it
makes us melancholy:
We doubt that scene
which does their wonder raise,
And, for their
ignorance, contemn their praise.
Judge, then, if we who
act, and they who write,
Should not be proud of
giving you delight.
London likes grossly;
but this nicer pit
Examines, fathoms, all
the depths of wit;
The ready finger lays
on every blot;
Knows what should
justly please, and what should not."
[137.1] In a Prologue
by Dryden, spoken by Hart in 1674, at Oxford, the poet says:--
"None of our
living poets dare appear;
For Muses so severe are
worshipped here,
That, conscious of
their faults, they shun the eye,
And, as profane, from
sacred places fly,
Rather than see the
offended God, and die."
Malone (Dryden’s Prose
Works, vol. i., part ii., p. 13) gives a letter from Dryden to Lord Rochester,
in which he says: "Your Lordship will judge [from the success of these
Prologues, &c.] how easy ’tis to pass anything upon an University, and how
gross flattery the learned will endure."
SirRichard Steele
succeeds Collier in the Theatre- Royal. Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields House rebuilt. The
Patent restored. Eight Actors at once desert from the King’s Company. Why. A
new Patent obtain’d by Sir Richard Steele, and assign’d in Shares to the
menaging Actors of Drury-Lane. Of modern Pantomimes. The Rise of them. Vanity
invincible and asham’d. The Non-juror acted. The Author not forgiven, and
rewarded for it.
UPON the Death of the
Queen, Plays (as they always had been on the like Occasions) were silenc’d for
six Weeks. But this happening on the first of August, [161.1] in the long
Vacation of the Theatre, the Observance of that Ceremony, which at another
Juncture would have fallen like wet Weather upon their Harvest, did them now no
particular Damage. Their License, however, being of course to be renewed, that
Vacation gave the Menagers Time to cast about for the better Alteration of it:
And since they knew the Pension of seven hundred a Year, which had been levied
upon them for Collier, must still be paid to somebody, they imagined the Merit
of a Whig might now have as good a Chance for getting into it, as that of a
Tory had for being continued in it: Having no Obligations, therefore, to
Collier, who had made the last Penny of them, they apply’d themselves to Sir
Richard Steele, who had distinguished himself by his Zeal for the House of
Hanover, and had been expell’d the House of Commons for carrying it (as was
judg’d at a certain Crisis) into a Reproach of the Government. This we knew was
his Pretension to that Favour in which he now stood at Court: We knew, too, the
Obligations the Stage had to his Writings; there being scarce a Comedian of
Merit in our whole Company whom his Tatlers had not made better by his publick
Recommendation of them. And many Days had our House been particularly fill’d by
the Influence and Credit of his Pen. Obligations of this kind from a Gentleman
with whom they all had the Pleasure of a personal Intimacy, the Menagers
thought could not be more justly return’d than by shewing him some warm
Instance of their Desire to have him at the Head of them. We therefore beg’d
him to use his Interest for the Renewal of our License, and that he would do us
the Honour of getting our Names to stand with His in the same Commission. This,
we told him, would put it still farther into his Power of supporting the Stage
in that Reputation, to which his Lucubrations had already so much contributed;
and that therefore we thought no Man had better Pretences to partake of its
Success. [163.1]
Though it may be no
Addition to the favourable Part of this Gentleman’s Character to say with what
Pleasure he receiv’d this Mark of our Inclination to him, yet my Vanity longs
to tell you that it surpriz’d him into an Acknowledgment that People who are
shy of Obligations are cautious of confessing. His Spirits took such a lively
turn upon it, that had we been all his own Sons, no unexpected Act of filial
Duty could have more endear’d us to him.
It must be observ’d,
then, that as Collier had no Share in any Part of our Property, no Difficulties
from that Quarter could obstruct this Proposal. And the usual Time of our
beginning to act for the Winter-Season now drawing near, we press’d him not to
lose any Time in his Solicitation of this new License. Accordingly Sir Richard
apply’d himself to the Duke of Marlborough, the Hero of his Heart, who, upon
the first mention of it, obtain’d it of his Majesty for Sir Richard and the
former Menagers who were Actors. Collier we heard no more of. [165.1]
The Court and Town
being crowded very early in the Winter-Season, upon the critical Turn of
Affairs so much expected from the Hanover Succession, the Theatre had its
particular Share of that general Blessing by a more than ordinary Concourse of
Spectators.
About this Time the
Patentee, having very near finish’d his House in Lincoln’s-Inn Fields, began to
think of forming a new Company; and in the mean time found it necessary to
apply for Leave to employ them. By the weak Defence he had always made against
the several Attacks upon his Interest and former Government of the Theatre, it
might be a Question, if his House had been ready in the Queen’s Time, whether
he would then have had the Spirit to ask, or Interest enough to obtain Leave to
use it: But in the following Reign, as it did not appear he had done anything
to forfeit the Right of his Patent, he prevail’d with Mr. Craggs the Younger
(afterwards Secretary of State) to lay his Case before the King, which he did
in so effectual a manner that (as Mr. Craggs himself told me) his Majesty was
pleas’d to say upon it, "That he remember’d when he had "been in
England before, in King Charles his Time, "there had been two Theatres in
London; and as "the Patent seem’d to be a lawful Grant, he saw no
"Reason why Two Play-houses might not be continued." [166.1]
The Suspension of the
Patent being thus taken off, the younger Multitude seem’d to call aloud for two
Play-houses! Many desired another, from the common Notion that Two would always
create Emulation in the Actors (an Opinion which I have consider’d in a former
Chapter). Others, too, were as eager for them, from the natural Ill-will that
follows the Fortunate or Prosperous in any Undertaking. Of this low Malevolence
we had, now and then, had remarkable Instances; we had been forced to dismiss
an Audience of a hundred and fifty Pounds, from a Disturbance spirited up by
obscure People, who never gave any better Reason for it, than that it was their
Fancy to support the idle Complaint of one rival Actress against another, in
their several Pretensions to the chief Part in a new Tragedy. But as this
Tumult seem’d only to be the Wantonness of English Liberty, I shall not presume
to lay any farther Censure upon it. [166.2]
Now, notwithstanding
this publick Desire of re-establishing two Houses; and though I have allow’d
the former Actors greatly our Superiors; and the Menagers I am speaking of not
to have been without their private Errors: Yet under all these Disadvantages,
it is certain the Stage, for twenty Years before this time, had never been in
so flourishing a Condition: And it was as evident to all sensible Spectators
that this Prosperity could be only owing to that better Order and closer
Industry now daily observ’d, and which had formerly been neglected by our
Predecessors. But that I may not impose upon the Reader a Merit which was not
generally allow’d us, I ought honestly to let him know, that about this time
the publick Papers, particularly Mist’s Journal, took upon them very often to
censure our Menagement, with the same Freedom and Severity as if we had been so
many Ministers of State: But so it happen’d, that these unfortunate Reformers
of the World, these self-appointed Censors, hardly ever hit upon what was
really wrong in us; but taking up Facts upon Trust, or Hear-say, piled up many
a pompous Paragraph that they had ingeniously conceiv’d was sufficient to
demolish our Administration, or at least to make us very uneasy in it; which,
indeed, had so far its Effect, that my equally-injur’d Brethren, Wilks and
Booth, often complain’d to me of these disagreeable Aspersions, and propos’d
that some publick Answer might be made to them, which I always oppos’d by,
perhaps, too secure a Contempt of what such Writers could do to hurt us; and my
Reason for it was, that I knew but of one way to silence Authors of that Stamp;
which was, to grow insignificant and good for nothing, and then we should hear
no more of them: But while we continued in the Prosperity of pleasing others,
and were not conscious of having deserv’d what they said of us, why should we
gratify the little Spleen of our Enemies by wincing at it, [168.1] or give them
fresh Opportunities to dine upon any Reply they might make to our publickly
taking Notice of them? And though Silence might in some Cases be a sign of
Guilt or Error confess’d, our Accusers were so low in their Credit and Sense,
that the Content we gave the Publick almost every Day from the Stage ought to
be our only Answer to them.
However (as I have
observ’d) we made many Blots, which these unskilful Gamesters never hit: But
the Fidelity of an Historian cannot be excus’d the Omission of any Truth which
might make for the other Side of the Question. I shall therefore confess a
Fact, which, if a happy Accident had not intervened, had brought our Affairs
into a very tottering Condition. This, too, is that Fact which in a former
Chapter I promis’d to set forth as a Sea-Mark of Danger to future Menagers in
their Theatrical Course of Government. [169.1]
When the new-built
Theatre in Lincoln’s-Inn Fields was ready to be open’d, seven or eight Actors
in one Day deserted from us to the Service of the Enemy, [169.2] which oblig’d
us to postpone many of our best Plays for want of some inferior Part in them
which these Deserters had been used to fill: But the Indulgence of the Royal
Family, who then frequently honour’d us by their Presence, was pleas’d to
accept of whatever could be hastily got ready for their Entertainment. And tho’
this critical good Fortune prevented, in some measure, our Audiences falling so
low as otherwise they might have done, yet it was not sufficient to keep us in
our former Prosperity: For that Year our Profits amounted not to above a third
Part of our usual Dividends; tho’ in the following Year we intirely recover’d
them. The Chief of these Deserters were Keene, Bullock, Pack, [169.3] Leigh,
Son of the famous Tony Leigh, [170.1] and others of less note. ’Tis true, they
none of them had more than a negative Merit, in being only able to do us more
Harm by their leaving us without Notice, than they could do us Good by
remaining with us: For though the best of them could not support a Play, the
worst of them by their Absence could maim it; as the Loss of the least Pin in a
Watch may obstruct its Motion. But to come to the true Cause of their
Desertion: After my having discover’d the (long unknown) Occasion that drove
Dogget from the Stage before his settled Inclination to leave it, it will be
less incredible that these Actors, upon the first Opportunity to relieve
themselves, should all in one Day have left us from the same Cause of
Uneasiness. For, in a little time after, upon not finding their Expectations
answer’d in Lincoln’s-Inn Fields, some of them, who seem’d to answer for the
rest, told me the greatest Grievance they had in our Company was the shocking
Temper of Wilks, who, upon every, almost no Occasion, let loose the unlimited
Language of Passion upon them n such a manner as their Patience was not longer
able to support. This, indeed, was what we could not justify! This was a Secret
that might have made a wholesome Paragraph in a critical News-Paper! But as it
was our good Fortune that it came not to the Ears of our Enemies, the Town was
not entertain’d with their publick Remarks upon it. [171.1]
After this new Theatre
had enjoy’d that short Run of Favour which is apt to follow Novelty, their
Audiences began to flag: But whatever good Opinion we had of our own Merit, we
had not so good a one of the Multitude as to depend too much upon the Delicacy
of their Taste: We knew, too, that this Company, being so much nearer to the
City than we were, would intercept many an honest Customer that might not know
a good Market from a bad one; and that the thinnest of their Audiences must be
always taking something from the Measure of our Profits. All these
Disadvantages, with many others, we were forced to lay before Sir Richard
Steele, and farther to remonstrate to him, that as he now stood in Collier’s
Place, his Pension of 700l. was liable to the same Conditions that Collier had
receiv’d it upon; which were, that it should be only payable during our being
the only Company permitted to act, but in case another should be set up against
us, that then this Pension was to be liquidated into an equal Share with us;
and which we now hoped he would be contented with. While we were offering to
proceed, Sir Richard stopt us short by assuring us, that as he came among us by
our own Invitation, he should always think himself oblig’d to come into any
Measures for our Ease and Service: That to be a Burthen to our Industry would
be more disagreeable to him than it could be to us; and as he had always taken
a Delight in his Endeavours for our Prosperity, he should be still ready on our
own Terms to continue them. Every one who knew Sir Richard Steele in his
Prosperity (before the Effects of his Good-nature had brought him to
Distresses) knew that this was his manner of dealing with his Friends in Business:
Another Instance of the same nature will immediately fall in my way.
When we proposed to put
this Agreement into Writing, he desired us not to hurry ourselves; for that he
was advised, upon the late Desertion of our Actors, to get our License (which
only subsisted during Pleasure) enlarg’d into a more ample and durable
Authority, and which he said he had Reason to think would be more easily obtain’d,
if we were willing that a Patent for the same Purpose might be granted to him
only, for his Life and three Years after, which he would then assign over to
us. This was a Prospect beyond our Hopes; and what we had long wish’d for; for
though I cannot say we had ever Reason to grieve at the Personal Severities or
Behaviour of any one Lord-Chamberlain in my Time, yet the several Officers
under them who had not the Hearts of Noblemen, often treated us (to use
Shakespear’s Expression) with all the Insolence of Office that narrow Minds are
apt to be elated with; but a Patent, we knew, would free us from so abject a
State of Dependency. Accordingly, we desired Sir Richard to lose no time; he
was immediately promised it: In the Interim, we sounded the Inclination of the
Actors remaining with us; who had all Sense enough to know, that the Credit and
Reputation we stood in with the Town, could not but be a better Security for
their Sallaries, than the Promise of any other Stage put into Bonds could make
good to them. In a few Days after, Sir Richard told us, that his Majesty being
apprised that others had a joint Power with him in the License, it was expected
we should, under our Hands, signify that his Petition for a Patent was preferr’d
by the Consent of us all. Such an Acknowledgment was immediately sign’d, and
the Patent thereupon pass’d the Great Seal; for which I remember the Lord
Chancellor Cooper, in Compliment to Sir Richard, would receive no Fee.
We receiv’d the Patent
January 19, 1715, [174.1] and (Sir Richard being obliged the next Morning to
set out for Burrowbridge in Yorkshire, where he was soon after elected Member
of Parliament) we were forced that very Night to draw up in a hurry (’till our
Counsel might more adviseably perfect it) his Assignment to us of equal Shares
in the Patent, with farther Conditions of Partnership: [174.2] But here I ought
to take Shame to myself, and at the same time to give this second Instance of
the Equity and Honour of Sir Richard: For this Assignment (which I had myself
the hasty Penning of) was so worded, that it gave Sir Richard as equal a Title
to our Property as it had given us to his Authority in the Patent: But Sir
Richard, notwithstanding, when he return’d to Town, took no Advantage of the
Mistake, and consented in our second Agreement to pay us Twelve Hundred Pounds
to be equally intitled to our Property, which at his Death we were obliged to
repay (as we afterwards did) to his Executors; and which, in case any of us had
died before him, the Survivors were equally obliged to have paid to the
Executors of such deceased Person upon the same Account. But Sir Richard’s Moderation
with us was rewarded with the Reverse of Collier’s Stiffness: Collier, by
insisting on his Pension, lost Three Hundred Pounds a Year; and Sir Richard, by
his accepting a Share in lieu of it, was, one Year with another, as much a
Gainer.
The Grant of this
Patent having assured us of a competent Term to be relied on, we were now
emboldened to lay out larger Sums in the Decorations of our Plays: [175.1] Upon
the Revival of Dryden’s All for Love, the Habits of that Tragedy amounted to an
Expence of near Six Hundred Pounds; a Sum unheard of, for many Years before, on
the like Occasions. [176.1] But we thought such extraordinary Marks of our
Acknowledgment were due to the Favours which the Publick were now again pouring
in upon us. About this time we were so much in fashion, and follow’d, that our
Enemies (who they were it would not be fair to guess, for we never knew them)
made their Push of a good round Lye upon us, to terrify those Auditors from our
Support whom they could not mislead by their private Arts or publick
Invectives. A current Report that the Walls and Roof of our House were liable
to fall, had got such Ground in the Town, that on a sudden we found our
Audiences unusually decreased by it: Wilks was immediately for denouncing War
and Vengeance on the Author of this Falshood, and for offering a Reward to
whoever could discover him. But it was thought more necessary first to disprove
the Falshood, and then to pay what Compliments might be thought adviseable to
the Author. Accordingly an Order from the King was obtained, to have our
Tenement surveyed by Sir Thomas Hewet, then the proper Officer; whose Report of
its being in a safe and sound Condition, and sign’d by him, was publish’d in
every News-Paper. [177.1] This had so immediate an Effect, that our Spectators,
whose Apprehensions had lately kept them absent, now made up our Losses by
returning to us with a fresh Inclination and in greater Numbers.
When it was first
publickly known that the New Theatre would be open’d against us; I cannot help
going a little back to remember the Concern that my Brother-Menagers express’d
at what might be the Consequences of it. The imagined that now all those who
wish’d Ill to us, and particularly a great Party who had been disobliged by our
shutting them out from behind our Scenes, even to the Refusal of their Money,
[178.1] would now exert themselves in any partial or extravagant Measures that
might either hurt us or support our Competitors: These, too, were some of those
farther Reasons which had discouraged them from running the hazard of
continuing to Sir Richard Steele the same Pension which had been paid to
Collier. Upon all which I observed to them, that, for my own Part, I had not
the same Apprehensions; but that I foresaw as many good as bad Consequences
from two Houses: That tho’ the Novelty might possibly at first abate a little
of our Profits; yet, if we slacken’d not our Industry, that Loss would be amply
balanced by an equal Increase of our East and Quiet: That those turbulent
Spirits which were always molesting us, would now have other Employment: That
those turbulent Spirits which were always molesting us, would now have other
Employment: That the question’d Merit of our Acting would now stand in a
clearer Light when others were faintly compared to us: That though Faults might
be found with the best Actors that ever were, yet the egregious Defects that
would appear in others would now be the effectual means to make our Superiority
shine, if we had any Pretence to it: And that what some People hoped might ruin
us, would in the end reduce them to give up the Dispute, and reconcile them to
those who could best entertain them.
In every Article of
this Opinion they afterwards found I had not been deceived; and the Truth of it
may be so well remember’d by many living Spectators, that it would be too
frivolous and needless a Boast to give it any farther Observation.
But in what I have said
I would not be understood to be an Advocate for two Play-houses: For we shall
soon find that two Sets of Actors tolerated in the same Place have constantly
ended in the Corruption of the Theatre; of which the auxiliary Entertainments
that have so barbarously supply’d the Defects of weak Action have, for some
Years past, been a flagrant Instance; it may not, therefore, be here improper
to shew how our childish Pantomimes first came to take so gross a Possession of
the Stage.
I have upon several
occasions already observ’d, that when one Company is too hard for another, the
lower in Reputation has always been forced to exhibit some new-fangled Foppery
to draw the Multitude after them: Of these Expedients, Singing and Dancing had
formerly been the most effectual; [179.1] but, at the Time I am speaking of,
our English Musick had been so discountenanced since the Taste of Italian
Operas prevail’d, that it was to no purpose to pretend to it. [180.1] Dancing
therefore was now the only Weight in the opposite Scale, and as the Ne Theatre
sometimes found their Account in it, it could not be safe for us wholly to
neglect it. To give even Dancing therefore some Improvement, and to make it
something more than Motion without Meaning, the Fable of Mars and Venus [180.2]
was form’d into a connected Presentation of Dances in Character, wherein the
Passions were so happily expressed, and the whole Story so intelligibly told by
a mute Narration of Gesture only, that even thinking Spectators allow’d it both
a pleasing and a rational Entertainment; though, at the same time, from our
Distrust of its Reception, we durst not venture to decorate it with any
extraordinary Expence of Scenes or Habits; but upon the Success of this Attempt
it was rightly concluded, that if a visible Expence in both were added to
something of the same Nature, it could not fail of drawing the Town proportionably
after it. From this original Hint then (but every way unequal to it) sprung
forth that Succession of monstrous Medlies that have so long infested the
Stage, and which arose upon one another alternately, at both Houses outvying in
Expence, like contending Bribes on both sides at an Election, to secure a
Majority of the Multitude. But so it is, Truth may complain and Merit murmur
with what Justice it may, the Few will never be a Match for the Many, unless
Authority should think fit to interpose and put down these Poetical Drams,
these Gin-shops of the Stage, that intoxicate its Auditors and dishonour their
Understanding with a Levity for which I want a Name. [181.1]
If I am ask’d (after my
condemning these Fooleries myself) how I came to assent or continue my Share of
Expence to them? I have no better Excuse for my Error than confessing it. I did
it against my Conscience! and had not Virtue enough to starve by opposing a
Multitude that would have been too hard for me. [182.1] Now let me ask an odd
Question: Had Harry the Fourth of France a better Excuse for changing his
Religion? [182.2] I was still, in my Heart, as much as he could be, on the side
of Truth and Sense, but with this difference, that I had their leave to quit
them when they could not support me: For what Equivalent could I have found for
my falling a Martyr to them? How far the Heroe or the Comedian was in the
wrong, let the Clergy and the Criticks decide. Necessity will be as good a Plea
for the one as the other. But let the Question go which way it will, Harry IV.
has always been allow’d a great Man: And what I want of his Grandeur, you see
by the Inference, Nature has amply supply’d to me in Vanity; a Pleasure which
neither the Pertness of Wit or the Gravity of Wisdom will ever persuade me to
part with. And why is there not as much Honesty in owning as in concealing it?
For though to hide it may be Wisdom, to be without it is impossible; and where
is the Merit of keeping a Secret which every Body is let into? To say we have
no Vanity, then, is shewing a great deal of it; as to say we have a great deal
cannot be shewing so much: And tho’ there may be Art in a Man’s accusing
himself, even then it will be more pardonable than Self-commendation. Do not we
find that even good Actions have their Share of it? that it is as inseparable
from our Being as our Nakedness? And though it may be equally decent to cover
it, yet the wisest Man can no more b without it, than the weakest can believe
he was born in his Cloaths. If then what we say of ourselves be true, and not
prejudicial to others, to be called vain upon it is no more a Reproach than to
be called a brown or a fair Man. Vanity is of all Complexions; ’tis the growth
of every Clime and Capacity; Authors of all Ages have had a Tincture of it; and
yet you read Horace, Montaign, and Sir William Temple, with Pleasure. Nor am I
sure, if it were curable by Precept, that Mankind would be mended by it! Could
Vanity be eradicated from our Nature, I am afraid that the Reward of most human
Virtues would not be found in this World! And happy is he who has no greater
Sin to answer for in the next
But what is all this to
the Theatrical Follies I was talking of? Perhaps not a great deal; but it is to
my Purpose; for though I am an Historian, I do not write to the Wise and
Learned only; I hope to have Readers of no more Judgment than some of my
quondam Auditors; and I am afraid they will be as hardly contented with dry
Matters of Fact, as with a plain Play without Entertainments: This Rhapsody,
therefore, has been thrown in as a Dance between the Acts, to make up for the
Dullness of what would have been by itself only proper. But I now come to my
Story again.
Notwithstanding, then,
this our Compliance with the vulgar Taste, we generally made use of these Pantomimes
but as Crutches to our weakest Plays: Nor were we so lost to all Sense of what
was valuable as to dishonour our best Authors in such bad Company: We had still
a due Respect to several select Plays that were able to be their own Support;
and in which we found our constant Account, without painting and patching them
out, like Prostitutes, with these Follies in fashion: If therefore we were not
so strictly chaste in the other part of our Conduct, let the Error of it stand
among the silly Consequences of Two Stages. Could the Interest of both
Companies have been united in one only Theatre, I had been one of the Few that
would have us’d my utmost Endeavour of never admitting to the Stage any
Spectacle that ought not to have been seen there; the Errors of my own Plays,
which I could not see, excepted. And though probably the Majority of Spectators
would not have been so well pleas’d with a Theatre so regulated; yet Sense and
Reason cannot lose their intrinsick Value because the Giddy and the Ignorant
are blind and deaf, or numerous; and I cannot help saying, it is a Reproach to
a sensible People to let Folly so publickly govern their Pleasures.
While I am making this
grave Declaration of what I would have done had One only Stage been continued;
to obtain an easier Belief of my Sincerity I ought to put my Reader in mind of
what I did do, even after Two Companies were again establish’d.
About this Time
Jacobitism had lately exerted itself by the most unprovoked Rebellion that our
Histories have handed down to us since the Norman Conquest: [185.1] I therefore
thought that to set the Authors and Principles of that desperate Folly in a
fair Light, by allowing the mistaken Consciences of some their best Excuse, and
by making the artful Pretenders to Conscience as ridiculous as they were
ungratefully wicked, was a Subject fit for the honest Satire of Comedy, and
what might, if it succeeded, do Honour to the Stage by shewing the valuable Use
of it. [185.2] And considering what Numbers at that time might come to it as
prejudic’d Spectators, it may be allow’d that the Undertaking was not less
hazardous than laudable.
To give Life,
therefore, to this Design, I borrow’d the Tartuffe of Moliere, and turn’d him
into a modern Nonjuror: [186.1] Upon the Hypocrisy of the French Character I
ingrafted a stronger Wickedness, that of an English Popish Priest lurking under
the Doctrine of our own Church to raise his Fortune upon the Ruin of a Worthy
Gentleman, whom his dissembled Sanctity had seduc’d into the treasonable Cause
of a Roman Catholick Out-law. How this Design, in the Play, was executed, I
refer to the Readers of it; it cannot be mended by any critical Remarks I can
make in its favour: Let it speak for itself. All the Reason I had to think it
no bad Performance was, that it was acted eighteen Days running, [186.2] and
that the Party that were hurt by it (as I have been told) have not been the
smallest Number of my back Friends ever since. But happy was it for this Play
that the very Subject was its Protection; a few Smiles of silent Contempt were
the utmost Disgrace that on the first Day of its Appearance it was thought safe
to throw upon it; as the Satire was chiefly employ’d on the Enemies of the
Government, they were not so hardy as to own themselves such by any higher
Disapprobation or Resentment. But as it was then probable I might write again,
they knew it would not be long before they might with more Security give a
Loose to their Spleen, and make up Accounts with me. And to do them Justice, in
every Play I afterwards produced they paid me the Balance to a Tittle. [187.1]
But to none was I more beholden than that celebrated Author Mr. Mist, whose
Weekly Journal, [187.2] for about fifteen Years following, scarce ever fail’d
of passing some of his Party Compliments upon me: The State and the Stage were
his frequent Parallels, and the Minister and Minheer Keiber the Menager were as
constantly droll’d upon: Now, for my own Part, though I could never persuade my
Wit to have an open Account with him (for as he had no Effects of his own, I
did not think myself oblig’d to answer his Bills;) notwithstanding, I will be
so charitable to his real Manes, and to the Ashes of his Paper, as to mention
one particular Civility he paid to my Memory, after he thought he had
ingeniously kill’d me. Soon after the Nonjuror had receiv’d the Favour of the
Town, I read in one of his Journals the following short Paragraph, viz.
Yesterday died Mr. Colley Cibber, late Comedian of the Theatre-Royal, notorious
for writing the Nonjuror. The Compliment in the latter part I confess I did not
dislike, because it came from so impartial a Judge; and it really so happen’d
that the former part of it was very near being true; for I had that very Day
just crawled out, after having been some Weeks laid up by a Fever: However, I
saw no use in being thought to be thoroughly dead before my Time, and therefore
had a mind to see whether the Town cared to have me alive again: So the Play of
the Orphan being to be acted that Day, I quietly stole myself into the Part of
the Chaplain, which I had not been seen in for many Years before. The Surprize
of the Audience at my unexpected Appearance on the very Day I had been dead in
the News, and the Paleness of my Looks, seem’d to make it a Doubt whether I was
not the Ghost of my real Self departed: But when I spoke, their Wonder eas’d
itself by an Applause; which convinc’d me they were then satisfied that my
Friend Mist had told a Fib of me. Now, if simply to have shown myself in broad
Life, and about my Business, after he had notoriously reported me dead, can be
called a Reply, it was the only one which his Paper while alive ever drew from
me. How far I may be vain, then, in supposing that this Play brought me into
the Disfavour of so many Wits [189.1] and valiant Auditors as afterwards appear’d
against me, let those who may think it worth their Notice judge. In the mean
time, ’till I can find a better Excuse for their sometimes particular Treatment
of me, I cannot easily give up my Suspicion: And if I add a more remarkable
Fact, that afterwards confirm’d me in it, perhaps it may incline others to join
in my Opinion.
On the first Day of the
Provok’d Husband, ten Years after the Nonjuror had appear’d, [189.2] a powerful
Party, not having the Fear of publick Offence or private Injury before their
Eyes, appear’d most impetuously concern’d for the Demolition of it; in which
they so far succeeded, that for some Time I gave it up for lost; and to follow
their Blows, in the publick Papers of the next Day it was attack’d and triumph’d
over as a dead and damn’d Piece; a swinging Criticism was made upon it in
general invective Terms, for they disdain’d to trouble the World with
Particulars; their Sentence, it seems, was Proof enough of its deserving the
Fate it had met with. But this damn’d Play was, notwithstanding, acted
twenty-eight Nights together, and left off at a Receipt of upwards of a hundred
and forty Pounds; which happen’d to be more than in fifty Years before could be
then said of any one Play whatsoever.
Now, if such notable Behaviour
could break out upon so successful a Play (which too, upon the Share Sir John
Vanbrugh had in it, I will venture to call a good one) what shall we impute it
to? Why may not I plainly say, it was not the Play, but Me, who had a Hand in
it, they did not like? And for what Reason? if they were not asham’d of it, why
did not they publish it? No! the Reason had publish’d itself, I was the Author
of the Nonjuror! But, perhaps, of all Authors, I ought not to make this sort of
Complaint, because I have Reason to think that that particular Offence has made
me more honourable Friends than Enemies; the latter of which I am not unwilling
should know (however unequal the Merit may be to the Reward) that Part of the
Bread I now eat was given me for having writ the Nonjuror. [190.1]
And yet I cannot but
lament, with many quiet Spectators, the helpless Misfortune that has so many
Years attended the Stage! That no Law has had Force enough to give it absolute
Protection! for ’till we can civilize its Auditors, the Authors that write for
it will seldom have a greater Call to it than Necessity; and how unlikely is
the Imagination of the Needy to inform or delight the Many in Affluence? or how
often does Necessity make many unhappy Gentlemen turn Authors in spite of Nature?
What a Blessing,
therefore, is it! what an enjoy’d Deliverance! after a Wretch has been driven
by Fortune to stand so many wanton Buffets of unmanly Fierceness, to find
himself at last quietly lifted above the Reach of them!
But let not this
Reflection fall upon my Auditors without Distinction; for though Candour and
Benevolence are silent Virtues, they are as visible as the most vociferous
Ill-nature; and I confess the Publick has given me more frequently Reason to be
thankful than to complain.
[161.1] 1714. [163.1] In the
Dedication to Steele of "Ximena" (1719) Cibber warmly acknowledges
the great service Steele had done to the theatre, not only in improving the
tone of its performances, but also in the mere attracting of public attention
to it. "How many a time," he says, "have we known the most
elegant Audiences drawn together at a Day’s Warning, by the Influence or
Warrant of a single Tatler, when our best Endeavours without it, could not
defray the Charge of the Performance." In the same Dedication Cibber’s
gratitude overstepped his judgment, in applying to Steele’s generous
acknowledgment of his indebtedness to Addison’s help in his
"Spectator," &c., Dryden’s lines:--
"Fool that I was!
upon my Eagle’s Wings
I bore this Wren, ’till
I was tir’d with soaring,
And now, he mounts
above me--"
The following Epigram
is quoted in "The Laureat," p. 76. It originally appeared in
"Mist’s Journal," 31st October, 1719:--
Thus Colley Cibber to
his Partner Steele,
See here, Sir Knight,
how I’ve outdone Corneille;
See here, how I, my
Patron to inveigle,
Make Addison a Wren,
and you an Eagle.
Safe to the silent
Shades, we bid Defiance;
For living Dogs are
better than dead Lions."
In one of his Odes, at
which Johnson laughed (Boswell, i. 402 Cibber had the couplet:--
"Perch’d on the
eagle’s soaring wing,
The lowly linnet loves
to sing."
"Ximena; or, the
Heroic Daughter," produced on 28th November, 1712, was an adaptation of
Corneille’s "Cid." We do not know the cast of 1712, but that of 1718
(Drury Lane, 1st November) was the following:--
DON
FERDINAND........Mr. Mills.
DON
ALVAREZ..........Mr. Cibber.
DON
GORMAZ...........Mr. Booth.
DON
CARLOS...........Mr. Wilks.
DON SANCHEZ..........Mr.
Elrington.
DON
ALONZO...........Mr. Thurmond.
DON
GARCIA...........Mr. Boman.
XIMENA...............Mrs.
Oldfield.
BELZARA..............Mrs.
Porter.
[165.1] A Royal Licence was granted on 18th October, 1714, to Steele,
Wilks, Cibber, Dogget, and Booth. The theatre opened before the Licence was
granted. The first bill given by Genest is for 21st September, 1714. [166.1]
Christopher Rich died before the theatre was opened, and it was under the
management of John Rich, his son, that Lincoln’s Inn Fields opened on 18th
December, 1714, with "The Recruiting Officer." The company was
announced as playing under Letters Patent granted by King Charles the Second.
[166.2] This refers to a riot raised by the supporters of Mrs. Rogers, on Mrs.
Oldfield’s being cast for the character of Andromache in Philip’s tragedy of
"The Distressed Mother," produced at Drury Lane on 17th March, 1712.
[168.1] Cibber on one occasion manifested temper to a rather unexpected degree.
In 1720, when Dennis published his attacks on Steele, in connection with his
being deprived of the Patent, he accused Cibber of impiety and various other
crimes and misdemeanours; and Cibber is said in the "Answer to the
Character of Sir John Edgar" to have inserted the following advertisement
in the "Daily Post": "Ten Pounds will be paid by Mr. CIBBER, of
the Theatre Royal, to any person who shall (by a legal proof) discover the
Author of a Pamphlet, intituled, ’The Characters and Conduct of Sir JOHN EDGAR,
&c’" (Nichols, p. 401.) [169.1] Cibber refers to his remarks (see vol.
i. p. 191) on the conduct of the Patentees which caused Betterton’s secession
in 1694-5. [169.2] In addition to Keen, Bullock (William), Pack, and Leigh,
whom Cibber mentions a few lines after, Spiller and Christopher Bullock were
among the deserters; and probably Cory and Knap. Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Knight, and
Mrs. Kent also deserted. [169.3] George Pack is an actor of whom Chetwood
("History," p. 210) gives some account. He first came on the stage as
a singer, performing the female parts in duets with Leveridge. His first
appearance chronicled by Genest was at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1700, as
Westmoreland in the first part of "Henry IV." Chetwood says he was
excellent as Marplot in "The Busy Body," Beau Maiden in
"Tunbridge Walks," Beau Mizen in "The Fair Quaker of Deal,"
&c.: "indeed Nature seem’d to mean him for those Sort of
Characters." On 10th March, 1722, he announced his last appearance on any
stage; but he returned on 21st April and 7th May, 1724, on which latter date he
had a benefit. Chetwood says that on his retirement he opened the Globe Tavern,
near Charing-Cross, over against the Hay-market. When Chetwood wrote (1749)
Pack was no longer alive. [170.1] Francis Leigh. There were several actors of
the name of Leigh, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them. This
particular actor died about 1719. [171.1]
In the "Weekly Packet," 18th December, 1714, the following appears:--
"This Day the New
Play-House in Lincolns-Inn Fields, is to be open’d and a Comedy acted there,
call’d, The Recruiting Officer, by the Company that act under the Patent; tho’
it is said, that some of the Gentlemen who have left the House in Drury-Lane
for that Service, are order’d to return to their Colours, upon Pain of not
exercising their Lungs elsewhere; which may in Time prove of ill Service to the
Patentee, that has been at vast Expence to make this Theatre as convenient for
the Reception of an Audience as any one can possibly be."
Genest remarks that
this seems to show that the Lord Chamberlain threatened to interfere in the
interests of Drury Lane. He adds: "Cibber’s silence proves nothing to the
contrary, as in more than one instance he does not tell the whole truth"
(ii. 565). In defence of Cibber I may say that the Chamberlain’s Records
contain no hint that he threatened to interfere with the Lincoln’s Inn Fields
Theatre or its actors.
[174.1] In both the first and second editions Cibber writes 1718, but
this is so obviously a misprint that I correct the text. Steele was elected for
Boroughbridge in the first Parliament of George I., which met 15th March, 1715.
[174.2] "The very night I received it, I participated the power and use of
it, with relation to the profits that should arise from it, between the
gentlemen who invited me into the Licence."--Steele, in "The
Theatre," No. 8 [Nichols, p. 64]. [175.1] The managers also expended money
on the decoration of the theatre before the beginning of the next season after
the Patent was granted. In the "Daily Courant," 6th October, 1715,
they advertise: "His Majesty’s Company of Comedians give Notice, That the
Middle of next Week they will begin to act Plays, every day, as usual; they
being oblig’d to lye still so long, to finish the New Decorations of the
House." [176.1] This
revival was on 2nd December, 1718. Dennis, whose "Invader of his
Country" was, as he considered, unfairly postponed on account of this
production, wrote to Steele:--
"Well, Sir, when the winter came on, what was done by your
Deputies? Why, instead of keeping their word with me, they spent above two
months of the season in getting up "All for Love, or, the World well
Lost," a Play which has indeed a noble first act, an act which ends with a
scene becoming of the dignity of the Tragic Stage. But if HORACE had been now alive,
and been either a reader or spectator of that entertainment, he would have
passed his old sentence upon the Author. ’Infelix
operis summâ, quia ponere totum
Nesciet.’"
[Ars Poetica, 34.]
Nichols’ "Theatre," p. 544.
[177.1] Cibber here
skips a few years, for the report by Sir Thomas Hewitt is dated some years
after the granting of the Patent. The text of it will be found in Nichols’s
"Theatre," p. 470:--
"MY LORD,
Scotland-yard, Jan. 21, 1721.
"In obedience to
his Majesty’s commands signified to me by your Grace the 18th instant, I have
surveyed the Play-house in Drury-lane; and took with me Mr. RIPLEY,
Commissioner of his Majesty’s Board of Works, the Master Bricklayer, and
Carpenter: We examined all its parts with the greatest exactness we could; and
found the Walls, Roofing, Stage, Pit, Boxes, Galleries, Machinery, Scenes,
&c. sound, and almost as good as when first built; neither decayed, nor in
the least danger of falling; and when some small repairs are made, and an
useless Stack of Chimnies (built by the late Mr. RICH) taken down, the Building
may continue for a long time, being firm, the Materials and Joints good, and no
part giving way; and capable to bear much greater weight than is put on them.
"MY LORD DUKE, "Your GRACE’S Most humble and obedient servant,
"THOMAS HEWETT.
"N.B. The Stack of
Chimnies mentioned in this Report (which were placed over the Stone Passage
leading to the Boxes) are actually taken down."
[178.1] See ante, vol. i. p. 234. [179.1] Cibber, vol. i. p. 94, relates
how, when the King’s Company proved too strong for their rivals, Davenant,
"to make head against their Success, was forced to add Spectacle and Music
to Action." [180.1] In the season 1718-19, Rich at Lincoln’s Inn Fields
frequently produced French pieces and operas. He must have had a company of
French players engaged. [180.2] This is, no doubt, John Weaver’s dramatic
entertainment called "The Loves of Mars and Venus," which was
published, as acted at Drury Lane, in 1717. [181.1]
The following lines ("Dunciad," iii. verses 229-244) are descriptive
of such pantomimes as Cibber refers to:--
"He look’d, and
saw a sable Sorc’rer rise,
Swift to whose hand a
winged volume flies:
All sudden, Gorgons
hiss, and dragons glare,
And ten-horn’d fiends
and giants rush to war.
Hell rises, Heav’n
descends, and dance on Earth,
Gods, imps, and
monsters, music, rage, and mirth,
A fire, a jig, a
battle, and a ball,
Till one wide
conflagration swallows all.
Thence a new world, to
nature’s laws unknown,
Breaks out refulgent,
with a heav’n its own:
Another Cynthia her new
journey runs,
And other planets
circle other suns:
The forests dance, the
rivers upward rise,
Whales sport in woods,
and dolphins in the skies,
And last, to give the
whole creation grace,
Lo! one vast Egg
produces human race."
The allusion in the
last line is to "Harlequin Sorcerer," in which Harlequin is hatched
from a large egg on the stage. See Jackson’s "History of the Scottish
Stage," pages 367-8, for description of John Rich’s excellence in this
scene.
[182.1] In the
"Dunciad" (book iii. verses 261-4) Pope writes:--
"But lo! to dark
encounter in mid air
New wizards rise: here
Booth, and Cibber there:
Booth in his cloudy
tabernacle shrin’d,
On grinning Dragons
Cibber mounts the wind."
On these lines Cibber
remarks, in his "Letter to Mr. Pope," 1742 (page 37):
"If you, figuratively, mean by this, that I was an Encourager of
those Fooleries, you are mistaken; for it is not true: If you intend it
literally, that I was Dunce enough to mount a Machine, there is as little Truth
in that too."[182.2] Henry of Navarre, of whom it has been said that he
regarded religion mainly as a diplomatic instrument. [185.1] It is hardly
necessary to note that this was the Scottish Rebellion of 1715; yet
Bellchambers indicates the period as 1718. [185.2] Cibber’s most notorious
play, "The Nonjuror," was produced at Drury Lane on 6th December,
1717. The cast was:-- SIR JOHN
WOODVIL........Mr. Mills.
COLONEL
WOODVIL.........Mr. Booth.
MR. HEARTLY.............Mr.
Wilks.
DOCTOR
WOLF.............Mr. Cibber.
CHARLES.................Mr.
Walker.
LADY
WOODVIL............Mrs. Porter.
MARIA...................Mrs.
Oldfield.
[186.1] Genest (ii.
615) quotes the Epilogue to Sewell’s "Sir Walter Raleigh," produced
at Lincoln’s Inn Fields 16th January, 1719:--
"Yet to write
plays is easy, faith, enough,
As you have seen
by--Cibber--in Tartuffe.
With how much wit he
did your hearts engage!
He only stole the
play;--he writ the title-page."
[186.2] Genest says it was acted twenty-three times. [187.1] Genest remarks (ii.616) that
"Cibber deserved all the abuse and enmity that he met with--the Stage and
the Pulpit ought NEVER to dabble in politics."
Theo. Cibber, in a
Petition to the King, given in his "Dissertations" (Letter to
Garrick, p. 29), says that his father’s "Writings, and public Professions
of Loyalty, created him many Enemies, among the Disaffected."
[187.2] "Mist’s Weekly Journal" was an anti-Hanoverian sheet,
which was prominent in opposition to the Protestant Succession. Nathaniel Mist,
the proprietor, and, I suppose, editor, suffered sundry pains and penalties for
his Jacobitism. In his Preface to the second volume of "Letters"
selected from his paper, he relates how had had, among other things, suffered
imprisonment and stood in the pillory. [189.1]
There can be little doubt that the "Nonjuror" was one of the causes
of Pope’s enmity to Cibber. Pope’s father was a Nonjuror. See "Epistle to
Dr. Arbuthnot," where the poet says of his father:--
"No courts he saw,
no suits would ever try,
Nor dar’d an oath, nor
hazarded a lie."
The Author steps out of
his Way. Pleads his Theatrical Cause in Chancery. Carries it. Plays acted at
Hampton-Court. Theatrical Anecdotes in former Reigns. Ministers and Menagers
always censur’d. The Difficulty of supplying the Stage with good Actors
consider’d. Courtiers and Comedians govern’d by the same Passions. Examples of
both. The Author quits the Stage. Why.
HAVING brought the
Government of the Stage through such various Changes and Revolutions, to this
settled State in which it continued to almost the Time of my leaving it;
[192.1] it cannot be suppos’d that a Period of so much Quiet and so long a
Train of Success (though happy for those who enjoy’d it) can afford such Matter
of Surprize or Amusement, as might arise from Times of more Distress and
Disorder. A quiet Time in History, like a Calm in a Voyage, leaves us but in an
indolent Station: To talk of our Affairs when they were no longer ruffled by
Misfortunes, would be a Picture without Shade, a flat Performance at best. As I
might, therefore, throw all that tedious Time of our Tranquillity into one
Chasm in my History, and cut my Way short at once to my last Exit from the
Stage, I shall at least fill it up with such Matter only as I have a mind
should be known, [193.1] how few soever may have Patience to read it: Yet, as I
despair not of some Readers who may be most awake when they think others have
most occasion to sleep; who may be more pleas’d to find me languid than lively,
or in the wrong than in the right; why should I scruple (when it is so easy a
Matter too) to gratify their particular Taste by venturing upon any Error that
I like, or the Weakness of my Judgment misleads me to commit? I think, too, I
have a very good Chance for my Success in this passive Ambition, by shewing
myself in a Light I have not been seen in.
By your Leave then,
Gentlemen! let the Scene open, and at once discover your Comedian at the Bar!
There you will find him a Defendant, and pleasing his own Theatrical Cause in a
Court of Chancery: But, as I chuse to have a Chance of pleasing others as well
as of indulging you, Gentlemen; I must first beg leave to open my Case to them;
after which my whole Speech upon that Occasion shall be at your Mercy.
In all the Transactions
of Life, there cannot be a more painful Circumstance, than a Dispute at Law
with a Man with whom we have long liv’d in an agreeable Amity: But when Sir
Richard Steele, to get himself out of Difficulties, was oblig’d to throw his
Affairs into the Hands of Lawyers and Trustees, that Consideration, then, could
be of no weight: The Friend, or the Gentleman, had no more to do in the Matter!
Thus, while Sir Richard no longer acted from himself, it may be no Wonder if a
Flaw was found in our Conduct for the Law to make Work with. It must be
observed, then, that about two or three Years before this Suit was commenc’d,
upon Sir Richard’s totally absenting himself from all Care and Menagement of
the Stage (which by our Articles of Partnership he was equally and jointly
oblig’d with us to attend) we were reduc’d to let him know that we could not go
on at that Rate; but that if he expected to make the Business a sine-Cure, we
had as much Reason to expect a Consideration for our extraordinary Care of it;
and that during his Absence we therefore intended to charge our selves at a
Sallary of 1l. 13s. 4d. every acting Day (unless he could shew us Cause to the
contrary) for our Menagement: To which, in his compos’d manner, he only answer’d;
That to be sure we knew what was fitter to be done than he did; that he had
always taken a Delight in making us easy, and had no Reason to doubt of our
doing him Justice. Now whether, under this easy Stile of Approbation, he
conceal’d any Dislike of our Resolution, I cannot say. But, if I may speak my
private Opinion, I really believe, from his natural Negligence of his Affairs,
he was glad, at any rate, to be excus’d an Attendance which he was now grown
weary of. But, whether I am deceiv’d or right in my Opinion, the Fact was truly
this, that he never once, directly or indirectly, complain’d or objected to our
being paid the above-mention’d daily Sum in near three Years together; and yet
still continued to absent himself from us and our Affairs. But notwithstanding
he had seen and done all this with his Eyes open; his Lawyer thought here was
still a fair Field for a Battle in Chancery, in which, though his Client might
be beaten, he was sure his Bill must be paid for it: Accordingly, to work with
us he went. But, not to be so long as the Lawyers were in bringing this Cause
to an Issue, I shall at once let you know, that it came to a Hearing before the
last Sir Joseph Jekyll, then Master of the Rolls, in the Year 1726. [198.1]
Now, as the chief Point in dispute was, of what Kind or Importance the Business
of a Menager was, or in what it principally consisted; it could not be suppos’d
that the most learned Council could be so well appriz’d of the Nature of it, as
one who had himself gone through the Care and Fatigue of it. I was therefore
encourag’d by our Council to speak to that particular Head myself; which I
confess I was glad he suffer’d me to undertake; but when I tell you that two of
the learned Council against us came afterwards to be successively
Lord-Chancellors, it sets my Presumption in a Light that I still tremble to
shew it in: But however, not to assume more Merit from its Success than was
really its Due, I ought fairly to let you know, that I was not so hardy as to
deliver my Pleading without Notes, in my Hand, of the Heads I intended to
enlarge upon; for though I thought I could conquer my Fear, I could not be so
sure of my Memory: But when it came to the critical Moment, the Dread and
Apprehension of what I had undertaken so disconcerted my Courage, that though I
had been us’d to talk to above Fifty Thousand different People every Winter,
for upwards of Thirty Years together; an involuntary and unaffected Proof of my
Confusion fell from my Eyes; and, as I found myself quite out of my Element, I
seem’d rather gasping for Life than in a condition to cope with the eminent
Orators against me. But, however, I soon found, from the favourable Attention
of my Hearers, that my Diffidence had done me no Disservice: And as the Truth I
was to speak to needed no Ornament of Words, I delivered it in the plain manner
following, viz.
In this Cause, Sir, I
humbly conceive there are but two Points that admit of any material Dispute.
The first is, Whether Sir Richard Steele is as much obliged to do the Duty and
Business of a Menager as either Wilks, Booth, or Cibber: And the second is,
Whether by Sir Richard’s totally withdrawing himself from the Business of a
Menager, the Defendants are justifiable in charging to each of themselves the
1l. 13s. 4d. per Diem for their particular Pains and Care in carrying on the
whole Affairs of the Stage without any Assistance from Sir Richard Steele.
As to the First, if I
don’t mistake the Words of the Assignment, there is a Clause in it that says,
All Matters relating to the Government or Menagement of the Theatre shall be
concluded by a Majority of Voices. Now I presume, Sir, there is no room left to
alledge that Sir Richard was ever refused his Voice, though in above three
Years he never desir’d to give it: And I believe there will be as little room
to say, that he could have a Voice if he were not a Menager. But, Sir, his
being a Menager is so self-evident, that it is amazing how he could conceive
that he was to take the Profits and Advantages of a Menager without doing the
Duty of it. And I will be bold to say, Sir, that his Assignment of the Patent
to Wilks, Booth, and Cibber, in no one Part of it, by the severest Construction
in the World, can be wrested to throw the heavy Burthen of the Menagement only
upon their Shoulders. Nor does it appear, Sir, that either in his Bill, or in
his Answer to our Cross-Bill, he has offer’d any Hint, or Glimpse of a Reason,
for his withdrawing from the Menagement at all; or so much as pretend, from the
time complained of, that he ever took the least Part of his Share of it. Now,
Sir, however unaccountable this Conduct of Sir Richard may seem, we will still
allow that he had some Cause for it; but whether or no that Cause was a
reasonable one your Honour will the better judge, if I may be indulged in the
Liberty of explaining it.
Sir, the Case, in plain
Truth and Reality, stands thus: Sir Richard, though no Man alive can write
better of Oeconomy than himself, yet, perhaps, he is above the Drudgery of
practising it: Sir Richard, then, was often in want of Money; and while we were
in Friendship with him, we often assisted his Occasions: But those Compliances
had so unfortunate an Effect, that they only heightened his Importunity to
borrow more, and the more we lent, the less he minded us, or shew’d any Concern
for our Welfare. Upon this, Sir, we stopt our Hands at once, and peremptorily
refus’d to advance another Shilling ’till by the Balance of our Accounts it
became due to him. And this Treatment (though, we hope, not in the least unjustifiable)
we have Reason to believe so ruffled his Temper, that he at once was as short
with us as we had been with him; for, from that Day, he never more came near
us: Nay, Sir, he not only continued to neglect what he should have done, but
actually did what he ought not to have done: He made an Assignment of his Share
without our Consent, in a manifest Breach of our Agreement: For, Sir, we did
not lay that Restriction upon ourselves for no Reason: We knew, before-hand,
what Trouble and Inconvenience it would be to unravel and expose our Accounts
to Strangers, who, if they were to do us no hurt by divulging our Secrets, we
were sure could do us no good by keeping them. If Sir Richard had had our
common Interest at heart, he would have been as warm in it as we were, and as
tender of hurting it: But supposing his assigning his Share to others may have
done us no great Injury, it is, at least, a shrewd Proof that he did not care
whether it did us any or no. And if the Clause was not strong enough to
restrain him from it in Law, there was enough in it to have restrain’d him in
Honour form breaking it. But take it in its best Light, it shews him as remiss
a Menager in our Affairs as he naturally was in his own. Suppose, Sir, we had
all been as careless as himself, which I can’t find he has any more Right to be
than we have, must not our whole Affair have fallen to Ruin? And may we not, by
a parity of Reason, suppose, that by his Neglect a fourth Part of it does fall
to Ruin? But, Sir, there is a particular Reason to believe, that, from our want
of Sir Richard, more than a fourth Part does suffer by it: His Rank and Figure
in the World, while he gave us the Assistance of them, were of extraordinary
Service to us: He had an easier Access, and a more regarded Audience at Court,
than our low Station of Life could pretend to, when our Interest wanted (as it
often did) a particular Solicitation there. But since we have been deprived of
him, the very End, the very Consideration of his Share in our Profits is not
perform’d on his Part. And will Sir Richard, then, make us no Compensation for
so valuable a Loss in our Interests, and so palpable an Addition to our Labour?
I am afraid, Sir, if we were all to be as indolent in the Menaging-Part as Sir
Richard presumes he has a Right to be; our Patent would soon run us as many
Hundreds in Debt, as he had (and still seems willing to have) his Share of, for
doing of nothing.
Sir, our next Point in
question is whether Wilkes, Booth, and Cibber are justifiable in charging the
1l. 13s. 4d. per diem for their extraordinary Menagement in the Absence of Sir
Richard Steele. I doubt, Sir, it will be hard to come to the Solution of this
Point, unless we may be a little indulg’d in setting forth what is the daily
and necessary Business and Duty of a Menager. But, Sir, we will endeavour to be
as short as the Circumstances will admit of.
Sir, by our Books it is
apparent that the Menagers have under their Care no less than One Hundred and
Forty Persons in constant daily Pay: And among such Numbers, it will be no
wonder if a great many of them are unskilful, idle, and sometimes untractable;
all which Tempers are to be led, or driven, watch’d, and restrain’d by the
continual Skill, Care, and Patience of the Menagers. Every Menager is oblig’d,
in his turn, to attend two or three Hours every Morning at the Rehearsal of
Plays and other Entertainments for the Stage, or else every Rehearsal would be
but a rude Meeting of Mirth and Jollity. The same Attendance is as necessary at
every Play during the time of its publick Action, in which one or more of us
have constantly been punctual, whether we have had any part in the Play than
acted or not. A Menager ought to be at the Reading of every new Play when it is
first offer’d to the Stage, though there are seldom one of those Plays in
twenty which, upon hearing, proves to be fit for it; and upon such Occasions
the Attendance must be allow’d to be as painfully tedious as the getting rid of
the Authors of such Plays must be disagreeable and difficult. Besides this,
Sir, a Menager is to order all new Cloaths, to assist in the Fancy and
Propriety of them, to limit the Expence, and to withstand the unreasonable
Importunities of some that are apt to think themselves injur’d if they are not
finer than their Fellows. A Menager is to direct and oversee the Painters,
Machinists, Musicians, Singers, and Dancers; to have an Eye upon the
Door-keepers, Under-Servants, and Officers that, without such Care, are too
often apt to defraud us, or neglect their Duty.
And all this, Sir, and
more, much more, which we hope will be needless to trouble you with, have we
done every Day, without the least Assistance from Sir Richard, even at times
when the Concern and Labour of our Parts upon the Stage have made it very
difficult and irksome to go through with it.
In this Place, Sir, it
may be worth observing that Sir Richard, in his Answer to our Cross-Bill, seems
to value himself upon Cibber’s confessing, in the Dedication of a Play which he
made to Sir Richard, that he (Sir Richard) had done the Stage very considerable
Service by leading the Town to our Plays, and filling our Houses by the Force
and Influence of his Tatlers. [205.1] But Sir Richard forgets that those
Tatlers were written in the late Queen’s Reign, long before he was admitted to
a Share in the Play-house: And in truth, Sir, it was our real Sense of those
Obligations, and Sir Richard’s assuring us they should be continued, that first
and chiefly inclin’d us to invite him to share the Profits of our Labours, upon
such farther Conditions as in his Assignment of the Patent to us are specified.
And, Sir, as Cibber’s publick Acknowledgment of those Favours is at the same
time an equal Proof of Sir Richard’s Power to continue them; so, Sir, we hope
it carries an equal Probability that, without his Promise to use that Power, he
would never have been thought on, much less have been invited by us into a
Joint-Menagement of the Stage, and into a Share of the Profits: And, indeed,
what Pretence could he have form’d for asking a Patent from the Crown, had he
been possess’d of no eminent Qualities but in common with other Men? But, Sir,
all these Advantages, all these Hopes, nay, Certainties of greater Profits from
those great Qualities, have we been utterly depriv’d of by the wilful and unexpected
Neglect of Sir Richard. But we find, Sir, it is a common thing in the Practice
of Mankind to justify one Error by committing another: For Sir Richard has not
only refused us the extraordinary Assistance which he is able and bound to give
us; but, on the contrary, to our great Expence and Loss of Time, now calls us
to account, in this honourable Court, for the Wrong we have done him, in not
doing his Business of a Menager for nothing. But, Sir, Sir Richard has not met
with such Treatment from us: He has not writ Plays for us for Nothing, we paid
him very well, and in an extraordinary manner, for his late Comedy of the
Conscious Lovers: And though, in writing that Play, he had more Assistance from
one of the Menagers [206.1] than becomes me to enlarge upon, of which Evidence
has been given upon Oath by several of our Actors; yet, Sir, he was allow’d the
full and particular Profits of that Play as an Author, which amounted to Three
Hundred Pounds, besides about Three Hundred more which he received as a Joint-Sharer
of the general Profits that arose from it. Now, Sir, though the Menagers are
not all of them able to write Plays, yet they have all of them been able to do
(I won’t say as good, but at least) as profitable a thing. They have invented
and adorn’d a Spectacle that for Forty Days together has brought more Money to
the House than the best Play that ever was writ. The Spectacle I mean, Sir, is
that of the Coronation-Ceremony of Anna Bullen: [206.2] And though we allow a
good Play to be the more laudable Performance, yet, Sir, in the profitable Part
of it there is no Comparison. If, therefore, our Spectacle brought in as much,
or more Money than Sir Richard’s Comedy, what is there on his Side but Usage
that intitles him to be paid for one, more than we are for t’other? But then,
Sir, if he is so profitably distinguish’d for his Play, if we yield him up to
the Preference, and pay him for his extraordinary Composition, and take nothing
for our own, though it turn’d out more to our common Profit; sure, Sir, while
we do such extraordinary Duty as Menagers, and while he neglects his Share of
that Duty, he cannot grudge us the moderate Demand we make for our separate
Labour?
To conclude, Sir, if by
our constant Attendance, our Care, our Anxiety (not to mention the disagreeable
Contests we sometimes meet with, both within and without Doors, in the
Menagement of our Theatre) we have not only saved the whole from Ruin, which,
if we had all follow’d Sir Richard’s Example, could not have been avoided; I
say, Sir, if we have still made it so valuable an Income to him, without his
giving us the least Assistance for several Years past; we hope, Sir, that the
poor Labourers that have done all this for Sir Richard will not be thought
unworthy of their Hire.
How far our Affairs,
being set in this particular Light, might assist our Cause, may be of no great
Importance to guess; but the Issue of it was this: That Sir Richard not having
made any objection to what we had charged for Menagement for three Years
together; and as our Proceedings had been all transacted in open Day, without
any clandestine Intention of Fraud; we were allow’d the Sums in dispute
above-mention’d; and Sir Richard not being advised to appeal to the
Lord-Chancellor, both Parties paid their own Costs, and thought it their mutual
Interest to let this be the last of their Lawsuits.
And now, gentle Reader,
I ask Pardon for so long an Imposition on your Patience: For tho’ I may have no
ill Opinion of this Matter myself; yet to you I can very easily conceive it may
have been tedious. You are, therefore, at your own Liberty of charging the
whole Impertinence of it, either to the Weakness of my Judgment, or the
Strength of my Vanity; and I will so far join in your Censure, that I farther
confess I have been so impatient to give it you, that you have had it out of
its Turn: For, some Years before this Suit was commenced, there were other
Facts that ought to have had a Precedence in my History: But that, I dare say,
is an Oversight you will easily excuse, provided you afterwards find them worth
reading. However, as to that Point I must take my Chance, and shall therefore
proceed to speak of the Theatre which was order’d by his late Majesty to be
erected in the Great old Hall at Hampton-Court; where Plays were intended to
have been acted twice a Week during the Summer-Season. But before the Theatre
could be finish’d, above half the Month of September being elapsed, there were
but seven Plays acted before the Court returned to London. [209.1] This
throwing open a Theatre in a Royal Palace seem’d to be reviving the Old English
hospitable Grandeur, where the lowest Rank of neighbouring Subjects might make
themselves merry at Court without being laugh’d at themselves. In former
Reigns, Theatrical Entertainments at the Royal Palaces had been perform’d at
vast Expence, as appears by the Description of the Decorations in several of
Ben. Johnson’s Masques in King James and Charles the First’s Time; [209.2] many
curious and original Draughts of which, by Sir Inigo Jones, I have seen in the
Musæum of our greatest Master and Patron of Arts and Architecture, whom it
would be a needless Liberty to name. [209.3] But when our Civil Wars ended in
the Decadence of Monarchy, it was then an Honour to the Stage to have fallen
with it: Yet, after the Restoration of Charles II. some faint Attempts were
made to revive these Theatrical Spectacles at Court; but I have met with no
Account of above one Masque acted there by the Nobility; which was that of
Calisto, written by Crown, the Author of Sir Courtly Nice. For what Reason
Crown was chosen to that Honour rather than Dryden, who was then Poet-Laureat
and out of all Comparison his Superior in Poetry, may seem surprizing: But if
we consider the Offence which the then Duke of Buckingham took at the Character
of Zimri in Dryden’s Absalom, &c. (which might probably be a Return to his
Grace’s Drawcansir in the Rehearsal) we may suppose the Prejudice and
Recommendation of so illustrious a Pretender to Poetry might prevail at Court
to give Crown this Preference. [210.1] In the same Reign the King had his
Comedians at Windsor, but upon a particular Establishment; for tho’ they acted
in St. George’s Hall, within the Royal Palace, yet (as I have been inform’d by
an Eye-witness) they were permitted to take Money at the Door of every
Spectator; whether this was an Indulgence, in Conscience I cannot say; but it
was a common Report among the principal Actors, when I first came into the
Theatre-Royal, in 1690, that there was then due to the Company from that Court
about One Thousand Five Hundred Pounds for Plays commanded, &c. and yet it
was the general Complaint, in that Prince’s Reign, that he paid too much
Ready-money for his Pleasures: But these Assertions I only give as I received
them, without being answerable for their Reality. This Theatrical Anecdote,
however, puts me in mind of one of a more private nature, which I had from old
solemn Boman, the late Actor of venerable Memory. [211.1] Boman, then a Youth,
and fam’d for his Voice, was appointed to sing some Part in a Concert of Musick
at the private Lodgings of Mrs. Gwin; at which were only present the King, the
Duke of York, and one or two more who were usually admitted upon those detach’d
Parties of Pleasure. When the Performance was ended, the King express’d himself
highly pleased, and gave it extraordinary Commendations: Then, Sir, said the
Lady, to shew you don’t speak like a Courtier, I hope you will make the
Performers a handsome Present: The King said he had no Money about him, and ask’d
the Duke if he had any? To which the Duke reply’d, I believe, Sir, not above a
Guinea or two. Upon which the laughing Lady, turning to the People about her,
and making bold with the King’s common Expression, cry’d, Od’s Fish! what
Company am I got into!
Whether the reverend
Historian of his Own Time, [212.1] among the many other Reasons of the same
Kind he might have for stiling this Fair One the indiscreetest and wildest
Creature that ever was in a Court, might know this to be one of them, I can’t
say: But if we consider her in all the Disadvantages of her Rank and Education,
she does not appear to have had any criminal Errors more remarkable than her
Sex’s Frailty to answer for: And if the same Author, in his latter End of that
Prince’s Life, seems to reproach his Memory with too kind a Concern for her
Support, we may allow that it becomes a Bishop to have had no Eyes or Taste for
the frivolous Charms or playful Badinage of a King’s Mistress: Yet, if the
common Fame of her may be believ’d, which in my Memory was not doubted, she had
less to be laid to her Charge than any other of those Ladies who were in the
same State of Preferment: She never meddled in Matters of serious Moment, or
was the Tool of working Politicians: Never broke into those amorous
Infidelities which others in that grave Author are accus’d of; but was as
visibly distinguish’d by her particular Personal Inclination to the King, as
her Rivals were by their Titles and Grandeur. Give me leave to carry (perhaps
the Partiality of) my Observation a little farther. The same Author, in the
same Page, 263, [212.2] tells us, That "Another of the King’s Mistresses,
the Daughter of a Clergyman, Mrs. Roberts, in whom her first "Education
had so deep a Root, that though she fell "into many scandalous Disorders,
with very dismal "Adventures in them all, yet a Principle of Religion
"was so deep laid in her, that tho’ it did not "restrain her, yet it
kept alive in her such a constant "Horror of Sin, that she was never easy
in an ill "course, and died with a great Sense of her former "ill
Life."
To all this let us give
an implicit Credit: Here is the Account of a frail Sinner made up with a
Reverend Witness! Yet I cannot but lament that this Mitred Historian, who seems
to know more Personal Secrets than any that ever writ before him, should not
have been as inquisitive after the last Hours of our other Fair Offender, whose
Repentance I have been unquestionably inform’d, appear’d in all the contrite
Symptoms of a Christian Sincerity. If therefore you find I am so much concern’d
to make this favourable mention of the one, because she was a Sister of the
Theatre, why may not-- But I dare not be so presumptuous, so uncharitably bold,
as to suppose the other was spoken better of merely because she was the
Daughter of a Clergyman. Well, and what then? What’s all this idle Prate, you
may say, to the matter in hand? Why, I say your Question is a little too
critical; and if you won’t give an Author leave, now and then, to embellish his
Work by a natural Reflexion, you are an ungentle Reader. But I have done with
my Digression, and return to our Theatre at Hampton-Court, where I am not sure
the Reader, be he ever so wise, will meet with any thing more worth his notice:
However, if he happens to read, as I write, for want of something better to do,
he will go on; and perhaps wonder when I tell him that
A Play presented at
Court, or acted on a publick Stage, seem to their different Auditors a
different Entertainment. Now hear my Reason for it. In the common Theatre the
Guests are at home, where the politer Forms of Good-breeding are not so nicely
regarded: Every one there falls to, and likes or finds fault according to his
natural Taste or Appetite. At Court, where the Prince gives the Treat, and
honours the Table with his own Presence, the Audience is under the Restraint of
a Circle, where Laughter or Applause rais’d higher than a Whisper would be star’d
at. At a publick Play they are both let loose, even ’till the Actor is
sometimes pleas’d with his not being able to be heard for the Clamour of them.
But this Coldness or Decency of Attention at Court I observ’d had but a
melancholy Effect upon the impatient Vanity of some of our Actors, who seem’d
inconsolable when their flashy Endeavours to please had pass’d unheeded: Their
not considering where they were quite disconcerted them; nor could they recover
their Spirits ’till from the lowest Rank of the Audience some gaping John or
Joan, in the fullness of their Hearts, roar’d out their Approbation: And,
indeed, such a natural Instance of honest Simplicity a Prince himself, whose
Indulgence knows where to make Allowances, might reasonably smile at, and
perhaps not think it the worst part of his Entertainment. Yet it must be own’d,
that an Audience may be as well too much reserv’d, as too profuse of their
Applause: For though it is possible a Betterton would not have been discourag’d
form throwing out an Excellence, or elated into an Error, by his Auditors being
too little or too much pleas’d, yet, as Actors of his Judgment are Rarities,
those of less Judgment may sink into a Flatness in their Performance for want
of that Applause, which from the generality of Judges they might perhaps have
some Pretence to: And the Auditor, when not seeming to feel what ought to
affect him, may rob himself of something more than he might have had by giving
the Actor his Due, who measures out his Power to please according to the Value
he sets upon his Hearer’s Taste or Capacity. But, however, as we were not here
itinerant Adventurers, and had properly but one Royal Auditor to please; after
that Honour was attain’d to, the rest of our Ambition had little to look after:
And that the King was often pleas’d, we were not only assur’d by those who had
the Honour to be near him; but could see it, from the frequent Satisfaction in
his Looks at particular Scenes and Passages: One Instance of which I am tempted
to relate, because it was at a Speech that might more naturally affect a
Sovereign Prince than any private Spectator. In Shakespear’s Harry the Eighth,
that King commands the Cardinal to write circular Letters of Indemnity into
every County where the Payment of certain heavy taxes had been disputed: Upon
which the Cardinal whispers the following Directions to his Secretary Cromwell:
--A Word with you:
Let there be Letters
writ to every Shire
Of the King’s Grace and
Pardon: The griev’d
Commons
Hardly conceive of me.
Let it be nois’d
That through our
Intercession this Revokement
And Pardon comes.--I
shall anon advise you
Farther in the
Proceeding--
The Solicitude of this
Spiritual Minister, in filching from his Master the Grace and Merit of a good
Action, and dressing up himself in it, while himself had been Author of the
Evil complain’d of, was so easy a Stroke of his Temporal Conscience, that it seem’d
to raise the King into something more than a Smile whenever that Play came
before him: And I had a more distinct Occasion to observe this Effect; because
my proper Stand on the Stage when I spoke the Lines required me to be near the
Box where the King usually sate: [216.1] In a Word, this Play is so true a
Dramatick Chronicle of an old English Court, and where the Character of Harry
the Eighth is so exactly drawn, even to a humourous Likeness, that it may be no
wonder why his Majesty’s particular Taste for it should have commanded it three
several times in one Winter.
This, too, calls to my
Memory an extravagant Pleasantry of Sir Richard Steele, who being ask’d by a
grave Nobleman, after the same Play had been presented at Hampton-Court, how
the King lik’d it, reply’d, So terribly well, my Lord, that I was afraid I
should have lost all my Actors! For I was not sure the King would not keep them
to fill the Posts at Court that he saw them so fit for in the Play.
It may be imagin’d that
giving Plays to the People at such a distance from London could not but be
attended with an extraordinary Expence; and it was some Difficulty, when they
were first talk’d of, to bring them under a moderate Sum; I shall therefore, in
as few Words as possible, give a Particular of what Establishment they were
then brought to, that in case the same Entertainments should at any time
hereafter be call’d to the same Place, future Courts may judge how far the
Precedent may stand good, or need an Alteration.
Though the stated Fee for
a Play acted at Whitehall had been formerly but Twenty Pounds; [218.1] yet, as
that hinder’d not the Company’s acting on the same Day at the Publick Theatre,
that Sum was almost all clear Profits to them: But this Circumstance not being
practicable when they were commanded to Hampton-Court, a new and extraordinary
Charge was unavoidable: The Menagers, therefore, not to inflame it, desired no
Consideration for their own Labour, farther than the Honour of being employ’d
in his Majesty’s Commands; and, if the other Actors might be allow’d each their
Day’s Pay and travelling Charges, they should hold themselves ready to act any
Play there at a Day’s Warning: And that the Trouble might be less by being
divided, the Lord-Chamberlain was pleas’d to let us know that the
Houshold-Musick, the Wax Lights, and a Chaise-Marine to carry our moving
Wardrobe to every different Play, should be under the Charge of the proper
Officers. Notwithstanding these assistances, the Expence of every Pay amounted
to Fifty Pounds: Which Account, when all was over, was not only allow’d us, but
his Majesty was graciously pleas’d to give the Menagers Two Hundred Pounds more
for their particular Performance and Trouble in only seven times acting.
[219.1] Which last Sum, though it might not be too much for a Sovereign Prince
to give, it was certainly more than our utmost Merit ought to have hop’d for:
And I confess, when I receiv’d the Order for the Money from his Grace the Duke
of Newcastle, then Lord-Chamberlain, I was so surpris’d, that I imagin’d his
Grace’s Favour, or Recommendation of our Readiness or Diligence, must have
contributed to so high a Consideration of it, and was offering my
Acknowledgments as I thought them due; but was soon stopt short by his Grace’s
Declaration, That we had no Obligations for it but to the King himself, who had
given it from no other Motive than his own Bounty. Now whether we may suppose
that Cardinal Wolsey (as you see Shakespear has drawn him) would silently have
taken such low Acknowledgments to himself, perhaps may be as little worth
consideration as my mentioning this Circumstance has been necessary: But if it
is due to the Honour and Integrity of the (then) Lord-Chamberlain, I cannot
think it wholly impertinent.
Since that time there
has been but one Play given at Hampton-Court, which was for the Entertainment
of the Duke of Lorrain; and for which is present Majesty was pleased to order
us a Hundred Pounds.
The Reader may now
plainly see that I am ransacking my Memory for such remaining Scraps of Theatrical
History as may not perhaps be worth his Notice: But if they are such as tempt
me to write them, why may I not hope that in this wide World there may be many
an idle Soul, no wiser than my self, who may be equally tempted to read them?
I have so often had
occasion to compare the State of the Stage to the State of a Nation, that I yet
feel a Reluctancy to drop the Comparison, or speak of the one without some
Application to the other. How many Reigns, then, do I remember, from that of
Charles the Second, through all which there has been, from one half of the
People or the other, a Succession of Clamour against every different Ministry
for the time being? And yet, let the Cause of this Clamour have been never so
well grounded, it is impossible but that some of those Ministers must have been
wiser and honester Men than others: If this be true, as true I believe it is,
why may I not then say, as some Fool in a French Play does upon a like
Occasion--Justement, comme chez nous! ’Twas exactly the same with our
Menagement! let us have done never so well, we could not please every body: All
I can say in our Defence is, that though many good Judges might possibly
conceive how the State of the Stage might have been mended, yet the best of
them never pretended to remember the Time when it was better! or could shew us
the way to make their imaginary Amendments practicable.
For though I have often
allow’d that our best Merit as Actors was never equal to that of our
Predecessors, yet I will venture to say, that in all its Branches the Stage had
never been under so just, so prosperous, and so settled a Regulation, for forty
Years before, as it was at the Time I am speaking of. The most plausible
Objection to our Administration seemed to be, that we took no Care to breed up
young Actors to succeed us; [221.1] and this was imputed as the greater Fault,
because it was taken for granted that it was a Matter as easy as planting so
many Cabbages: Now, might not a Court as well be reproached for not breeding up
a Succession of complete Ministers? And yet it is evident, that if Providence
or Nature don’t supply us with both, the State and the Stage will be but poorly
supported. If a Man of an ample Fortune should take it into his Head to give a
younger Son an extraordinary Allowance in order to breed him a great Poet, what
might we suppose would be the Odds that his Trouble and Money would be all
thrown away? Not more than it would be against the Master of a Theatre who
should say, this or that young Man I will take care shall be an excellent
Actor! Let it be our Excuse, then, for that mistaken Charge against us; that
since there was no Garden or Market where accomplished Actors grew or were to
be sold, we could only pick them up, as we do Pebbles of Value, by Chance: We
may polish a thousand before we can find one fit to make a Figure in the Lid of
a Snuff-Box. And how few soever we were able to produce, it is no Proof that we
were not always in search of them: Yet, at worst, it was allow’d that our
Deficiency of Men Actors was not so visible as our Scarcity of tolerable Women:
But when it is consider’d, that the Life of Youth and Beauty is too short for
the bringing an Actress to her Perfection; were I to mention, too, the many
frail fair Ones I remember who, before they could arrive to their Theatrical
Maturity, were feloniously stolen from the Tree, it would rather be thought our
Misfortune than our Fault that we were not better provided. [222.1]
Even the Laws of a
Nunnery, we find, are thought no sufficient Security against Temptations
without Iron Grates and high Walls to inforce them; which the Architecture of a
Theatre will not so properly admit of: And yet, methinks, Beauty that has not
those artificial Fortresses about it, that has no Defence but its natural
Virtue (which upon the Stage has more than once been met with) makes a much
more meritorious Figure in Life than that immur’d Virtue which could never be
try’d. But alas! as the poor Stage is but the Show-glass to a Toy-shop, we must
not wonder if now and then some of the Bawbles should find a Purchaser.
However, as to say more
or less than Truth are equally unfaithful in an Historian, I cannot but own
that, in the Government of the Theatre, I have known many Instances where the
Merit of promising Actors has not always been brought forward, with the Regard
or Favour it had a Claim to: And if I put my Reader in mind, that in the early
Part of this Work I have shewn thro’ what continued Difficulties and
Discouragements I myself made my way up the Hill of Preferment, he may justly
call it too strong a Glare of my Vanity: I am afraid he is in the right; but I
pretend not to be one of those chaste Authors that know how to write without
it: When Truth is to be told, it may be as much Chance as Choice if it happens
to turn out in my Favour: But to shew that this was true of others as well as
myself, Booth shall be another Instance. In 1707, when Swiney was the only
Master of the Company in the Hay-Market; Wilks, tho’ he was then but an hired
Actor himself, rather chose to govern and give Orders than to receive them; and
was so jealous of Booth’s rising, that with a high Hand he gave the Part of
Pierre, in Venice Preserv’d, to Mills the elder, who (not to undervalue him)
was out of Sight in the Pretensions that Booth, then young as he was, had to
the same Part: [224.1] and this very Discouragement so strongly affected him,
that not long after, when several of us became Sharers with Swiney, Booth
rather chose to risque his Fortune with the old Patentee in Drury-Lane, than
come into our Interest, where he saw he was like to meet with more of those
Partialities. [224.2] And yet, again, Booth himself, when he came to be a
Menager, would sometimes suffer his Judgment to be blinded by his Inclination
to Actors whom the Town seem’d to have but an indifferent Opinion of. This
again inclines me to ask another of my odd Questions, viz. Have we never seen
the same passions govern a Court! How many white Staffs and great Places do we
find, in our Histories, have been laid at the Feet of a Monarch, because they
chose not to give way to a Rival in Power, or hold a second Place in his
Favour? How many Whigs and Tories have chang’d their Parties, when their good
or bad Pretensions have met with a Check to their higher Preferment?
Thus we see, let the Degrees
and Rank of Men be ever so unequal, Nature throws out their Passions from the
same Motives; ’tis not the Eminence or Lowliness of either that makes the one,
when provok’d, more or less a reasonable Creature than the other: The Courtier
and the Comedian, when their Ambition is out of Humour, take just the same
Measures to right themselves.
If this familiar Stile
of talking should, in the Nostrils of Gravity and Wisdom, smell a little too
much of the Presumptuous or the Pragmatical, I will at least descend lower in
my Apology for it, by calling to my Assistance the old, humble Proverb, viz. ’Tis
an ill Bird that, &c. Why then should I debase my Profession by setting it
in vulgar Lights, when I may shew it to more favourable Advantages? And when I
speak of our Errors, why may I not extenuate them by illustrious Examples? or
by not allowing them greater than the greatest Men have been subject to? Or
why, indeed, may I not suppose that a sensible Reader will rather laugh than
look grave at the Pomp of my Parallels?
Now, as I am tied down
to the Veracity of an Historian whose Facts cannot be supposed, like those in a
Romance, to be in the Choice of the Author to make them more marvellous by
Invention; if I should happen to sink into a little farther Insignificancy, let
the simple Truth of what I have farther to say, be my Excuse for it. I am
obliged, therefore, to make the Experiment, by shewing you the Conduct of our
Theatrical Ministry in such Lights as on various Occasions it appear’d in.
Though Wilks had more
Industry and Application than any Actor I had ever known, yet we found it
possible that those necessary Qualities might sometimes be so misconducted as
not only to make them useless, but hurtful to our Common-wealth; [226.1] for
while he was impatient to be foremost in every thing, he frequently shock’d the
honest Ambition of others, whose Measures might have been more serviceable,
could his Jealousy have given way to them. His own Regards for himself,
therefore, were, to avoid a disagreeable Dispute with him, too often complied
with: But this leaving his Diligence to his own Conduct, made us, in some
Instances, pay dearly for it: For Example; he would take as much, or more
Pains, in forwarding to the Stage the Water-gruel Work of some insipid Author that
happen’d rightly to make his Court to him, [226.2] than he would for the best
Play wherein it was not his Fortune to be chosen for the best Character. So
great was his Impatience to be employ’d, that I scarce remember, in twenty
Years, above one profitable Play we could get to be reviv’d, wherein he found
he was to make no considerable Figure, independent of him: But the Tempest
having done Wonders formerly, he could not form any Pretensions to let it lie
longer dormant: However, his Coldness to it was so visible, that he took all
Occasions to postpone and discourage its Progress, by frequently taking up the
morning-Stage with something more to his Mind. Having been myself particularly
solicitous for the reviving this Play, Dogget (for this was before Booth came
into the Menagement) consented that the extraordinary Decorations and Habits
should be left to my Care and Direction, as the fittest Person whose Temper
could jossle through the petulant Opposition that he knew Wilks would be always
offering to it, because he had but a middling Part in it, that of Ferdinand:
Notwithstanding which, so it happened, that the Success of it shew’d (not to
take from the Merit of Wilks) that it was possible to have good Audiences
without his extraordinary Assistance. In the first six Days of acting it we
paid all our constant and incidental Expence, and shar’d each of us a hundred
Pounds: The greatest Profit that in so little a Time had yet been known within
my Memory! But, alas! what was paltry Pelf to Glory? That was the darling
Passion of Wilks’s Heart! and not to advance in it was, to so jealous an
Ambition, a painful Retreat, a mere Shade to his Laurels! and the common
Benefit was but a poor Equivalent to his want of particular Applause! To
conclude, not Prince Lewis of Baden, though a Confederate General with the Duke
of Marlborough, was more inconsolable upon the memorable Victory at Blenheim,
at which he was not present, than our Theatrical Hero was to see any Action
prosperous that he was not himself at the Head of. If this, then was an
Infirmity in Wilks, why may not my shewing the same Weakness in so great a Man
mollify the Imputation, and keep his Memory in Countenance.
This laudable Appetite
for Fame in Wilks was not, however, to be fed without that constant Labour
which only himself was able to come up to: He therefore bethought him of the
means to lessen the Fatigue, and at the same time to heighten his Reputation;
which was, by giving up now and then a Part to some raw Actor who he was sure
would disgrace it, and consequently put the Audience in mind of his superior
Performance: Among this sort of Indulgences to young Actors he happen’d once to
make a Mistake that set his Views in a clear Light. The best Criticks, I
believe, will allow that in Shakespear’s Macbeth there are, in the Part of
Macduff, two Scenes, the one of Terror, in the second Act, and the other of
Compassion, in the fourth, equal to any that dramatick Poetry has produc’d:
These Scenes Wilks had acted with Success, tho’ far short of that happier Skill
and Grace which Monfort had formerly shewn in them. [229.1] Such a Part,
however, one might imagine would be one of the last a good Actor would chuse to
part with: But Wilks was of a different Opinion; for Macbeth was thrice as
long, had more great Scenes of Action, and bore the Name of the Play: Now, to
be a second in any Play was what he did not much care for, and had been seldom
us’d to: This Part of Macduff, therefore,he had given to one Williams, as yet
no extraordinary, though a promising Actor. [229.2] Williams, in the Simplicity
of his Heart, immediately told Booth what a Favour Wilks had done him. Booth,
as he had Reason, thought Wilks had here carried his Indulgence and his
Authority a little too far; for as Booth had no better a Part in the same Play
than that of Banquo, he found himself too much disregarded in letting so young
an Actor take Place of him: Booth, therefore, who knew the Value of Macduff,
proposed to do it himself, and to give Banquo to Williams; and to make him
farther amends, offer’d him any other of his Parts that he thought might be of
Service to him. Williams was content with the Exchange, and thankful for the
Promise. This Scheme, indeed, (had it taken Effect) might have been an Ease to
Wilks, and possibly no Disadvantage to the Play; but softly--That was not quite
what we had a Mind to! No sooner, then, came this Proposal to Wilks, but off
went the Masque and out came the Secret! For though Wilks wanted to be eas’d of
the Part, he did not desire to be excell’s in it; and as he was not sure but
that might be the case if Booth were to act it, [230.1] he wisely retracted his
own Project, took Macduff again to himself, and while he liv’d never had a
Thought of running the same Hazard by any farther Offer to resign it.
Here I confess I am at
a Loss for a Fact in History to which this can be a Parallel! To be weary of a
Post, even to a real Desire of resigning it; and yet to chuse rather to drudge
on in it than suffer it to be well supplied (though to share in that Advantage)
is a Delicacy of Ambition that Machiavil himself has made no mention of: Or if
in old Rome, the Jealousy of any pretended Patriot equally inclin’d to abdicate
his Office may have come up to it, ’tis more than my reading remembers.
As nothing can be more
impertinent than shewing too frequent a Fear to be thought so, I will, without
farther Apology, rather risque that Imputation than not tell you another Story
much to the same purpose, and of no more consequence than my last. To make you
understand it, however, a little Preface will be necessary.
If the Merit of an
Actor (as it certainly does) consists more in the Quality than the Quantity of
his Labour; the other Menagers had no visible Reason to think this needless
Ambition of Wilks, in being so often and sometimes so unnecessarily employ’d,
gave him any Title to a Superiority; especially when our Articles of Agreement
had allow’d us all to be equal. But what are narrow Contracts to great Souls
with growing Desires? Wilks, therefore, who thought himself lessen’d in
appealing to any Judgment but his own, plainly discovered by his restless
Behaviour (though he did not care to speak out) that he thought he had a Right
to some higher Consideration for his Performance: This was often Booth’s
Opinion, as well as my own. It must be farther observ’d, that he actually had a
separate Allowance of Fifty Pounds a Year for writing our daily Play-Bills for
the Printer: Which Province, to say the Truth, was the only one we car’d to
trust to his particular Intendance, or could find out for a Pretence to
distinguish him. But, to speak a plainer Truth, this Pension, which was not
part of our original Agreement, was merely paid to keep him quiet, and not that
we thought it due to so insignificant a Charge as what a Prompter had formerly
executed. This being really the Case, his frequent Complaints of being a Drudge
to the Company grew something more than disagreeable to us: For we could not
digest the Imposition of a Man’s setting himself to work, and then bringing in
his own Bill for it. Booth, therefore, who was less easy than I was to see him
so often setting a Merit upon this Quantity of his Labour, which neither could
be our Interest or his own to lay upon him, proposed to me that we might remove
this pretended Grievance by reviving some Play that might be likely to live,
and be easily acted, without Wilks’s having any Part in it. About this time an
unexpected Occasion offer’d itself to put our Project in practice: What follow’d
our Attempt will be all (if any thing be) worth Observation in my Story.
In 1725 we were call’d
upon, in a manner that could not be resisted, to revive the Provok’d Wife,
[233.1] a Comedy which, while we found our Account in keeping the Stage clear
of those loose Liberties it had formerly too justly been charg’d with, we had
laid aside for some Years. [233.2] The Author, Sir John Vanbrugh, who was
conscious of what it had too much of, was prevail’d upon [233.3] to substitute
a new-written Scene in the Place of one in the fourth Act, where the Wantonness
of his Wit and Humour had (originally) made a Rake [233.4] talk like a Rake in
the borrow’d Habit of a Clergyman: To avoid which Offence, he clapt the same
Debauchee into the Undress of a Woman of Quality: Now the Character and
Profession of a Fine Lady not being so indelibly sacred as that of a Churchman,
whatever Follies he expos’d in the Petticoat kept him at least clear of his
former Prophaneness, and were now innocently ridiculous to the Spectator.
This Play being thus
refitted for the Stage, was, as I have observ’d, call’d for from Court and by
many of the Nobility. [234.1] Now, then, we thought, was a proper time to come
to an Explanation with Wilks: Accordingly, when the Actors were summon’d to
hear the Play read and receive their Parts, I address’d myself to Wilks, before
them all, and told him, That as the Part of Constant, which he seem’d to chuse,
was a Character of less Action than he generally appear’d in, we thought this
might be a good Occasion to ease himself by giving it to another.--Here he look’d
grave.--That the Love-Scenes of it were rather serious than gay or humourous,
and therefore might sit very well upon Booth. --Down dropt his Brow, and furl’d
were his Features. --That if we were never to revive a tolerable Play without
him, what would become of us in case of his Indispositon?--Here he pretended to
stir the Fire.--That as he could have no farther Advantage or Advancement in
his Station to hope for, his acting in this Play was but giving himself an
unprofitable Trouble, which neither Booth or I desired to impose upon
him.--Softly.--Now the Pill began to gripe him.--In a Word, this provoking
Civility plung’d him into a Passion which he was no longer able to contain; out
it came, with all the Equipage of unlimited Language that on such Occasions his
Displeasure usually set out with; but when his Reply was stript of those
Ornaments, it was plainly this: That he look’d upon all I had said as a
concerted Design, not only to signalize our selves by laying him aside, but a
Contrivance to draw him into the Disfavour of the Nobility, by making it suppos’d
his own Choice that he did not act in a Play so particularly ask’d for; but we
should find he could stand upon his own Bottom, and it wa snot all our little
caballing should get our Ends of him: To which I answer’d with some Warmth,
That he was mistaken in our Ends; for Those, Sir, said I, you have answer’d
already by shewing the Company you cannot bear to be left out of any Play. Are
not you every Day complaining of your being over-labour’d? And now, upon our
first offering to ease you, you fly into a Passion, and pretend to make that a
greater Grievance than t’other: But, Sir, if your being In or Out of the Play
is a Hardship, you shall impose it upon yourself: The Part is in your Hand, and
to us it is a Matter of Indifference now whether you take it or leave it. Upon
this he threw down the Part upon the Table, cross’d his Arms, and sate knocking
his Heel upon the Floor, as seeming to threaten most when he said least; but
when no body persuaded him to take it up again, Booth, not chusing to push the
matter too far, but rather to split the difference of our Dispute, said, That,
for his Part, he saw no such great matter in acting every Day; for he believed
it the wholsomest Exercise in the World; it kept the Spirits in motion, and
always gave him a good Stomach. Though this was, in a manner, giving up the
Part to Wilks, yet it did not allow he did us any Favour in receiving it. Here
I observ’d Mrs. Oldfield began to titter behind her Fan: But Wilks being more
intent upon what Booth had said, reply’d, Every one could best feel for
himself, but he did not pretend to the Strength of a Pack-horse; therefore if
Mrs. Oldfield would chuse any body else to play with her, [236.1] he should be
very glad to be excus’d: This throwing the Negative upon Mrs. Oldfield was,
indeed, a sure way to save himself; which I could not help taking notice of, by
saying, It was making but an ill Compliment to the Company to suppose there was
but one Man in it fit to play an ordinary Part with her. Here Mrs. Oldfield got
up, and turning me half round to come forward, said with her usual Frankness,
Pooh! you are all a Parcel of Fools, to make such a rout about nothing! Rightly
judging that the Person most out of humour would not be more displeas’d at her
calling us all by the same Name. As she knew, too, the best way of ending the
Debate would be to help the Weak; she said, she hop’d Mr. Wilks would not so
far mind what had past as to refuse his acting the Part with her; for tho’ it
might not be so good as he had been us’d to, yet she believed those who had
bespoke the Play would expect to have it done to the best Advantage, and it
would make but an odd Story abroad if it were known there had been any
Difficulty in that point among ourselves. To conclude, Wilks had the Part, and
we had all we wanted; which as an Occasion to let him see, that the Accident or
Choice of one Menager’s being more employ’d than another would never be allow’d
a Pretence for altering our Indentures, or his having an extraordinary
Consideration for it. [237.1]
However disagreeable it
might be to have this unsociable Temper daily to deal with; yet I cannot but
say, that from the same impatient Spirit that had so often hurt us, we still
drew valuable Advantages: For as Wilks seem’d to have no Joy in Life beyond his
being distinguish’d on the Stage, we were not only sure of his always doing his
best there himself, but of making others more careful than without the Rod of
so irascible a Temper over them they would have been. And I much question if a
more temperate or better Usage of the hired Actors could have so effectually
kept them to Order. Not even Betterton (as we have seen) with all his good
Sense, his great Fame and Experience, could, by being only a quiet Example of
Industry himself, save his Company from falling, while neither Gentleness could
govern or the Consideration of their common Interest reform them. [238.1]
Diligence, with much the inferior Skill or Capacity, will beat the best
negligent Company that ever came upon a Stage. But when a certain dreaming
Idleness or jolly Negligence of Rehearsals gets into a Body of the Ignorant and
Incapable (which before Wilks came into Drury-Lane, when Powel was at the Head
of them, was the Case of that Company) then, I say, a sensible Spectator might
have look’d upon the fallen Stage as Portius in the Play of Cato does upon his
ruin’d Country, and have lamented it in (something near) the same Exclamation,
viz.
--O ye Immortal Bards!
What Havock do these
Blockheads make among
your Works!
How are the boasted
Labours of an Age
Defac’d and tortur’d by
Ungracious Action?
[238.2] Of this wicked
Doings Dryden, too, complains in one of his Prologues at that time, where,
speaking of such lewd Actors, he closes a Couplet with the following Line, viz.
And murder Plays, which they miscall Reviving.[238.3] The great Share, therefore, that Wilks, by
his exemplary Diligence and Impatience of Neglect in others, had in the
Reformation of this Evil, ought in Justice to be remember’d; and let my own
Vanity here take Shame to itself when I confess, That had I had half his
Application, I still think I might have shewn myself twice the Actor that in my
highest State of Favour I appear’d to be. But if I have any Excuse for that
Neglect (a Fault which, if I loved not Truth, I need not have mentioned) it is
that so much of my Attention was taken up in an incessant Labour to guard
against our private Animosities, and preserve a Harmony in our Menagement, that
I hope and believe it made ample Amends for whatever Omission my Auditors might
sometimes know it cost me some pains to conceal. But Nature takes care to
bestow her Blessings with a more equal Hand than Fortune does, and is seldom
known to heap too many upon one Man: One tolerable Talent in an Individual is
enough to preserve him from being good for nothing; and, if that was not laid
to my Charge as an Actor, I have in this Light too, less to complain of than to
be thankful for.
Before I conclude my
History, it may be expected I should give some further View of these my last
Cotemporaries of the Theatre, Wilks and Booth, in their different acting
Capacities. If I were to paint them in the Colours they laid upon one another,
their Talents would not be shewn with half the Commendation I am inclined to
bestow upon them, when they are left to my own Opinion. But People of the same
Profession are apt to see themselves in their own clear Glass of Partiality,
and look upon their Equals through a Mist of Prejudice. It might be imagin’d,
too, from the difference of their natural Tempers, that Wilks should have been
more blind to the Excellencies of Booth than Booth was to those of Wilks; but
it was not so: Wilks would sometimes commend Booth to me; but when Wilks excell’d,
the other was silent: [240.1] Booth seem’d to think nothing valuable that was
not tragically Great or Marvellous: Let that be as true as it may; yet I have
often thought that, from his having no Taste of Humour himself, [240.2] he
might be too much inclin’d to depreciate the Acting of it in others. The very
slight Opinion which in private Conversation with me he had of Wilks’s acting
Sir Harry Wildair, was certainly more than could be justified; not only from
the general Applause that was against that Opinion (tho’ Applause is not always
infallible) but from the visible Capacity which must be allow’d to an Actor,
that could carry such slight Materials to such a height of Approbation: For,
though the Character of Wildair scarce in any one Scene will stand against a
just Criticism; yet in the Whole there are so many gay and false Colours of the
fine Gentleman, that nothing but a Vivacity in the Performance proportionably
extravagant could have made them so happily glare upon a common Audience.
Wilks, from his first
setting out, certainly form’d his manner of Acting upon the Model of Monfort;
[241.1] as Booth did his on that of Betterton. But--Haud passibus æquis: I
cannot say either of them came up to their Original. Wilks had not that easy regulated
Behaviour, or the harmonious Elocution of the One, nor Booth that Conscious
Aspect of Intelligence nor requisite Variation of Voice that made every Line
the Other spoke seem his own natural self-deliver’d Sentiment: Yet there is
still room for great Commendation of Both the first mentioned; which will not
be so much diminish’d in my having said they were only excell’d by such
Predecessors, as it will be rais’d in venturing to affirm it will be a longer
time before any Successors in Poetry came so near Him as He himself did to
Homer.
Though the Majority of
Publick Auditors are but bad judges of Theatrical Action, and are often deceiv’d
into their Approbation of what has no solid Pretence to it; yet, as there are
no other appointed Judges to appeal to, and as every single Spectator has a
Right to be one of them, their Sentence will be definitive, and the Merit of an
Actor must, in some degree, be weigh’d by it: By this Law, then, Wilks was
pronounced an Excellent Actor; which, if the few true Judges did not allow him
to be, they were at least too candid to slight or discourage him. Booth and he
were Actors so directly opposite in their Manner, that if either of them could
have borrowed a little of the other’s Fault, they would Both have been improv’d
by it: If Wilks had sometimes too violent a Vivacity; Booth as often contented
himself with too grave a Dignity: The Latter seem’d too much to heave up his
Words, as the other to dart them to the Ear with too quick and sharp a
Vehemence: Thus Wilks would too frequently break into the Time and Measure of
the Harmony by too many spirited Accents in one Line; and Booth, by too solemn
a Regard to Harmony, would as often lose the necessary Spirit of it: So that
(as I have observ’d) could we have sometimes rais’d the one and sunk the other,
they had both been nearer to the mark. Yet this could not be always objected to
them: They had their Intervals of unexceptionable Excellence, that more than
balanc’d their Errors. The Master-piece of Booth and Othello: There he was most
in Character, and seemed not more to animate or please himself in it than his
Spectators. ’Tis true he owed his last and highest Advancement to his acting
Cato: But it was the Novelty and critical Appearance of that Character that
chiefly swell’d the Torrent of his Applause: For let the Sentiments of a
declaiming Patriot have all the Sublimity that Poetry can raise them to; let
them be deliver’d, too, with the utmost Grace and Dignity of Elocution that can
recommend them to the Auditor: Yet this is but one Light wherein the Excellence
of an Actor can shine: But in Othello we may see him in the Variety of Nature:
There the Actor is carried through the different Accidents of domestick
Happiness and Misery, occasionally torn and tortur’d by the most distracting
Passion that can raise Terror or Compassion in the Spectator. Such are the
Characters that a Master Actor would delight in; and therefore in Othello I may
safely aver that Booth shew’d himself thrice the Actor that he could in Cato.
And yet his Merit in acting Cato need not be diminish’d by this Comparison.
Wilks often regretted
that in Tragedy he had not the full and strong Voice of Booth to command and
grace his Periods with: But Booth us’d to say, That if his Ear had been equal
to it, Wilks had Voice enough to have shewn himself a much better Tragedian.
Now, though there might be some Truth in this; yet these two Actors were of so
mixt a Merit, that even in Tragedy the Superiority was not always on the same
side: In Sorrow, Tenderness, or Resignation, Wilks plainly had the Advantage,
and seem’d more pathetically to feel, look, and express his Calamity: But in
the more turbulent Transports of the Heart, Booth again bore the Palm, and left
all Competitors behind him. A Fact perhaps will set this Difference in a
clearer Light. I have formerly seen Wilks act Othello, [244.1] and Booth the
Earl of Essex, [244.2] in which they both miscarried: Neither the exclamatory
Rage or Jealousy of the one, or the plaintive Distresses of the other, were
happily executed, or became either of them; though in the contrary Characters
they were both excellent.
When an Actor becomes
and naturally Looks the Character he stands in, I have often observ’d it to
have had as fortunate an Effect, and as much recommended him to the Approbation
of the common Auditors, as the most correct or judicious Utterance of the
Sentiments: This was strongly visible in the favourable Reception Wilks met
with in Hamlet, where I own the Half of what he spoke was as painful to my Ear
as every Line that came from Betterton was charming; [245.1] and yet it is not
impossible, could they have come to a Poll, but Wilks might have had a Majority
of Admirers: However, such a Division had been no Proof that the Præeminence
had not still remain’d in Betterton; and if I should add that Booth, too, was
behind Betterton in Othello, it would be saying no more than Booth himself had
Judgment and Candour enough to know and confess. And if both he and Wilks are
allow’d, in the two above-mention’d Characters, a second Place to so great a
Master as Betterton, it will be a Rank of Praise that the best Actors since my
Time might have been proud of.
I am now come towards
the End of that Time through which our Affairs had long gone forward in a
settled Course of Prosperity. From the Visible Errors of former Menagements we
had at last found the necessary Means to bring our private Laws and Orders into
the general Observance and Approbation of our Society: Diligence and Neglect
were under an equal Eye; the one never fail’d of its Reward, and the other, by
being very rarely excus’d, was less frequently committed. You are now to
consider us in our height of Favour, and so much in fashion with the politer
Part of the Town, that our House every Saturday seem’d to be the appointed
Assembly of the First Ladies of Quality: Of this, too, the common Spectators
were so well appriz’d, that for twenty Years successively, on that Day, we
scarce ever fail’d of a crowded Audience; for which Occasion we particularly
reserv’d our best Plays, acted in the best Manner we could give them. [246.1]
Among our many
necessary Reformations; what not a little preserv’d to us the Regard of our
Auditors, was the Decency of our clear Stage; [246.2] from whence we had now,
for many Years, shut out those idle Gentlemen, who seem’d more delighted to be
pretty Objects themselves, than capable of any Pleasure from the Play: Who took
their daily Stands where they might best elbow the Actor, and come in for their
Share of the Auditor’s Attention. In many a labour’d Scene of the warmest
Humour and of the most affecting Passion have I seen the best Actors
disconcerted, while these buzzing Muscatos have been fluttering round their
Eyes and Ears. How was it possible an Actor, so embarrass’d, should keep his
Impatience from entering into that different Temper which his personated
Character might require him to be Master of?
Future Actors may
perhaps wish I would set this Grievance in a stronger Light; and, to say the
Truth, where Auditors are ill-bred, it cannot well be expected that Actors
should be polite. Let me therefore shew how far an Artist in any Science is apt
to be hurt by any sort of Inattention to his Performance.
While the famous
Corelli, [247.1] at Rome, was playing some Musical Composition of his own to a
select Company in the private Apartment of his Patron-Cardinal, he observed, in
the height of his Harmony, his Eminence was engaging in a detach’d
Conversation; upon which he suddenly stopt short, and gently laid down his
Instrument: The Cardinal, surpriz’d at the unexpected Cessation, ask’d him if a
String was broke? To which Corelli, in an honest Conscience of what was due to
his Musick, reply’d, No, Sir, I was only afraid I interrupted Business. His
Eminence, who knew that a Genius could never shew itself to Advantage where it
had not its proper Regards, took this Reproof in good Part, and broke off his
Conversation to hear the whole Concerto play’d over again.
Another Story will let
us see what Effect a mistaken Offence of this kind had upon the French Theatre;
which was told me by a Gentleman of the long Robe, then at Paris, and who was
himself the innocent Author of it. At the Tragedy of Zaire, while the
celebrated Mademoiselle Gossin [248.1] was delivering a Soliloquy, this
Gentleman was seiz’d with a sudden Fit of Coughing, which gave the Actress some
Surprize and Interruption; and his Fit increasing, she was forced to stand
silent so long, that it drew the Eyes of the uneasy Audience upon him; when a
French Gentleman, leaning forward to him, ask’d him, If this Actress had given
him any particular Offence, that he took so publick an Occasion to resent it?
The English Gentleman, in the utmost Surprize, assured him, So far from it,
that he was a particular Admirer of her Performance; that his Malady was his
real Misfortune, and if he apprehended any Return of it, he would rather quit
his Seat than disoblige either the Actress of the Audience.
This publick Decency in
their Theatre I have myself seen carried so far, that a Gentleman in their
second Loge, or Middle-Gallery, being observ’d to sit forward himself while a
Lady sate behind him, a loud Number of Voices call’d out to him from the Pit,
Place à la Dame! Place à la Dame! When the Person so offending, either not
apprehending the Meaning of the Clamour, or possibly being some John Trott who
fear’d no Man alive; the Noise was continued for several Minutes; nor were the
Actors, though ready on the Stage, suffer’d to begin the Play ’till this unbred
Person was laugh’d out of his Seat, and had placed the Lady before him.
Whether this Politeness
observ’d at Plays may be owing to their Clime, their Complexion, or their
Government, is of no great Consequence; but if it is to be acquired, methinks
it is pity our accomplish’d Countrymen, who every Year import so much of this
Nation’s gawdy Garniture, should not, in this long Course of our Commerce with
them, have brought over a little of their Theatrical Good-breeding too.
I have been the more
copious upon this Head, that it might be judg’d how much it stood us upon to
have got rid of those improper Spectators I have been speaking of: For whatever
Regard we might draw by keeping them at a Distance from our Stage, I had
observed, while they were admitted behind our Scenes, we but too often shew’d
them the wrong Side of our Tapestry; and that many a tolerable Actor was the
less valued when it was known what ordinary Stuff he was made of.
Among the many more
disagreeable Distresses that are almost unavoidable in the Government of a
Theatre, those we so often met with from the Persecution of bad Authors were
what we could never intirely get rid of. But let us state both our Cases, and
then see where the Justice of the Complaint lies. ’Tis true, when an ingenious
Indigent had taken perhaps a whole Summer’s Pains, invitâ Minervâ, to heap up a
Pile of Poetry into the Likeness of a Play, and found, at last, the gay Promise
of his Winter’s Support was rejected and abortive, a Man almost ought to be a
Poet himself to be justly sensible of his Distress! Then, indeed, great
Allowances ought to be made for the severe Reflections he might naturally throw
upon those pragmatical Actors, who had no Sense of Taste of good Writing. And
yet, if his Relief was only to be had by his imposing a bad Play upon a good
Set of Actors, methinks the Charity that first looks at home has as good an
Excuse for its Coldness as the unhappy Object of it had a Pleas for his being
reliev’d at their Expence. But immediate Want was not always confess’d their
Motive for Writing; Fame, Honour, and Parnassian Glory had sometimes taken a
romantick Turn in their Heads; and then they gave themselves the Air of talking
to us in a higher Strain--Gentlemen were not to be so treated! the Stage was
like to be finely govern’d when Actors pretended to be Judges of Authors,
&c. But, dear Gentlemen! if they were good Actors, why not? How should they
have been able to act, or rise to any Excellence, if you supposed them not to
feel or understand what you offer’d them? Would you have reduc’d them to the
meer Mimickry of Parrots and Monkies, that can only prate, and play a great
many pretty Tricks, without Reflection? Or how are you sure your Friend, the
infallible Judge to whom you read your fine Piece, might be sincere in the
Praises he gave it? Or, indeed, might no you have thought the best Judge a bad
one if he had disliked it? Consider, too, how possible it might be that a Man
of Sense would not care to tell you a Truth he was sure you would not believe!
And if neither Dryden, Congreve, Steele, Addison, nor Farquhar, (if you please)
ever made any Complaint of their Incapacity to judge, why is the World to
believe the Slights you have met with from them are either undeserved or
particular? Indeed! indeed, I am not conscious that we ever did you or any of
your Fraternity the least Injustice! [251.1] Yet this was not all we had to
struggle with; to supersede our Right of rejecting, the Recommendation, or
rather Imposition, of some great Persons (whom it was not Prudence to
disoblige) sometimes came in with a high Hand to support their Pretensions; and
then, cout que cout, acted it must be! So when the short Life of this wonderful
Nothing was over, the Actors were perhaps abus’d in a Preface for obstructing
the Success of it, and the Town publickly damn’d us for our private Civility.
[252.1]
I cannot part with
these fine Gentlemen Authors without mentioning a ridiculous Disgraccia that
befel one of them many Years ago: This solemn Bard, who, like Bays, only writ
for Fame and Reputation; on the second Day’s publick Triumph of his Muse,
marching in a stately full-bottom’d Perriwig into the Lobby of the House, with
a Lady of Condition in his Hand, when raising his Voice to the Sir Fopling
Sound, that became the Mouth of a Man of Quality, and calling out--Hey!
Box-keeper, where is my Lady such-a-one’s Servant, was unfortunately answer’d
by honest John Trott, (which then happen’d to be the Box-keeper’s real Name)
Sir, we have dismiss’d, there was not Company enough to pay Candles. In which
mortal Astonishment it may be sufficient to leave him. And yet had the Actors
refus’d this Play, what Resentment might have been thought too severe for them?
Thus was our
Administration often censured for Accidents which were not in our Power to
prevent: A possible Case in the wisest Governments. If, therefore, some Plays
have been preferr’d to the Stage that were never fit to have been seen there,
let this be our best Excuse for it. And yet, if the Merit of our rejecting the
many bad Plays that press’d hard upon us were weigh’d against the few that were
thus imposed upon us, our Conduct in general might have more Amendments of the
Stage to boast of than Errors to answer for. But it is now Time to drop the
Curtain.
During our four last
Years there happen’d so very little unlike what has been said before, that I
shall conclude with barely mentioning those unavoidable Accidents that drew on
our Dissolution. The first, that for some Years had led the way to greater, was
the continued ill State of Health that render’d Booth [254.1] incapable of
appearing on the Stage. The next was the Death of Mrs. Oldfield, [254.2] which
happen’d on the 23d of October, 1730. About the same Time, too, Mrs. Porter,
then in her highest Reputation for Tragedy, was lost to us by the Misfortune of
a dislocated Limb from the overturning of a Chaise. [254.3] And our last Stroke
was the Death of Wilks, in September the Year following, 1731. [254.4]
Notwithstanding such
irreparable Losses; whether, when these favourite Actors were no more to be
had, their Successors might not be better born with than they could possibly
have hop’d while the former were in being; or that the generality of
Spectators, from their want of Taste, were easier to be pleas’d than the few
that knew better: Or that, at worst, our Actors were still preferable to any
other Company of the several then subsisting: Or to whatever Cause it might be
imputed, our Audiences were far less abated than our Apprehensions had
suggested. So that, though it began to grow late in Life with me; having still
Health and Strength enough to have been as useful on the Stage as ever, I was
under no visible Necessity of quitting it: But so it happen’d that our
surviving Fraternity having got some chimærical, and, as I thought, unjust
Notions into their Heads, which, though I knew they were without much
Difficulty to be surmounted; I chose not, at my time of Day, to enter into new
Contentions; and as I found an Inclination in some of them to purchase the
whole Power of the Patent into their own Hands; I did my best while I staid with
them to make it worth their while to come up to my Price; and then patiently
sold out my Share to the first Bidder, wishing the Crew I had left in the
Vessel a good Voyage. [256.1]
What Commotions the
Stage fell into the Year following, or from what Provocations the greatest Part
of the Actors revolted, and set up for themselves in the little House in the
Hay-Market, lies not within the Promise of my Title Page to relate: Or, as it
might set some Persons living in a Light they possibly might not chuse to be
seen in, I will rather be thankful for the involuntary Favour they have done
me, than trouble the Publick with private Complaints of fancied or real
Injuries.
FINIS.
[192.1] 1733. [193.1] In leaping
from 1717 to 1728, as Cibber does here, he omits to notice much that is of the
greatest interest in stage history. Steele’s connection with the theatre was of
a chequered complexion, and it is curious as well as regrettable that an
interested observer like Cibber should have simply ignored the great points
which were at issue while Steele was sharer in the Patent. In order to bridge
over the chasm I give a bare record of Steele’s transactions in connection with
the Patent.
His first authority was
a Licence granted to him and his partners, Wilks, Cibber, Dogget, and Booth,
and dated October 18th, 1714. This was followed by a Patent, in Steele’s name
alone, for the term of his life, and three years after his death, which bore
date January 19th, 1715. Cibber (p. 174) relates that Steele assigned to Wilks,
Booth, and himself, equal shares in this Patent. All went smoothly for more
than two years, until the appointment of the Duke of Newcastle (April 13th,
1717) as Lord Chamberlain. He seems soon to have begun to interfere in the
affairs of the theatre. Steele, in the eighth number of "The
Theatre," states that shortly after his appointment the Duke demanded that
he should resign his Patent and accept a Licence in its place. This Steele
naturally and rightly declined to do, and here the matter rested for many months.
With reference to this it is interesting to note that among the Lord
Chamberlain’s Papers is the record of a consultation of the Attorney-General
whether Steele’s Patent made him independent of the Lord Chamberlain’s
authority. Unfortunately it is impossible to decide, from the terms of the
queries put to the Attorney-General, whether these were caused by aggressive
action on Steele’s part, or merely by his defence of his rights.
The next molestation
was an order, dated December 19th, 1719, addressed to Steele, Wilks, and Booth,
ordering them to dismiss Cibber; which they did. His suspension, for it was
nothing more, lasted till January 28th, 1720. Steele, in the seventh number of
"The Theatre," January 23rd, 1720, alludes to his suspension as then existing,
and in No. 12 talks of Cibber’s being just restored to the "Begging
Bridge," that is, the theatre. The allusion is to an Apologue by Steele
("Reader," No. II.) which Cibber quotes, and applies to Steele, in
his Dedication of "Ximena" to him. A peasant had succeeded in
barricading, with his whole belongings, a bridge over which an enemy attempted
to invade his native country. He kept them back till his countrymen were
roused; but when the forces of his friends attacked the enemy, the peasant’s
property was destroyed in the fray and he was left destitute. He received no
compensation, but it was enacted that he and his descendants were alone to have
the privilege of begging on this bridge. Cibber applies this fable to the
treatment of Steele by the Lord Chamberlain, and there can be no doubt that
this Dedication must have caused great offence to that official, and
contributed materially to Cibber’s suspension, though Steele declared that the
attack upon his partner was merely intended as an oblique attack on himself.
The author of the "Answer to the Case of Sir Richard Steele," 1720
(Nichols’s ed., p. 532), says that Cibber had offended the Duke by an attack on
the King and the Ministry in the Dedication of his "Ximena" to
Steele. He also says that when the Chamberlain wanted a certain actor to play a
part which belonged to one of the managers, Cibber flatly refused to allow him,
and was thereupon silenced. (The actor is said to have been Elrington, and the
part Torrismond; but I doubt if Elrington was at Drury Lane in 1719-20.) A
recent stage historian curiously says that the play which gave offence was
"The Nonjuror," which is about as likely as that a man should be
accused of high treason because he sang "God Save the Queen!"
Steele then, being made
to understand that the attack on Cibber was the beginning of evil directed
against himself, wrote to two great Ministers of State, and presented a
Petition to the King on January 22nd, 1720, praying to be protected from
molestation by the Lord Chamberlain. The result of this action was a revocation
of Steele’s Licence (not his Patent specially, which is curious) dated January
23rd, 1720; and on the next Monday, the 25th, an Order for Silence was sent to
the managers and actors at Drury Lane. The theatre accordingly remained closed
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, January 25th to 27th, 1720, and on the 28th
re-opened, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth having made their submission and received a
Licence dated the previous day.
On the 4th of March
following the actors of Drury Lane were sworn at the Lord Chamberlain’s office,
"pursuant to an Order occasioned by their acting in obedience to his
Majesty’s Licence, lately granted, exclusive of a Patent formerly obtained by
Sir Richard Steele, Knight." The tenor of the Oath was, that as his
Majesty’s Servants they should act subservient to the Lord Chamberlain,
Vice-Chamberlain, and Gentleman-Usher in Waiting. Whether Steele took any steps
to test the legality of this treatment is doubtful; but, on the accession of
his friend Walpole to office, he was restored to his position at the head of
the theatre. On May 2nd, 1721, Cibber and his partners were ordered to account
with Steele for his past and present share of the profits of the theatre, as if
all the regulations from which his name had been excluded had never been made.
This edict is signed by the Duke of Newcastle, and must, I fancy, have been
rather a bitter pill for that nobleman. How Steele subsequently conducted
himself, and how much interest he took in the theatre, Cibber very fully
relates in the next few pages. After Steele’s death a new Patent was granted to
Cibber, Wilks, and Booth, as will be related further on. It may be noted here,
however, that the date of the new Patent proves conclusively that Steele’s
grant was never superseded. The new power was dated July 3rd, 1731, but it did
not take effect till September 1st, 1732, exactly three years after Steele’s
death, according to the terms of his original Patent.
[198.1] This is one of Cibber’s bad blunders. The Case was heard in
1728. Genest (iii. 208) refers to the St. James’s Evening Post’s mention of the
hearing; and, in the Burney MSS. in the British Museum, a copy of the paragraph
is given. It is not, however, a cutting, but a manuscript copy. "Saty.
Feb. 17. There was an hearing in the Rolls Chapel in a Cause between Sir
Richard Steele, Mr. Cibber, Mr. Wilks, and others belonging to Drury-Lane
Theatre, which held five hours--one of which was taken up by a speech of Mr.
Wilks, which had so good an effect, that the Cause went against Sir Richard
Steele."--St. James’s Evening Post, Feb. 17 to Feb. 20, 1728. In its next
issue, Feb. 20 to Feb. 22, it corrects the blunder which it had made in
attributing Cibber’s speech to Wilks. [205.1] This was in the Dedication to
"Ximena." The passage will be found quoted by me in a note on page
163 of this volume. [206.1] Cibber himself, of course. [206.2] This Coronation
was tacked to the play of "Henry VIII.," which was revived at Drury
Lane on 26th October, 1727. Special interest attached to it on account of the
recent Coronation of George II. [209.1] This was in 1718. On 24th September,
1718, the bills announce "the same Entertainments that were performed
yesterday before his Majesty at Hampton Court." [209.2] In Whitelocke’s
"Memorials" there is an account of a Masque played in 1633, before
Charles I. and his Queen, by the gentlemen of the Temple, which cost £21,000.
[209.3] The Earl of Burlington. [210.1] "Calisto" was published in
1675. Genest (i. 181) says: "Cibber, with his usual accuracy as to dates,
supposes that Crowne was selected to write a mask for the Court in preference
to Dryden, through the influence of the Duke of Buckingham, who was offended at
what Dryden had said of him in Absalom and Achitophel--Dryden’s poem was not
written till 1681--Lord Rochester was the person who recommended Crowne."
I may add that Dryden furnished an Epilogue to "Calisto," which was
not spoken. [211.1] Bowman, or Bowman, was born about 1651, and lived till 23rd
March, 1739. He made his first appearance about 1673, and acted to within a few
months of his death, having thus been on the stage for the extraordinary period
of sixty-five years. He was very sensitive on the subject of his age, and, if
asked how old he was, only replied, that he was very well. Davies speaks highly
of Boman’s acting in his extreme old age ("Dram. Misc.," i. 286 and
ii. 100). Mrs. Boman was the adopted daughter of Betterton. [212.1] Bishop
Burnet. [212.2] First edition, vol. i. [216.1] Davies ("Dram. Misc.,"
i. 365) says: "Wolsey’s filching from his royal master the honour of
bestowing grace and pardon on the subject, appeared to gross and impudent a
prevarication, that, when this play was acted before George I. at
Hampton-Court, about the year 1717, the courtiers laughed so loudly at this
ministerial craft, that his majesty, who was unacquainted with the English
language, asked the lord-chamberlain the meaning of their mirth; upon being
informed of it, the king joined in a laugh of approbation." Davies adds
that this scene "was not unsuitably represented by Colley Cibber;"
but, in scenes requiring dignity or passion, he expresses an unfavourable
opinion of Cibber’s playing. [218.1] From the Lord Chamberlain’s Records it is
clear that £10 was the fee for a play at Whitehall during the time of Charles
I. If the performance was at Hampton Court, or if it took place at such a time
of day as to prevent the ordinary playing at the theatre, £20 was allowed.
[219.1] The warrant for the payment of these performances is dated 15th
November, 1718. The expenses incurred by the actors amounted to £374 1s. 8d.,
and the present given by the King, as Cibber states, was £200; the total
payment being thus £574 1s. 8d. [221.1] M. Perrin, the late manager of the Theatre
Français, was virulently attacked for giving la jeune troupe no opportunities,
and so doing nothing to provide successors to the great actors of his time.
[222.1] After the death of Wilks and Booth, and the retirement of Cibber, the
stage experienced a period of dulness, which was the natural result of the want
of good young talent in the lifetime of the old actors. Such periods seem to
recur at stated intervals in the history of the stage. [224.1] "Venice
Preserved" was acted at the Haymarket on 22nd February, 1707, but Dr.
Burney’s MSS. do not give the cast. On 15th November, 1707, Pierre was played
by Mills. [224.2] For an account of this matter, see ante, page 70. [226.1] Davies ("Dram. Misc.,"
iii. 255) has the following interesting statement regarding Cibber and Wilks,
which he gives on Victor’s authority:--
"However Colley may complain, in his Apology, of Wilks’s fire and
impetuosity, he in general was Cibber’s great admirer; he supported him on all
occasions, where his own passion or interest did not interpose; nay, he
deprived the inoffensive Harry Carey of the liberty of the scenes, because he
had, in common with others, made merry with Cibber in a song, on his being
appointed poet laureat; saying at the same time, he was surprised at his impertinence,
in behaving so improperly to a man of such great merit." [226.2] John Dennis, in an
advertisement to the "Invader of his Country," remarks on this
foible. He says:--
"I am perfectly satisfied that any Author who brings a Play to
Drury-Lane, must, if ’tis a good one, be sacrificed to the Jealousie of this
fine Writer, unless he has either a powerful Cabal, or unless he will flatter
Mr. Robert Wilks, and make him believe that he is an excellent Tragedian." The "fine Writer" is, of course,
Cibber.
[229.1] "In the
trajedy of Mackbeth, where Wilks acts the Part of a Man whose Family has been
murder’d in his Absence, the Wildness of his Passion, which is run over in a
Torrent of calamitous Circumstances, does but raise my Spirits and give me the
Alarm; but when he skilfully seems to be out of Breath, and is brought too low
to say more; and upon a second Reflection, cry, only wiping his Eyes, What,
both my Children! Both, both my Children gone--There is no resisting a Sorrow
which seems to have case about for all the Reasons possible for its
Consolation, but has no Recource. There is not one left, but both, both are
murdered! Such sudden Starts from the Thread of the Discourse, and a plain
Sentiment express’d in an artless Way, are the irresistible Strokes of
Eloquence and Poetry."--"Tatler," No. 68, September 15th, 1709.
The extraordinary
language of Macduff is quoted from Davenant’s mutilation of Shakespeare’s play.
Obviously it is not Shakespeare’s language.
[229.2] Charles Williams was a young actor of great promise, who died in
1731. On the production of Thomson’s "Sophonisba" at Drury Lane, on
February 28th, 1730, Cibber played Scipio, but was so hissed by a public that
would not suffer him in tragic parts, that he resigned the character to
Williams. (See Note 1, vol. i. page 179.) This would seem to indicate that
Williams was an actor of some position, for Scipio is a good part. [230.1]
"In the strong expression of horror on the murder of the King, and the
loud exclamations of surprize and terror, Booth might have exceeded the utmost
efforts of Wilks. But, in the touches of domestic woe, which require the
feelings of the tender father and the affectionate husband, Wilks had no equal.
His skill, in exhibiting the emotions of the overflowing heart with corresponding
look and action, was universally admired and felt. His rising, after the
suppression of his anguish, into ardent and manly resentment, was highly
expressive of noble and generous anger."--"Dram. Misc.," ii.
183. [233.1] This revival took place 11th January, 1726. The play was acted
eleven times. [233.2] Jeremy Collier
specially attacked Vanbrugh and his comedies for their immorality and
profanity, and for their abuse of the clergy. Even less strict critics than
Collier considered Vanbrugh’s pieces as more indecent than the average play.
Thus the author of "Faction Display’d," 1704, writes:--
Van’s Baudy, Plotless
Plays were once our boast,
But now the Poet’s in
the Builder lost."
[233.3] Davies ("Dram. Misc." iii. 455) says that he supposes
Cibber prevailed upon Vanbrugh to alter the disguise which Sir John Brute
assumes from a clergyman’s habit to that of a woman of fashion. [233.4] Sir
John Brute. [234.1] Cibber’s meaning is not very clear, but if he intends to
convey the idea that it was for this revival that Vanbrugh made these
alterations, he is probably wrong, for when the play was revived at the
Haymarket, on 19th January, 1706, it was announced as "with
alterations." [236.1] Mrs. Oldfield played Lady Brute, whose lover Constant
is. [237.1] Wilks played Constant; Booth, Heartfree; and Cibber, Sir John
Brute. [238.1] Cibber begins the seventh chapter of this work with an account
of Betterton’s troubles as a manager. See vol. i. p. 227. See also vol. i. p.
315. [238.2]
"Ye Gods, what
Havock does Ambition make
Among your Works!"
--"Cato," act
i. sc. 1.
[238.3]
"And, in despair
their empty pit to fill,
Set up some Foreign
monster in a bill.
Thus they jog on, still
tricking, never thriving,
And murdering plays,
which they miscall reviving."
"Address to
Granville, on his Tragedy, Heroic Love."
[240.1] "During Booth’s inability to act,....Wilks was called upon
to play two of his parts--Jaffier, and Lord Hastings in Jane Shore. Booth was,
at times, in all other respects except his power to go on the stage, in good
health, and went among the players for his amusement. His curiosity drew him to
the playhouse on the nights when Wilks acted these characters, in which himself
had appeared with uncommon lustre. All the world admired Wilks, except his
brother-manager: amidst the repeated bursts of applause which he extorted,
Booth alone continued silent."--Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii.
256). [240.2] Aaron Hill, quoted by Victor in his "Life of Barton
Booth," page 32, says: "The Passions which he found in Comedy were
not strong enough to excite his Fire; and what seem’d Want of Qualification,
was only Absence of Impression." [241.1] Wilks can have seen Mountfort
only in his early career, for he did not leave Ireland till, at least, 1692;
and in that year Mountfort was killed. [244.1] Wilks first played Othello in
this country on June 22nd, 1710, for Cibber’s benefit. Steele draws attention
to the event in "Tatler," No. 187, and in No. 188 states his
intention of stealing out to see it, "out of Curiosity to observe how
Wilks and Cibber touch those Places where Betterton and Sandford so very highly
excelled." Cibber was the Iago on this occasion. Steele probably found
little to praise in either. [244.2] The Earl of Essex, in Banks’s "Unhappy
Favourite," was one of Wilks’s good parts, in which Steele
("Tatler," No. 14) specially praises him. Booth acted the part at
Drury Lane on November 25th, 1709. [245.1] See Cibber on Betterton’s Hamlet and
on Wilks’s mistakes in the part, vol. i. page 100. [246.1] In the Theatre Français
a similar arrangement holds to this day, Tuesday being now the fashionable
night. M. Perrin, the late manager, was accused of a too great attention to his
Abonnés du Mardi, to the detriment of the theatre and of the general public.
[246.2] See ante, vol. i. page 234. [247.1] Arcangelo Corelli, a famous Italian
musician, born 1653, died 1713, who has been called the father of modern
instrumental music. [248.1] Jeanne Catherine Gaussin, a very celebrated actress
of the Comédie Français, was the original representative of Zaïre, in Voltaire’s
tragedy, to which Cibber refers. She made her first Parisian appearance in
1731; she retired in 1763, and died on 9th June 1767. Voltaire’s Zaïre"
owed much of its success to her extraordinary ability. [251.1] Cibber has been
strongly censured for his treatment of authors. "The Laureat" gives
the following account of an author’s experiences: "The Court sitting,
Chancellor Cibber (for the other two, like M--rs in Chancery, sat only for Form
sake, and did not presume to judge) nodded to the Author to open his
Manuscript. The Author begins to read, in which if he failed to please the
Corrector, he wou’d condescend sometimes to read it for him: When, if the play
strook him very warmly, as it wou’d if he found any Thing new in it, in which
he conceived he cou’d particularly shine as an Actor, he would lay down his
Pipe, (for the Chancellor always smoaked when he made a Decree) and cry, By
G--d there is something in this: I do not know but it may do; but I will play
such a Part. Well, when the Reading was finished, he made his proper
Corrections and sometimes without any Propriety; nay, frequently he very much
and very hastily maimed what he pretended to mend" (p. 95). The author
also accuses Cibber of delighting in repulsing dramatic writers, which he
called "Choaking of Singing birds." However, in Cibber’s defence,
Genest’s opinion may be quoted (iii. 346): "After all that has been said
against Chancellor Cibber, it does not appear that he often made a wrong decree:
most of the good plays came out at Drury Lane--nor am I aware that Cibber is
much to be blamed for rejecting any play, except the Siege of Damascus in the
first instance." [252.1] In the
preface to "The Lunatick" (1705) the actors are roundly abused; but
the most amusing attack on actors is in the following title-page: "The
Sham Lawyer: or the Lucky Extravagant. As it was Damnably Acted at the
Theatre-Royal in Drury Lane." This play, by Drake, was played in 1697, and
among the cast were Cibber, Bullock, Johnson, Haines, and Pinkethman.
Bellchambers notes:
"Such was the case in Dennis’s ’Comic Gallant,’ where one of the actors,
whom I believe to be Bullock, is most severely handled." I think he is
wrong in imagining Bullock to be the actor criticised. Dennis says that
Falstaffe was the character that was badly sustained, and I cannot believe
Bullock’s position would entitle him to play that part in 1702. Genest (ii.
250) suggests Powell as the delinquent.
THE transaction to
which Cibber alludes in his last paragraph is one with regard to which he
probably felt that his conduct required some explanation. After the death of
Steele, a Patent was granted to Cibber, Wilks, and Booth, empowering them to
give plays at Drury Lane, or elsewhere, for a period of twenty-one years from
1st September, 1732. [257.1] Just after it came into operation Wilks died, and
his share in the Patent became the property of his wife. Booth, shortly before
his death, which occurred in May, 1733, sold half of his share for £2,500, to
John Highmore, a gentleman who seems to have been a typical amateur manager,
being possessed of some money, no judgment, and unbounded vanity. In making
this purchase Highmore stipulated that, with half of Booth’s share, he should
receive the whole of his authority; and he accordingly exercised the same power
of control as had belonged to Booth. Mrs. Wilks deputed Mr. John Ellys, the
painter, to be her representative, so that Cibber had to manage the affairs of
the theatre in conjunction with a couple of amateurs, both ignorant, and one
certainly presumptuous also. He delegated his authority for a time to his
scapegrace son, Theophilus, who probably made himself so objectionable that
Highmore was glad to buy the father’s share in the Patent also. [258.1] He paid
three thousand guineas for it, thus purchasing a whole share for a sum not much
exceeding that which he had paid for one-half. Highmore’s first purchase took
place in the autumn of 1732, his second somewhere about May, 1733; so that,
when Drury Lane opened for the season 1733-34, he possessed one-half of the
three shares into which the Patent was divided. Mrs. Wilks retained her share,
but Mrs. Booth had sold her remaining half-share to Henry Giffard,[259.1] the
manager of Goodman’s Fields Theatre, at which, eight years later, Garrick made
his first appearance. Highmore had scarcely entered upon his fuller authority
when a revolt was spirited up among his actors, the chief of whom left him in a
body to open the little theatre in the Haymarket. Shameful to relate, the
ringleader in this mutiny was Theophilus Cibber; and, what is still more
disgraceful, Colley Cibber lent them his active countenance. Benjamin Victor, though
a devoted friend of Colley Cibber, characterizes the transaction as most
dishonest, [259.2] and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his
information or the soundness of his judgment. Davies ("Life of
Garrick," i. 76) states that Colley Cibber applied to the Duke of Grafton,
then Lord Chamberlain, for a new License or Patent in favour of his son; but
the Duke, on inquiring into the matter, was so disgusted at Cibber’s conduct
that he refused the application with strong expressions of disapprobation. The
seceders had of course no Patent or License under which to act; but, from the
circumstance that they took the name of Comedians of His Majesty’s Revels, it
is probable that they received a License from the Master of the Revels, Charles
Henry Lee. Highmore, deserted by every actor of any importance except Miss
Raftor (Mrs. Clive), Mrs. Horton, and Bridgwater, was at his wits’ end. He
summoned the seceders for an infringement of his Patent, but his case, tried on
5th November, 1733, was dismissed, apparently on some technical pleas. He could
not prevail upon the Lord Chamberlain to exert his authority to close the
Haymarket, so he determined to try the efficacy of the Vagrant Act (12 Queen
Anne) against the irregular performers. John Harper accordingly was arrested on
12th November, 1733, and committed to Bridewell. On the 20th of the same month
he was tried before the Court of King’s Bench as a rogue and vagabond; but,
whether from the circumstance that Harper was a householder, or from a decision
that playing at the Haymarket was not an act of vagrancy, [260.1] he was
discharged upon his own recognizance, and the manager’s action failed. He had
therefore to bring actors from the country to make up his company; but of these
Macklin was the only one who proved of any assistance, and the unfortunate
Highmore, after meeting deficiencies of fifty or sixty pounds each week for
some months, was forced to give up the struggle.[261.1] Another amateur then
stepped into the breach--Charles Fleetwood, who purchased the shares of
Highmore and Mrs. Wilks for little more than the former had paid for his own
portion. Giffard seems to have retained his sixth of the Patent. Fleetwood
first set about regaining the services of the seceders, and, as the majority of
them were probably ashamed of following the leadership of Theophilus Cibber, he
succeeded at once. The last performance at the Haymarket took place on 9th
March, 1734, and on the 12th the deserters reappeared on Drury Lane stage. This
transaction ended Colley Cibber’s direct interference in the affairs of the
theatre, and his only subsequent connection with the stage was as an actor. His
first appearance after his retirement was on 31st October, 1734, when he played
his great character of Bayes. During the season he acted Lord Foppington, Sir.
John Brute, Sir Courtly Nice, and Sir Fopling Flutter; and on 26th February,
1735, he appeared as Fondlewife for the benefit of his old friend and partner,
Owen Swiney.[262.1] At the end of the season 1734-5, an arrangement was under
consideration by which a committee of actors, including Mills, Johnson, Miller,
Theo. Cibber, Mrs. Heron, Mrs. Butler, and others, were to rent Drury Lane from
Fleetwood, for fifteen years, at £920 per annum; but the arrangement does not
appear to have been carried out, and Fleetwood continued Patentee of Drury Lane
until 1744-5.
The rival company,
under the control of John Rich, acted at Lincoln’s Inn Fields from 18th
December, 1714, to 5th December, 1732; then they removed to the new Covent
Garden Theatre, which was opened on 7th December with "The Way of the
World." For several seasons both companies dragged along very
uneventfully, so far as the artistic advancement of the stage was concerned,
although the passing of the Licensing Act of 1737, already fully commended on,
was an event of great historical importance. Artistically the period was one of
rest, if not of retrogression; the methods of the older time were losing their
meaning and vitality, and were becoming mere dry bones of tradition. The high
priest of the stage was James Quin, a great actor, though not of the first
order; and among the younger players perhaps the most notable was Charles
Macklin, rough in manner as in person, but full of genius and a thorough
reformer. Garrick was the direct means of revolutionizing the methods of the
theatre, and it was his genius that swept away the formality and dulness of the
old school; but it ought to be remembered that the way was prepared for him by
Charles Macklin, whose rescue of Shylock from low comedy was an achievement
scarcely inferior to Garrick’s greatest. During this dull period Cibber’s
appearances must have had an importance and interest, which, after Garrick’s
advent, they lacked.
In the season 1735-6 he
acted Sir Courtly Nice and Bayes, and in the next season his play of
"Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John," a miserable mutilation of
Shakespeare’s "King John," was put in rehearsal to Drury Lane. But
such a storm of ridicule and abuse arose when this play was announced, that Cibber
withdrew it, [263.1] and it was not seen till 1745, when, the nation being in
fear of a Popish Pretender, it was produced at Covent Garden from patriotic
motives.
Cibber’s implacable
foe, Fielding, was one of the ringleaders in the attack on him for mutilating
Shakespeare; and in his "Historical Register for 1736,"[264.1] in
which Colley is introduced as "Ground- Ivy," [264.2] gives him the
following excellent rebuke:--
"Medley. As
Shakspear is already good enough for People of Taste, he must be alter’d to the
Palates of those who have none; and if you will grant that, who can be properer
to alter him for the worse?"
In 1738, having, as
Victor says ("History," ii. 48), "Health and Strength enough to
be as useful as ever," he agreed with Fleetwood to perform a round of his
favourite characters. He was successful in comedy, but in tragedy he felt that
his strength was no longer sufficient; and Victor relates that, going behind
the scenes while the third act of "Richard III." was on, he was told
in a whisper by the old man, "That he would give fifty Guineas to be then
sitting in his easy Chair by his own Fire-side." Probably he never played
in tragedy again until the production of his own "Papal Tyranny"--at
least I cannot discover that he did. In 1740-1 he acted Fondlewife for the
benefit of Chetwood, late prompter at Drury Lane, who was then imprisoned in
the King’s Bench for debt; and his reception was so favourable that he repeated
the character a second and third time for his own profit.[265.1] Upon these
occasions he spoke an "Epilogue upon Himself," which is given in
"The Egotist" (p. 57 et seq.), and forms so good an epitome of Cibber’s
philosophy, besides giving an excellent specimen of his style, that I quote it
at length:--
"Now worn with
Years, and yet in Folly strong,
Now to act Parts, your
Grandsires saw when Young!
What could provoke
me!--I was always wrong.
To hope, with Age, I
could advance in Merit!
Even Age well acted,
asks a youthful Spirit:
To feel my Wants, yet
shew ’em thus detected,
Is living to the
Dotage, I have acted!
T’ have acted only Once
excus’d might be,
When I but play’d the
Fool for Charity
But fondly to repeat
it!--Senseless Ninny!
--No--now--as Doctors
do--I touch the Guinea!
And while I find my
Doses can affect you,
’Twere greater Folly
still, should I neglect you.
Though this Excuse, at
White’s they’ll not allow me;
The Ralliers There, in
Diff’rent Lights will shew me.
They’ll tell you There:
I only act--sly Rogue!
To play with Cocky!
[265.2] --O! the doting Dog!
And howsoe’er an
Audience might regard me,
One-tiss ye Nykin,
[266.1] amply might reward me!
Let them enjoy the
Jest, with Laugh incessant!
For True, or False, or
Right, or Wrong, ’tis pleasant!
Mixt, in the wisest
Heads, we find some Folly;
Yet I find few such
happy Fools--as Colley!
So long t’have liv’d
the daily Satire’s Stroke,
Unmov’d by Blows, that
might have fell’d an Oak,
And yet have laugh’d
the labour’d Libel to a Joke.
Suppose such want of
Feeling prove me dull!
What’s my Aggressor
then--a peevish Fool!
The strongest Satire’s
on a Blockhead lost;
For none but Fools or
Madmen strike a Post.
If for my Folly’s
larger List you call,
My Life has lump’d ’em!
There you’ll read ’em all.
There you’ll find
Vanity, wild Hopes pursuing;
A wide Attempt: to save
the Stage from Ruin!
There I confess, I have
out-done my own out- doing! [266.2]
As for what’s left of
Life, if still ’twill do;
’Tis at your Service,
pleas’d while pleasing you:
But then, mistake me
not! when you’ve enough;
One slender House
declares both Parties off:
Or Truth in homely
Proverb to advance,
I pipe no longer than
you care to dance.
The representative of Lætitia
(or Cocky) alluded to in this Epilogue was Mrs. Woffington, with whom
stage-history has identified the "Susannah" of the following
well-known anecdote, which I quote from an attack upon Cibber, published in
1742, entitled "A Blast upon Bays; or, A New Lick at the Laureat."
The author writes: "No longer ago than when the Bedford Coffee house was
in Vogue, and Mr. Cibber was writing An Apology for his own Life, there was one
Mr. S--- (the Importer of an expensive Hay- market Comedy) an old Acquaintance
of Mr. Cibber, who, as well as he, retain’d a Smack of his antient Taste. In
those Days there was also a fair smirking Damsel, whose name was
Susannah-Maria* * *, who happen’d to have Charms sufficient to revive the decay’d
Vigour of these two Friends. They equally pursued her, even to the Hazard of
their Health, and were frequently seen dangling after her, with tottering
Knees, at one and the same Time. You have heard, Sir, what a witty Friend of
your own said once on this Occasion: Lo! yonder goes Susannah and the two
Elders." Even Genest has applied this anecdote to Mrs. Woffington, but the
only circumstance that lends confirmation to this view is the fact that Swiney
(who is Mr. S---) left her his estate. Against this must be set the important
points that Susannah Maria was not Mrs. Woffington’s name, and that the joke
depended for its neatness and applicability on the name Susannah. The narrator
of the story, also, gives no hint that the damsel was the famous actress, as he
certainly would have done; and, most important of all, it must be pointed out
that at the period mentioned, that is, while Cibber was writing his
"Apology," Mrs. Woffington had not appeared in London. The
"Apology" was published in April, 1740, and had probably been
completed in the preceding November; while Mrs. Woffington made her London débût
on 6th November, 1740.[267.1]
During the season
1741-2, "At the particular desire of several persons of Quality,"
Cibber made a few appearances at Covent Garden; the purpose being, in all
probability, to oppose the extraordinary attraction of Garrick at Goodman’s
Fields. In 1743-4 he played at the same theatre as Garrick, being engaged at
Drury Lane for a round of his famous characters; but there is no record that
Garrick and he appeared in the same play. For the new actor Cibber had,
naturally enough, no great admiration. He must have resented deeply the
alteration in the method of acting tragedy which Garrick introduced, and is
always reported as having lost no opportunity of expressing his low opinion of
the new school.[268.1]
His last appearances on
the stage were in direct rivalry with his young opponent. As has been related,
Cibber’s alteration of "King John," which had been "burked"
in 1736-7, was produced, from patriotic motives, in 1745. As the principal
purpose of the alteration was to make King John resent the insolence of the
Pope’s Nuncio in a much more emphatic manner than he does in Shakespeare, it
may easily be imagined how wretched a production Cibber’s play is. Genest’s
criticism is not too strong when he says (iv. 161): "In a word, Cibber has
on this occasion shown himself utterly void of taste, judgment and
modesty--well might Fielding call his Ground-Ivy, and say that no man was
better calculated to alter Shakespeare for the worse.... in the Epilogue (which
was spoken by Mrs. Clive) Cibber speaks of himself with modesty, but in the
dedication, being emboldened by the favourable reception of his Tragedy, he has
the insolence to say ’I have endeavoured to make it more like a play than I
found it in Shakespeare.’" "Papal Tyranny" was produced at
Covent Garden on 15th February, 1745,[269.1] and, in opposition to it,
Shakespeare’s play was put up at Drury Lane, with Garrick as King John, Macklin
as Pandulph, and Mrs. Cibber (the great Mrs. Cibber, wife of Theophilus) as
Constance. Cibber’s play was, nevertheless, successful; the profit resulting to
the author being, according to Victor, four hundred pounds, which he wisely
laid out in a profitable annuity with Lord Mountford. In this play Cibber made
his last appearance on the stage, on 26th February, 1745, on which day
"Papal Tyranny" was played for the tenth time. "After
which," says Victor ("History," ii. 49) "he retired to his
easy Chair and his Chariot, to waste the Remains of Life with a chearful,
contented Mind, without the least bodily Complaint, but that of a slow,
unavoidable Decay."
His state of mind was
probably the more "chearful and contented" because of his
unquestionable success in his tilt with the formidable author of "The
Dunciad;" a success none the less certain at the time, that the enduring
fame of Pope has caused Cibber’s triumph over him to be lost sight of now. The
progress of the quarrel between these enemies has already been related up to
the publication of Cibber’s "Apology" (see vol. i. p. 36), and on
pages 21, 35, and 36 of the first volume of this edition will be found Cibber’s
perfectly good-natured and proper remarks on Pope’s attacks on him. Whether the
very fact that Cibber did not show temper irritated his opponent, I do not
know; but it probably did so, for in the fourth book of "The
Dunciad," published in 1742, Pope had another fling at his opponent (line
17):--
"She mounts the
throne: her head a cloud conceal’d,
In broad effulgence all
below reveal’d;
(’Tis thus aspiring
Dulness ever shines:)
Soft on her lap her
laureate son reclines."
And in line 532 he
talks of "Cibberian forehead" as typical of unblushing impudence.
It is not surprising
that this last attack exhausted Cibber’s patience. He had hitherto received his
punishment with good temper and good humour; but his powerful enemy had not
therefore held his hand. He now determined to retaliate. Conscious of the
diseased susceptibility of Pope to ridicule, he felt himself quite capable of
replying, not with equal literary power, but with much superior practical
effect. Accordingly in 1742 there appeared a pamphlet entitled "A Letter
from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope, inquiring into the motives that might induce him
in his Satyrical Works, to be so frequently fond of Mr. Cibber’s name." To
it was prefixed the motto: "Out of thy own Mouth will I judge thee. Pref.
to the Dunciad."
Cibber commences by
stating that he had been persuaded to reply to Pope by his friends; who
insisted that for him to treat his attacker any longer with silent disdain
might be thought a confession of Dulness indeed. This is a highly probable
statement; for an encounter between the vivacious Cibber and the thin-skinned
Pope promised a wealth of amusement for those who looked on--a promise which
was amply fulfilled. Cibber proceeds to assure Pope that, having entered the
lists, he will not in future avoid the fray, but reply to every attack made on
him. [272.1] He confesses his vast inferiority to Pope, but adds: "I own
myself so contented a Dunce, that I would not have even your merited Fame in
Poetry, if it were to be attended with half the fretful Solicitude you seem to
have lain under to maintain it; of which the laborious Rout you make about it,
in those Loads of Prose Rubbish, wherewith you have almost smother’d your
Dunciad, is so sore a Proof." On page 17 of his "Letter" Cibber
gives an interesting account of a quarrel between Pope and himself, to which
he, with sufficient probability, attributes much of Pope’s enmity. The passage
is curious and important, so I quote it in full:--
"The Play of the
Rehearsal, which had lain some few Years dormant, being by his present Majesty
(then Prince of Wales) commanded to be revived, the Part of Bays fell to my
share. To this Character there had always been allow’d such ludicrous Liberties
of Observation, upon any thing new, or
remarkable, in the
state of the Stage, as Mr. Bays might think proper to take. Much about this
time, then, The Three Hours after Marriage had been acted without Success;
[273.1] when Mr.Bays, as usual, had a fling at it, which, in itself, was no
Jest, unless the Audience would please to make it one: But however, flat as it
was, Mr. Pope was mortally sore upon it. This was the Offence. In this Play,
two Coxcombs, being in love with a learned Virtuoso’s Wife, to get unsuspected
Access to her, ingeniously send themselves, as two presented Rarities, to the
Husband, the one curiously swath’d up like an Egyptian Mummy, and the other
slily cover’d in the Pasteboard Skin of a Crocodile: upon which poetical
Expedient, I, Mr. Bays, when the two Kings of Brentford came from the Clouds
into the Throne again, instead of what my Part directed me to say, made use of
these Words, viz. ’Now, Sir, this Revolution, I had some Thoughts of
introducing, by a quite different Contrivance; but my Design taking air, some
of your sharp Wits, I found, had made use of it before me; otherwise I intended
to have stolen one of them in, in the Shape of a Mummy, and t’other, in that of
a Crocodile.’ Upon which, I doubt, the Audience by the Roar of their Applause
shew’d their proprotionable Contempt of the Play they belong’d to. But why am I
answerable for that? I did not lead them, by any Reflection of my own, into
that Contempt: Surely to have used the bare Word Mummy, and Crocodile, was
neither unjust, or unmannerly; Where then was the Crime of simply saying there
had been two such things in a former Play? But this, it seems, was so heinously
taken by Mr. Pope, that, in the swelling of his Heart, after the Play was over,
he came behind the Scenes, with his Lips pale and his Voice trembling, to call
me to account for the Insult: And accordingly fell upon me with all the foul
Language, that a Wit out of his Senses could be capable of--How durst I have
the Impudence to treat any Gentleman in that manner? &c. &c. &c.
Now let the Reader judge by this Concern, who was the true Mother of the Child!
When he was almost choked with the foam of his Passion, I was enough recover’d
from my Amazement to make him (as near as I can remember) this Reply, viz. ’Mr.
Pope---You are so particular a Man, that I must be asham’d to return your
Language as I ought to do: but since you have attacked me in so monstrous a
Manner; This you may depend upon, that so long as the Play continues to be
acted, I will never fail to repeat the same Words over and over again.’ Now, as
he accordingly found I kept my Word, for several Days following, I am afraid he
has since thought, that his Pen was a sharper Weapon than his Tongue to trust
his Revenge with. And however just Cause this may be for his so doing, it is,
at least, the only Cause my Conscience can charge me with. Now, as I might have
concealed this Fact if my Conscience would have suffered me, may we not
suppose, Mr. Pope would certainly have mention’d it in his Dunciad, had he
thought it could have been of service to him?
Cibber afterwards
proceeds to criticise and reply to allusions to himself in Pope’s works, some
of which are in conspicuously bad taste. Cibber, of course, does not miss the
obvious point that to attack his successful plays was a foolish proceeding on
Pope’s part, whose own endeavours as a dramatist had been completely
unsuccessful, and who thus laid himself open to the charge of envy. Nor is this
accusation so ridiculous as it may seem to readers of to-day, for a successful
playwright was a notable public figure, and the delicious applause of the
crowded theatre was eagerly sought by even the most eminent men. And again, it
must be remembered that Pope’s fame was not then the perfectly assured matter
that it is now.
But Cibber’s great
point, which made his opponent writhe with fury, was a little anecdote--Dr.
Johnson terms it "an idle story of Pope’s behaviour at a tavern"--which
raised a universal shout of merriment at Pope’s expense. The excuse for its
introduction was found in these lines from the "Epistle to Dr.
Arbuthnot":--
"Whom have I hurt?
has poet yet or peer
Lost the arch’d eyebrow
or Parnassian sneer?
And has not Colley
still his lord and whore?
His butchers Henley?
his freemasons Moore?"
Cibber’s anecdote
cannot be defended on the ground of decency, but it is extremely ludicrous, and
in the state of society then existing it must have been a knock-down blow to
the unhappy subject of it. There can be little doubt that it was this pamphlet
which Pope received on the occasion when the Richardsons visited him, as
related by Johnson in his Life of the poet: "I have heard Mr. Richardson
relate that he attended his father the painter on a visit, when one of Cibber’s
pamphlets came into the hands of Pope, who said, ’These things are my
diversion.’ They sat by him while he perused it, and saw his features writhing
with anguish: and young Richardson said to his father, when they returned, that
he hoped to be preserved from such diversion as had been that day the lot of
Pope." How deeply Pope was galled by Cibber’s ludicrous picture of him is
manifested by the extraordinary revenge he took. And even now we can realize
the bitterness of the provocation when we read the maliciously comic story of
the vivacious Colley:--
"As to the first
Part of the Charge, the Lord; Why--we have both had him, and sometimes the same
Lord; but as there is neither Vice nor Folly in keeping our Betters Company;
the Wit or Satyr of the Verse! can only point at my Lord for keeping such
ordinary Company. Well, but if so! then why so, good Mr. Pope? If either of us
could be good Company, our being professed Poets, I hope would be no Objection
to my Lord’s sometimes making one with us? and though I don’t pretend to write
like you, yet all the Requisites to make a good Companion are not confined to
Poetry! No, Sir, even a Man’s inoffensive Follies and Blunders may sometimes
have their Merits at the best Table; and in those, I am sure, you won’t pretend
to vie with me: Why then may not my Lord be as much in the Right, in his
sometimes choosing Colley to laugh at, as at other times in his picking up
Sawney, whom he can only admire?
"Thus far, then, I
hope we are upon a par; for the Lord, you see, will fit either of us.
"As to the latter
Charge, the Whore, there indeed, I doubt you will have the better of me; for I
must own, that I believe I know more of your whoring than you do of mine;
because I don’t recollect that ever I made you the least Confidence of my
Amours, though I have been very near an Eye-Witness of Yours-- By the way,
gentle Reader, don’t you think, to say only, a Man has his Whore, without some
particular Circumstances to aggravate the Vice, is the flattest Piece of Satyr
that ever fell from the formidable Pen of Mr. Pope? because (defendit numerus)
take the first ten thousand Men you meet, and I believe, you would be no Loser,
if you betted ten to one that every single Sinner of them, one with another,
had been guilty of the same Frailty. But as Mr. Pope has so particularly picked
me out of the Number to make an Example of: Why may I not take the same
Liberty, and even single him out for another to keep me in Countenance? He must
excuse me, then, if in what I am going to relate, I am reduced to make bold
with a little private Conversation: But as he has shewn no Mercy to Colley, why
should so unprovok’d an Aggressor expect any for himself? And if Truth hurts
him, I can’t help it. He may remember, then (or if he won’t I will) when Button’s
Coffee-house was in vogue, and so long ago, as when he had not translated above
two or three Books of Homer; there was a late young Nobleman (as much his Lord
as mine) who had a good deal of wicked Humour, and who, though he was fond of
having Wits in his Company, was not so restrained by his Conscience, but that
he lov’d to laugh at any merry Mischief he could do them: This noble Wag, I
say, in his usual Gayetè de Coeur, with another Gentleman still in
Being,[278.1] one Evening slily seduced the celebrated Mr. Pope as a Wit, and
myself as a Laugher, to a certain House of Carnal Recreation, near the
Hay-Market; where his Lordship’s Frolick propos’d was to slip his little Homer,
as he call’d him, at a Girl of the Game, that he might see what sort of Figure
a Man of his Size, Sobriety, and Vigour (in Verse) would make, when the frail
Fit of Love had got into him; in which he so far succeeded, that the smirking
Damsel, who serv’d us with Tea, happen’d to have Charms sufficient to tempt the
little-tiny Manhood of Mr. Pope into the next Room with her: at which you may
imagine, his Lordship was in as much Joy, at what might happen within, as our
small Friend could probably be in Possession of it: But I (forgive me all ye
mortified Mortals whom his fell Satyr has since fallen upon) observing he had
staid as long as without hazard of his Health he might, I,
Prick’d to it by foolish Honesty and Love,As Shakespear says, without
Ceremony, threw open the Door upon him, where I found this little hasty Hero,
like a terrible Tom Tit, pertly perching upon the Mount of Love! But such was
my Surprize, that I fairly laid hold of his Heels, and actually drew him down
safe and sound from his Danger. My Lord, who staid tittering without, in hopes
the sweet Mischief he came for would have been compleated, upon my giving an
Account of the Actin within, began to curse, and call me an hundred silly
Puppies, for my impertinently spoiling the Sport; to which with great Gravity I
reply’d; pray, my Lord, consider what I have done was, in regard to the Honour
of our Nation! For would you have had so glorious a Work as that of making
Homer speak elegant English, cut short by laying up our little Gentleman of a
Malady, which his thin Body might never have been cured of? No, my Lord! Homer
would have been too serious a Sacrifice to our Evening Merriment. Now as his
Homer has since been so happily compleated, who can say, that the World may not
have been obliged to the kindly Care of Colley that so great a Work ever came
to Perfection? "And now again,
gentle Reader, let it be judged, whether the Lord and the Whore above-
mentioned might not, with equal Justice, have been apply’d to sober Sawney the
Satyrist, as to Colley the Criminal?
"Though I confess
Recrimination to be but a poor Defence for one’s own Faults; yet when the
Guilty are Accusers, it seems but just, to make use of any Truth, that may
invalidate their Evidence: I therefore hope, whatever the serious Reader may
think amiss in this Story, will be excused, by my being so hardly driven to
tell it."
In the remainder of
Cibber’s pamphlet there is not much that is of any importance, though an
allusion to one of Pope’s victims having hung up a birch in Button’s Coffee
House, wherewith to chastise his satirist, was skilfully calculated to rouse
Pope’s temper. Cibber thoroughly succeeded in this object, [280.1] perhaps to a
degree that he rather regretted. Pope made no direct reply to his banter, but
in the following year (1743) a new edition of "The Dunciad" appeared,
in which Theobald was deposed from the throne of Dulness, and Cibber elevated
in his place. By doing this Pope gratified his vengeance, but injured his poem,
for the carefully painted peculiarities of Theobald, a slow and pedantic
scholar, sat ill on the pert and vivacious Colley. [281.1] TO this retaliation
Cibber, as he had promised, [281.2] replied with another pamphlet, entitled
"Another Occasional Letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope. Wherein the New
Hero’s Preferment to his Throne, in the Dunciad, seems not to be Accepted. And
the Author of that Poem His more rightful Claim to it, is Asserted. With An
Expostulatory Address to the Reverend Mr. W. W---n, Author of the new Preface,
and Adviser in the curious Improvements of that Satire." The motto on the
title-page was:--
"---Remember
Sauney’s Fate!
Bang’d by the
Blockhead, whom he strove to beat.
Parodie on Lord
Roscommon."
There is little that is
of any note in this production, which is characterized by the same real or
affected good-nature as marked the former pamphlet. The most interesting
passages to us are those alluding to the effect of Cibber’s previous attack,
and exulting over Pope’s distress at it. For instance (on page 7):--
"And now, Sir,
give me leave to be a little surpriz’d at the impenetrable Skull of your
Courage, that (after I had in my first Letter) so heartily teiz’d, and toss’d,
and tumbled you through all the Mire, and Dirt, the madness of your Muse had
been throwing at other People, it could still, so Vixen like, sprawl out the
same feeble Paw of its Satyr, to have t’other Scratch at my Nose: But as I know
the Vulgar (with whose Applause I humbly content my self) are apt to laugh when
they see a curst Cat in a Kennel; so whenever I observe your Grimalkin Spirit
shew but the least grinning Gasp of Life, I shall take the honest liberty of
old Towser the House-dog, and merrily lift up my Leg to have a little more Game
with you.
"Well Sir, in
plainer Terms, I am now, you see, once more willing to bring Matters to an
Issue, or (as the Boxers say) to answer your Challenge, and come to a Trial of
Manhood with you; though by our slow Proceedings, we seem rather to be at Law,
than at Loggerheads with one another; and if you had not been a blinder Booby,
than my self, you would have sate down quietly, with the last black Eye I gave
you: For so loath was I to squabble with you, that though you had been
snapping, and snarling at me for twenty Years together, you saw, I never so
much as gave you a single Growl, or took any notice of you. At last, ’tis true,
in meer Sport for others, rather than from the least Tincture of Concern for my
self, I was inticed to be a little wanton, not to say waggish, with your
Character; by which having (you know) got the strong Laugh on my Side, I doubt
I have so offended the Gravity, and Greatness of your Soul, that to secure your
more ample Revenge, you have prudently taken the full Term of thirteen Months
Consideration, before you would pour it, upon me! But at last, it seems, we have
it, and now Souse! out comes your old Dunciad, in a new Dress, like fresh Gold,
upon stale Gingerbread, sold out in Penny-worth’s of shining King Colley, crown’d
the Hero of Immortal Stupidity!"
And again (on page 15):
"At your Peril be it, little Gentleman, for I shall have t’other Frisk
with you, and don’t despair that the very Notice I am now taking of you, will
once more make your Fame fly, like a yelping Cur with a Bottle at his Tail, the
Jest and Joy of every Bookseller’s Prentice between Wapping and
Westminster!"
To this pamphlet Pope,
whose infirmities were very great, made no reply, and Cibber had, as he had
vowed, the last word. Round the central articles of this quarrel a crowd of
supplementary productions had gathered, a list of which will be found in the
Bibliography of Cibber a few pages on.
Cibber’s position of
Poet Laureate furnished him with a steady income during his declining years,
and his Odes were turned out as required, with mechanical precision and most
unpoetic spirit. They were the standing joke of the pamphleteers and new-sheet
writers, and were always accompanied with a running fire of banter and parody.
Those curious in the matter will find excellent specimens, both of the Odes and
the burlesques, in the early volumes of the "Gentleman’s Magazine."
After the termination
of his quarrel with Pope, Cibber’s life was very uneventful; and, although it
extended far beyond the allotted span, he continued to enjoy it to the very
end. Horace Walpole greeted him one day, saying, "I am glad, Sir, to see
you looking so well." "Egad, Sir," replied the old man, "at
eighty-four it is well for a man that he can look at all." On 11th
December, 1757, he died, having attained the great age of eighty-six. [284.1]
Dr. Doran ("Their Majesties’ Servants," 1888 edition, ii. 235) says:
"I read in contemporary publications that there ’died at his house in
Berkeley Square, Colley Cibber, Esq., Poet Laureate;’" and although it has
been stated that he died at Islington, I see no reason to doubt Dr. Doran’s
explicit statement. Cibber was buried in the Danish Church, Wellclose
Square.[284.2]
So far as we know, only
two of Cibber’s children survived him, his ne’er-do-well son Theophilus, and
his equally scapegrace daughter Charlotte, who married Charke the musician. The
former was born in 1703, and was drowned in the winter of 1758, while crossing
to Ireland to fulfil an engagement in Dublin. As an actor he was chiefly famous
for playing Ancient Pistol, but he was also excellent in some of his father’s characters,
such as Lord Foppington, Bayes, and Sir Francis Wronghead. His private life was
in the last degree disreputable, and especially so in his relations with his
second wife, Susanna Maria Arne--the great Mrs. Cibber. The literature
regarding Theophilus Cibber is considerable in quantity and curious in quality.
Some account of it will be found in my "Bibliographical Account of English
Theatrical Literature," pp. 52- 55. Charlotte Charke, who was born about
1710, and died in April, 1760, was of no note as an actress. Her private life,
however, was madly eccentric, and her autobiography, published in 1755, is a
curious and scarce work.
Cibber’s principal
plays have been noted in the course of his "Apology;" but, for the
sake of convenience, I give here a complete list of his regular dramatic
productions:--
Love’s Last
Shift--Comedy--Produced at Drury Lane, 1696.
Woman’s
Wit--Comedy--Drury Lane, 1697.
Xerxes--Tragedy--Lincoln’s
Inn Fields, 1699.
Richard III.--Tragedy
(alteration of Shakespeare’s play)--Drury Lane, 1700.
Love Makes a
Man--Comedy--Drury Lane, 1701.
The School
Boy--Comedy--Drury Lane, 26th October, 1702.
She Would and She would
Not--Comedy--Drury Lane, 26th November, 1702.
The Careless
Husband--Comedy--Drury Lane, 7th December, 1704.
Perolla and
Izadora--Tragedy--Drury Lane, 3rd December, 1705.
The Comical
Lovers--Comedy--Haymarket, 4th February, 1707.
The Double
Gallant--Comedy--Haymarket, 1st November, 1707.
The Lady’s Last
Stake--Comedy--Haymarket, 13th December, 1707.
The Rival
Fools--Comedy--Drury Lane, 11th January, 1709.
The Rival
Queans--Comical-Tragedy--Haymarket, 29th June, 1710.
Ximena--Tragedy--Drury
Lane, 28th November, 1712.
Venus and
Adonis--Masque--Drury Lane, 1715.
Bulls and
Bears--Farce--Drury Lane, 1st December, 1715.
Myrtillo-Pastoral
Interlude--Drury Lane, 1716.
The
Nonjuror--Comedy--Drury Lane, 6th December, 1717.
The
Refusal--Comedy--Drury Lane, 14th February, 1721.
Cæsar in
Egypt--Tragedy--Drury Lane, 9th December, 1724.
The Provoked
Husband--Comedy (in conjunction with Vanbrugh)--Drury Lane, 10th January, 1728.
Love in a
Riddle-Pastoral--Drury Lane, 7th January, 1729.
Damon and
Phillida--Pastoral Farce--Haymarket, 1729.
Papal Tyranny in the
Reign of King John-- Tragedy (alteration of Shakespeare’s "King
John") --Covent Garden, 15th February, 1745.
Of these, his
alteration of "Richard III." had practically undisputed possession of
the stage, until the taste and judgment of Mr. Henry Irving gave us back the
original play. [287.1] But in the provinces, when stars of the old school play
a round of legitimate parts, the adulterated version still reigns triumphant,
and the great effect of the night is got in Cibber’s famous line:--
"Off with his head! So much for Buckingham!" In "The Hypocrite," a comedy
still played at intervals, Cibber’s "Nonjuror" survives.
Bickerstaffe, who was the author of the alteration, retained a very large
portion of the original play, his chief change being the addition of the
inimitable Maw- worm.
That another of Cibber’s
plays survives is owing to the taste of an American manager and to the
genius of an American
company of comedians. Mr. Augustin Daly’s company includes among its repertory
Cibber’s comedy of "She Would and She Would Not," and has shown in
London as well as in New York how admirable a comedy it is. It goes without
saying to those who have seen this company, that much of the success was due to
Miss Ada Rehan, who showed in Hypolita, as she has done in Katharine
("Taming of the Shrew"), that she is mistress of classical comedy as
of modern touch-and-go farce.[289.1]
Cibber was the cause of
quite a considerable literature, mostly abusive. The following list, taken from
my "Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature" (1888),
is, I believe, a complete catalogue of all separate publications by, or
relating to, Colley Cibber:--
A clue to the comedy of
the Non-Juror. With some hints of consequence relating to that play. In a
letter to N. Rowe, Esq; Poet Laureat to His Majesty. London (Curll): 1718. 8vo.
6d.
Cibber’s "Non-Juror," produced at Drury-Lane, December 6,
1717, was written in favour of the Hanoverian succession. Rowe wrote the
prologue, which was very abusive of Nonjurors. This tract is not an attack on
the play, but a satire on, it is said, Bishop Hoadly. A lash for the Laureat: or an address by way of Satyr; most
humbly inscrib’d to the unparallel’d Mr. Rowe, on occasion of a late insolent
Prologue to the Non-Juror. London (J. Morphew): 1718. folio. Title, 1 leaf:
Pref. 1 leaf. pp. 8. 6d.
A furious attack on Rowe on account of his Prologue. A tract of extreme
rarity. A compleat key to the Non-Juror.
Explaining the characters in that play, with observations thereon. By Mr.
Joseph Gay. The second edioion (sic). London (Curll): 1718. 8vo. pp. 24
including title and half-title.
3rd edition: 1718. Joseph Gay is a pseudonym. Pope is said to be the
author of the pamphlet, which is very unfriendly to Cibber. The Theatre-Royal turn’d into a
mountebank’s stage. In some remarks upon Mr. Cibber’s quack-dramatical
performance, called the Non-Juror. By a Non-Juror. London (Morphew): 1718. 8vo.
Title 1 leaf. pp. 38. 6d.
The Comedy call’d the
Non-Juror. Shewing the particular scenes wherein that hypocrite is concern’d.
With remarks, and a key, explaining the characters of that excellent play.
London (printed for J. L.): 1718. 8vo. pp. 24, including title. 2d.
Some cursory remarks on
the play call’d the Non- Juror, written by Mr. Cibber. In a letter to a friend.
London (Chetwood) 1718. 8vo.
Dated from Button’s Coffee-House and signed "H. S." Very
laudatory. A journey to London. Being
part of a comedy written by the late Sir John Vanbrugh, Knt. and printed after
his own copy: which (since his decease) has been made an intire play, by Mr.
Cibber, and call’d The provok’d husband. &c. London (Watts): 1728. 8vo. pp.
51, including title.
"The Provok’d Husband," by Vanbrugh and Cibber, was produced
at Drury Lane, January 10, 1728; and though Cibber’s Nonjuror enemies tried to
condemn it, was very successful. This tract shows how much of the play was
written by Vanbrugh. Reflections on the
principal characters in the Provoked Husband. London: 1728. 8vo.
An apology for the life
of Mr. Colley Cibber, comedian, and late patentee of the Theatre-Royal. With an
historical view of the stage during his own time. Written by himself. London
(Printed by John Watts for the author): 1740. 4to. Port.
Second edition, London, 1740, 8vo., no portrait; third edition, London,
1750, 8vo., portrait; fourth edition, 1756, 2 vols. 12mo., portrait. A good
edition was published, London, 1822, 8vo., with notes by E. Bellchambers and a
portrait. The "Apology" forms one of Hunt’s series of
autobiographies, London, 1826. One of the most famous and valuable of
theatrical books. An apology
for the life of Mr. T.....C....., comedian. Being a proper sequel to the
Apology for the life of Mr. Colley Cibber, comedian. With an historical view of
the stage to the present year. Supposed to be written by himself. In the stile
and manner of the Poet Laureat. London (Mechell): 1740. 8vo. 2s.
The object of this pamphlet, ascribed to Fielding, is chiefly to
ridicule Colley Cibber’s "Apology." Herman, 22s. A brief supplement to Colley Cibber, Esq;
his lives of the late famous Actors and Actresses. Si tu scis, melior ego. By
Anthony, Vulgò Tony Aston. Printed for the Author, N.P. (London): N.D.
(1747-8). 8vo. pp. 24 including title.
A pamphlet of extreme rarity. Isaac Reed purchased a copy in 1769; and
in 1795 he notes on it that, though he has had it twenty-six years, he has
never seen another copy. Reed’s copy was bought by Field for 65s., at whose
sale, in 1827, Genest bought it for 36s. The
tryal of Colley Cibber, comedian, &c., for writing a book intitled An
apology for his life, &c. Being a thorough examination thereof; wherein he
is proved guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors against the English language,
and in characterising many persons of distinction....Together with an
indictment exhibited against Alexander Pope of Twickenham, Esq; for not
exerting his talents at this juncture: and the arraignment of George Cheyne,
Physician at Bath, for the Philosophical, Physical, and Theological heresies,
uttered in his last book on Regimen. London (for the author): 1740. 8vo. pp.
vii. 40. 1s.
With motto--"Lo! He hath written a Book!" The Dedication is
signed "T. Johnson." The
Laureat: or, the right side of Colley Cibber, Esq; containing explanations,
amendments, and observations, on a book intituled, An apology for the life, and
writings of Mr. Colley Cibber. Not written by himself. With some anecdotes of
the Laureat, which he (thro’ an excess of modesty) omitted. To which is added,
The history of the life, manners and writings of Æsopus the tragedian, from a
fragment of a Greek manuscript found in the Library of the Vatican; interspers’d
with observations of the translator. London (Roberts): 1740. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
A furious attack on Cibber. The Life of Æsopus is a burlesque Life of
Cibber. Daniel. 7s. 6d. The
history of the stage. In which is included, the theatrical characters of the
most celebrated actors who have adorn’d the theatre. Among many others are the
following, viz. Mr. Betterton, Mr. Montfort, Mr. Dogget, Mr. Booth, Mr. Wilks,
Mr. Nokes. Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Montfort, Mrs. Gwin, Mrs. Bracegirdle, Mrs. Porter,
Mrs. Oldfield. Together with, the theatrical life of Mr. Colley Cibber. London
(Miller): 1742. 8vo.
A "boil-down" of Cibber’s Apology. A letter from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope, inquiring into the motives
that might induce him in his satyrical works, to be so frequently fond of Mr.
Cibber’s name. London (Lewis): 1742. 8vo. 1s.
Second edition, London, 1744, 8vo.; reprinted, London, 1777, 8vo. The
sting of this pamphlet lies in an anecdote told of Pope at a house of ill-fame,
in retaliation for his line:"And ha snot Colley still his lord and
whore?" A letter to Mr.
C--b--r, on his letter to Mr. P..... London (Roberts): 1742. 8vo. 26 pp. 6d.
Very scarce. Abusive of Pope--laudatory towards Cibber. Difference between verbal and practical virtue.
With a prefatory epistle from Mr. C...b...r to Mr. P. London (Roberts): 1742.
Folio. Title 1 leaf: Epistle 1 leaf: pp. 7.
Very rare. A rhymed attack on Pope. A
blast upon Bays; or, a new lick at the Laureat. Containing, remarks upon the
late tatling performance, entitled, A letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope,
&c. And lo there appeared an old woman! Vide the Letter throughout. London
(Robbins): 1742. 8vo. pp. 26. 6d.
A bitter attack on Cibber. Sawney
and Colley, a poetical dialogue: occasioned by a late letter from the Laureat
of St. James’s, to the Homer of Twickenham. Something in the manner of Dr.
Swift. London (for J. H.): n.d. (1742). Folio. Title 1 leaf: pp. 21. 1s.
Very scarce. A coarse and ferocious attack on Pope in rhyme. The egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber.
Being his own picture retouch’d, to so plain a likeness, that no one, now,
would have the face to own it, but himself. London (Lewis): 1743. 8vo. pp. 78
including title. 1s.
Anonymous, but undoubtedly by Cibber himself. Another occasional letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope. Wherein
the new hero’s preferment to his throne, in the Dunciad, seems not to be
accepted. And the author of that poem his more rightful claim to it, is
asserted. With an expostulatory address to the Reverend Mr. W. W----n, author
of the new preface, and adviser in the curious improvements of that satire. By
Mr. Colley Cibber. London (Lewis): 1744. 8vo. 1s.
The Rev. W. W---n is Warburton. This tract was reprinted, Glasgow, n.d.,
8vo. The two "Letters" were reprinted, London, 1777, with, I believe,
a curious frontispiece representing the adventure related by Cibber at Pope’s
expense in the first "Letter." I am not certain whether the
frontispiece was issued with the London or Glasgow reprint, having seen it in
copies of both. In Bohn’s "Lowndes" (1865) is mentioned a parody on
this first "Letter," with the same title, except that "Mrs.
Cibber’s name" is substituted for "Mr. Cibber’s name." Lowndes
says: "A copy is described in Mr. Thorpe’s catalogue, p. iv, 1832, ’with
the frontispiece of Pope surprized with Mrs. Cibber.’" I gravely doubt the
existence of any such work, and fancy that this frontispiece is the one just
mentioned, but wrongly described. Herman (two Letters, with scare front.), 40s. A letter to Colley Cibber, Esq; on
his transformation of King John. London. 1745. 8vo.
Cibber’s mangling of "King John," entitled "Papal Tyranny
in the Reign of King John," was produced at Covent Garden, February 15,
1745. A new book of the Dunciad:
occasion’d by Mr. Warburton’s new edition of the Dunciad complete. By a
gentleman of one of the Inns of Court. With several of Mr. Warburton’s own
notes, and likewise Notes Variorum. London (J. Payne & J. Bouquet): 1750.
4to. 1s.
Cibber dethroned and Warburton elevated to the throne of Dulness. Shakspere’s tragedy of Richard III.,
considered dramatically and historically; and in comparison with Cibber’s
alteration as at present in use on the stage, in a lecture delivered to the
members of the Liverpool Literary, Scientific and Commercial Institution, by
Thos. Stuart, of the Theatre Royal. (Liverpool): n.d. (about 1850). 12mo.
Cibber published in
1747 a work entitled "The Character and Conduct of Cicero, considered from
the history of his life by Dr. Middleton;" but it is of little value or
interest.
[257.1] Among the Lord Chamberlain’s Papers is a copy of a warrant to
prepare this Patent. It is dated 15th May, 1731, and the Patent itself is dated
3rd July, 1731, though it did not take effect till 1st September, 1732. The
reason for this is noted on page 196. [258.1] "The Grub-Street
Journal," 7th June, 1733, says: "One little Creature, only the Deputy
and Representative of his Father, was turbulent enough to balk their Measures,
and counterbalance all the Civility and Decency in the other scale....To remedy
this, the Gentleman who bought into the Patent first, purchased his Father’s
Share, and set him down in the same obscure Place from whence he rose. [259.1]
In "The Case of John Mills, James Quin," &c., given in Theo.
Cibber’s "Dissertations" (Appendix, p. 48), it is stated that
"such has been the Inveteracy of some of the late Patentees to the Actors,
that when Mrs. Booth, Executrix of her late Husband, Barton Booth, Esq; sold
her sixth part of the Patent to Mr. Giffard, she made him covenant, not to sell
or assign it to Actors." [259.2]
"I must own, I was heartily disgusted with the Conduct of the
Family of the Cibbers on this Occasion, and had frequent and violent Disputes
with Father and Son, whenever we met! It appeared to me something shocking that
the Son should immediately render void, and worthless, what the Father had just
received Thirty-one Hundred and Fifty Pounds for, as a valuable
Consideration."--Victor’s "History," i. 14.[260.1] Cibber, in
Chapter VIII. (vol. i. p. 283), alludes to this trial, and gives the first of
these two suppositions as the reason of Harper’s acquittal, but Victor
("History," i. 24) says that he has been informed that this is an
error. [261.1]
"He was a Man of Humanity and strict Honour; many Instances fatally
proved, that his Word, when solemnly given, (which was his Custom) was
sufficient for the Performance, though ever so injurious to
himself."--Victor’s "History," i. 25.[262.1] See ante, Chapter
IX. (vol. i. p. 330, note 1). [263.1]
"The clamour against the author, whose presumption was highly
censured for daring to alter Shakespeare, increased to such a height, that
Colley, who had smarted more than once for dabbling in tragedy, went to the
playhouse, and, without saying a word to any body, took the play from the
prompter’s desk, and marched off with it in his pocket."--"Dram.
Misc.," i. 5.[264.1] Produced at the Haymarket, 1737. [264.2]
"Enter Ground-Ivy.Ground. What
are you doing here?
Apollo. I am casting the
Parts in the Tragedy of King John.
Ground. Then you are
casting the Parts in a Tragedy that won’t do.
Apollo. How, Sir! Was it
not written by Shakespear, and was not Shakespear one of the greatest Genius’s
that ever lived?
Ground. No, Sir,
Shakespear was a pretty Fellow, and said some things that only want a little of
my licking to do well enough; King John, as now writ, will not do--But a Word
in your Ear, I will make him do.
Apollo. How?
Ground. By Alteration,
Sir; it was a Maxim of mine when I was at the Head of Theatrical Affairs, that
no Play, tho’ ever so good, would do with Alteration."
--"Historical
register," act iii. sc. 1.
[265.1] These appearances too place on January 12th, 13th, and 14th,
1741. [265.2] Fondlewife’s pet name for his wife Lætitia. [266.1] Lætitia’s pet
name for Fondlewife. See vol. i. page 206. [266.2] An allusion to his own
phrase in the Preface to "The Provoked Husband." See vol. i. page 51.
[267.1] The name "Susannah Maria" naturally suggests Susanna Maria
Arne, the wife of Theo. Cibber; but the anecdote cannot refer to her, because
she was married in 1734, some years before Cibber began his
"Apology." [268.1] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 501) says:
"Mr. Garrick asked him [Cibber] if he had not in his possession, a comedy
or two of his own writing.--’What then?’ said Cibber.--’I should be glad to
have the honour of bringing it into the world.’--’Who have you to act it?’--’Why,
there are (said Garrick) Clive and Pritchard, myself, and some others,’ whom he
named.-- ’No! (said the old man, taking a pinch of snuff, with great
nonchalance) it won’t do.’" Davies (iii. 502) relates how Garrick drew on
himself a rebuke from Cibber. Discussing in company the old school,
"Garrick observed that the old style of acting was banishing the stage,
and would not go down. ’How do you know? (said Cibber); you never tried it.’"
[269.1]
"Papal Tyranny in
the Reign of King John."
KING
JOHN............................Mr. Quin.
ARTHUR, his
Nephew...................Miss J. Cibber.
SALISBURY............................Mr.
Ridout.
PEMBROKE.............................Mr.
Rosco.
ARUNDEL..............................Mr.
Anderson.
FALCONBRIDGE.........................Mr.
Ryan.
HUBERT...............................Mr.
Bridgewater.
KING PHILIP Mr. Hale.
LEWIS the Dauphin of
France.........Mr. Cibber, Jun.
MELUN, a Nobleman Mr.
Cashell.
PANDULPH, Legate from
Pope Innocent..Mr. Cibber, Sen.
ABBOT of Angiers Mr.
Gibson.
GOVERNOR of
Angiers................Mr. Carr.
LADY
CONSTANCE.......................Mrs. Pritchard.
BLANCH, Niece to King
John...........Mrs. Bellamy.
[272.1] "On CIBBER’S
Declaration that he will have the last Word with Mr. POPE.
QUOTH Cibber to Pope,
tho’ in Verse you foreclose,
I’ll have the last
Word, for by G--d I’ll write Prose.
Poor Colley, thy reas’ning
is none of the strongest,
For know, the last Word
is the Word that last longest."
"The Summer
Miscellany," 1742.
[273.1] This play was produced at Drury Lane, 16th January, 1717; and
the performance of "The Rehearsal" referred to took place on the 7th
February. [278.1] The Earl of Warwick was the young nobleman, and it is said in
Dillworth’s "Life of Pope" that "the late Commissioner
Vaughan" was the other gentleman. [280.1] "But Pope’s irascibility
prevailed, and he resolved to tell the whole English world that he was at war
with Cibber; and, to show that he thought him no common adversary, he prepared
no common vengeance; he published a new edition of the ’Dunciad, in which he
degraded Theobald from his painful pre-eminence and enthroned Cibber in his
stead."--Johnson’s "Life of Pope." [281.1] "Unhappily the
two heroes were of opposite characters, and Pope was unwilling to lose what he
had already written; he has therefore depraved his poem by giving to Cibber the
old books, the old pedantry, and the sluggish pertinacity of Theobald."--
Johnson’s "Life of Pope." [281.2] See ante, p. 272. [284.1] It has
been generally stated that Cibber died on 12th December, 1757, but "The
Public Advertiser" of Monday, 12th December, announces his death as having
occurred "Yesterday morning." The "Gentleman’s Magazine"
and the "London Magazine," in their issues for December, 1757, give
the 11th as the date. [284.2] Mr.
Laurence Hutton, in his "Literary Landmarks of London" (p. 54), gives
the following interesting particulars regarding Cibber’s last resting- place:
"Cibber was buried by the side of his father and mother, in a vault under
the Danish Church, situated in Wellclose Square, Ratcliff Highway (since named
St. George Street). This church, according to an inscription placed over the
doorway, was built in 1696 by Caius Gabriel Cibber himself, by order of the
King of Denmark, for the use of such of his Majesty’s subjects as might visit
the port of London. The church was taken down some years ago (1868-70), and St.
Paul’s Schools were erected on its foundation, which was left intact. Rev. Dan.
Greatorex, Vicar of the Parish of St. Paul, Dock Street, in a private note
written in the summer of 1883, says:--
"’Colley Cibber and his father and mother were buried in the vault
of the old Danish Church. When the church was removed, the coffins were all
removed carefully into the crypt under the apse, and then bricked up. So the
bodies are still there. The Danish Consul was with me when I moved the bodies.
The coffins had perished except the bottoms. I carefully removed them myself
personally, and laid them side by side at the back of the crypt, and covered
them with earth.’" [287.1]
Shakespeare’s "Richard III." was produced at the Lyceum Theatre on
29th January, 1877. It was announced as "strictly the original text,
without interpolations, but simply with such omissions and transpositions as
have been found essential for dramatic representation." In Richard Mr.
Irving’s great powers are seen to special advantage.
The case of Cibber’s
play in 1700 was--
KING HENRY VI.,
designed for...Mr. Wilks.
EDWARD, PRINCE OF
WALES...............Mrs. Allison.
RICHARD, DUKE OF
YORK.................Miss Chock.
RICHARD, DUKE OF
GLOUCESTER...........Mr. Cibber.
DUKE OF
BUCKINGHAM....................Mr. Powel.
LORD
STANLEY..........................Mr. Mills.
DUKE OF
NORFOLK.......................Mr. Simpson.
RATCLIFF..............................Mr.
Kent.
CATESBY...............................Mr.
Thomas.
HENRY, EARL OF
RICHMOND...............Mr. Evans.
OXFORD................................Mr.
Fairbank.
QUEEN
ELIZABETH.......................Mrs. Knight.
LADY
ANN..............................Mrs. Rogers.
CICELY................................Mrs.
Powel.
[289.1] A beautiful Portfolio of Sketches of Mr. Daly’s Company has been
published, in which is a portrait of Miss Rehan as Hypolita, with a critical
note by Mr. Brander Matthews. The following images are taken from the
supplementary chapters in Robert Lowe’s 1889 edition of Cibber’s text: