Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE ENGLISH DRAMA AND THEATRES.

[ocr errors]

ALTHOUGH it is generally supposed that England was more backward in dramatic exhibitions than its continental neighbours, yet there can be little doubt that entertainments which, though crude and barbarous, did certainly partake of the dramatic nature, were known in this country almost as early as the Conquest. Stephanides, a monk of Canterbury, who lived in the reign of Henry II. informs us, that" London, instead of common interludes belonging to the Theatre, has plays of a more holy subject; representations of those miracles which the holy confessors wrought, or of the sufferings wherein the glorious constancy of the martyrs did appear." This author does not mention such performances as novelties, but describes them as the customary diversions of the period in which he lived. That masquerades-a species of theatrical exhibitions-were well known in the reign of Edward the III. is a fact recorded in a manner by no means complimentary to the parties who figured in them: for in that reign it was ordained by Act of Parliament, that a company of men called Vagrants, who had made masquerades through the whole City, should be whipt out of London, because they represented scandalous things in the little alehouses and other places where the populace assembled. In the year 1578, we find the scholars of Paul's school presenting a petition to Richard the II. praying his Majesty " to prohibit some inexpert people from presenting the history of the Old Testament, to the great prejudice of the said clergy, who have been at great expence, in order to represent it publicly at Christmas.” Not long afterwards, (in 1390,) the parish clerks of London are said to have played Interludes at Skinner's Well: and in the fourth year of King Henry the IV. they acted at Clerkenwell (which took its name from this custom of clerks acting plays there,) for eight successive days, a mystery concerning the creation of the world; the performance of which was attended by most of the nobility and gentry of the kingdom. These instances are sufficient to prove the high antiquity of the British Drama.Many years, however, elapsed before wit or taste made their appearance on our stage. One of the earliest writers of English plays, was John Heywood, the epigrammatist, who was jester to Henry VIII. He wrote a piece called "The four P's, being a new and merry interlude of a Palmer, Pardoner, Poticary, and Pedlar." He also wrote several Comedies. Henry Parker, son of Sir Wm. Parker, is also said to have written several Tragedies and Comedies in the same reign, But Thomas Heywood, who lived in the reigns of Elizabeth and James the First, was, according to his own confession, one of the most voluminous writers that ever attempted dramatic composition in any language. In a preface to one of his plays, he observes," this tragi-comedy is one preserved amongst two hundred and twenty, in which I have had an entire hand, or at least a main finger." Mr. Richard Edwards, who was one of the gentlemen of Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, and master of the children there, wrote two Comedies, one called Palemon and Arcite, in which a cry of hounds in hunting was so well imitated, that her Majesty and the audience were extremely delighted. The other called "Damon and Pythias, the two faithfullest friends in the world." About the same time came Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, and Thomas Norton, the writers of Gorboduc, the first dramatic piece of any consideration in the English tongue. Though Tragedy and Comedy were now inVOL. I. 24. 2 B

[ocr errors]

troduced upon the stage, the former for a time, as may naturally be supposed, infected with bombast, and the latter with quibbles and absurdities; yet, shortly afterwards, the pure and natural drama not only received its birth, but through the masterly geniuses of Shakspeare, Fletcher, and Jonson, at once arrived at its utmost perfection.

Having thus briefly and imperfectly traced the progress of the dramatic muse amongst us, we may now take a glance at the stage and the players. With the growth of the drama, the number of play-houses increased; so that in 1629, when the play-house in White Friars was finished, there were no less than seventeen buildings of that description; the names of most of - which may be collected from the title-pages of old plays. And as the Theatres were numerous, the companies of actors were in proportion. The children of the Royal Chapel had been formed into a regular company, in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign; and some few years afterwards, as the subjects of representation became more ludicrous, a company was es tablished under the denomination of the Children of the Revels. Beside these two companies, we are told that Queen Elizabeth, at the request of Sir Francis Walsingham, bestowed handsome salaries on twelve of the principal players of her time, who were distinguished by the style of her Majesty's comedians and servants. And exclusive of these, many noblemen retained companies, who not only acted privately in their Lords houses, but publicly under their licence and protection.

In the first year of King James's reign, a licence was granted under the Privy Seal, to Shakspeare, Fletcher, Burbage, Hemmings, Condel, and others, authorizing them to act plays (not only at their usual house, the Globe, at Bank side) but in any other part of the kingdom, during his Majesty's pleasure! The English Theatre appears to have been at this period, in a very prosperous state. Dramatic authors abounded, and their works had the advantage of being supported by the skill of many eminent players, concerning whom, it is to be regretted, that so few particulars are at this day known. So great was the taste at that time, for theatrical performances, that it became the fashion for the nobility to celebrate their weddings, birth-days, and other occasions of rejoicing, with masques and interludes, which were got up at great expence; and with a taste and magnificence, which may be conceived from the circumstance of Inigo Jones being frequently employed to design decorations for the places of exhibition. In the masques at court it was not unusual for Majesty itself to sustain a part: and the nobility at their own private houses, were not averse from following the Royal example. The same universal passion for dramatic entertainments continued during the reigns of King James, and great part of Charles the First's. Nor were they suppressed till the ascendancy of that faction, whose plan of reform was consummated in the overthrow the constitution, and the execution of their Sovereign.

On the 11th of February, 1647, an ordinance was issued, whereby all stage players, &c. were declared to be rogues, and liable to be punished according to certain statutes of the thirty-ninth of Queen Elizabeth, and seventh of King James the First. The Lord Mayor, Justices, and Sheriffs of London, and the Magistrates of Surrey and Middlesex, were likewise authorised and required to pull down and demolish all play-houses within their jurisdiction; and to apprehend any persons convicted of acting, who were to be publicly whipped; bound in recognizance to act no more, and in case of refusal to enter into such obligation, they were to be committed till

such security was given. And if after conviction they offended again, they were to be declared incorrigible rogues, and to be punished and dealt with accordingly. It was also ordained, that all money collected at play-houses, should be forfeited to the poor; and a penalty of five shillings was imposed on every person who should be present at any dramatic representation. Before the operation of this severe ordinance, the performances of the stage had been frequently interrupted, and threatened with destruction. The greater part of the actors at that time connected with the theatres, went immédiately into the army, and took up arms in the defence of that Sovereign to whose affability and patronage their profession was so deeply indebted. The theatres were abandoned and destroyed; and those by whom they used to be occupied were either killed in the wars, worn out with age, or scattered over different parts of the country, afraid of assembling lest they should subject themselves to the penalties of the ordinance, and incur the vengeance of the ruling powers.

The taste of the public for theatrical amusements at length revived; and the exertions of the performers and managers met with considerable encou fagement and remuneration. Their success was, however, soon interrupted by national calamities. The plague of 1662, and the dreadful fire of the following year caused the entire suspension of stage performances. But the good people of those times required some recreation, after the disasters occasioned by the plague and fire, and accordingly both houses were opened at Christmas, 1666; and public diversions were again followed with avidity.

Henceforward, the history of the British stage becomes involved in that of the established theatres; and they being all subject to much the same incidents, it would be uninteresting, in this summary notice, to recount the fires, and rebuildings, managements and mismanagements, changes and occurrences, which have taken place at each :-ex uno disce omnes.

In January, 1671, the play-house in Drury-lane took fire, and was entirely demolished: the violence of the conflagration was so great that between fifty and sixty adjoining houses were burnt or blown up. The proprietors, as soon as they had recovered from their consternation, resolved to rebuild the theatre, with such improvements as the tasteful and scientific might suggest. For that purpose they employed Sir Christopher Wren, whose celebrity was then very great, to furnish a design, and superintend its execution; and the plan which he produced, was highly approved by the best judges, as being equally adapted to the advantage of the performérs, and the audience. Several alterations were however made, which so far from being improvements, tended to defeat the intention of the Architect, and to spoil the building. The new theatre was opened on the 26th of March, 1674, when a prologue and epilogue were delivered, both written by Mr. Dryden. About this time, Mr. Rich became possessed of a share In this theatre, though he appears to have proceeded as if he were the sole proprietor. Whatever he received he retained for his own use, without deigning to account with any of his partners: this mode of conduct he continued so long, that those who had any claims upon the theatre, abandoned them in despair of ever deriving any benefit from them. The shares of the play-house were thought of so little value, that Sir Thomas Skipwith, who, as Cibber says, had an equal right with Rich, in a frolic, made a present of his interest in the concern to Colonel Brett, a gentleman of fortune, wlio soon afterwards forced his way into the management, very much

against the inclination of his partner. Brett, by completely changing the system of conducting the theatre, brought it once more into so flourishing a state, that Sir Thomas repented of his generosity, and applied to the Court of Chancery to have the property he had given away, restored to him. Colonel Brett, offended at this treatment, relinquished his claim; and Mr. Rich became once more possessed of all the powers of the patent. But instead of being warned by the experience of past times, to abstain from a tyrannical and oppressive behaviour towards the performers, he now resumed his former course, without fearing or apprehending any resistance to his

measures.

William Collier, Esq. a lawyer, who, with an enterprising head, is said to have possessed a jovial heart, observing the desperate situation of the theatre in the hands of Rich, obtained a licence to take the management of the Company left at Drury-lane. The late patentee, who still continued in possession of the house, was not, however, to be easily removed. Mr. Collier, therefore, procured a lease from the owners, and took forcible possession of the demised premises, by the assistance of a hired rabble, who broke into them on the night of some public rejoicing, and ousted the former occupier by a process of their own, more summary than an action in ejectment. But Mr. Collier did not meet with the success which he had anticipated from this speculation; the profits of the season were small, and very far from compensating for the trouble, danger, and expence, which he had been at, in seating himself on the theatrical throne. He soon retired from the station, having effected an exchange of theatres with the managers of the Haymarket: which latter theatre was, by agreement, to be confined to the performance of Operas.

Soon after the death of Queen Anne, Sir Richard Steele procured his name, at the request of the Acting Managers, to be inserted instead of Collier's, in a new licence jointly with them; and this connection lasted many years, with great advantage to all parties. The business of the stage was carried on successfully till about the year 1720, when on some difference which arose between the Duke of Newcastle, then Lord Chamberlain, and Mr. Cibber, that gentleman was forbidden to perform: and soon after a variance arising between the same nobleman and Sir Richard Steele, a power, which had been exercised by some of His Grace's predecessors in office, was exerted, and an order of silence was enforced against the managers. A controversy naturally followed; but how long the prohibition continued, or in what manner the dispute was settled, cannot now be ascertained. The patent was in a little time renewed, and Booth, who had a share in it, being compelled by illness to withdraw from the management, found a purchaser for his interest in John Highmore, Esq. a gentleman of fortune, who had contracted a great attachment to the stage, from having performed the part of Lothario one night for a wager. A treaty was accordingly entered into between them, which concluded by Mr. Highmore's purchasing one-half of Mr. Booth's share, with the whole of his power in the management, for the sum of two thousand five hundred pounds. Mr. Highmore, however, proved incompetent to the undertaking, and was at last obliged to give up the management with considerable loss.

The person who next succeeded to the patent of Drury-lane, was Charles Fleetwood, a gentleman who at one period of his life had possessed a very large fortune, of which at this time but a small portion remained. purchased not only the share belonging to Mr. Highmore, but the shares

He

of all the other partners. So little, however, was the value then set upon the theatre, that the whole amount of the purchase money scarcely exceeded the half of what Mr. Highmore had before paid.

The appearance of Garrick, in the year 1741, formed an era in the an nals of the drama, as memorable, as it was glorious and important. After experiencing some slights from the managers of Drury-lane and Covent Garden, he determined to make trial of his theatrical qualifications at the playhouse in Goodman's Fields, under the direction of Mr. Giffard. On his first appearance in the character of Richard the III.* he displayed so much truth and originality of conception, and so much vigour, grace, and nature, in execution, that his fame spread through every part of the town, with the greatest rapidity; and his reputation was soon permanently fixed, as the best actor of his own or any former time. After performing for one sea son at Goodman's Fields, he removed to Drury-lane, where he not only continued to increase his renown, but by his prudence and frugality, acquired both a character, which pointed him out as a proper person to succeed to the management of the theatre; and a fortune, which enabled him to accomplish that object when the opportunity offered.

The property of the theatre suffered severely from the indiscretion or inability of the manager, who at length involved himself in such difficulties, that no other means of extrication remained, but to quit the country.About the year 1745, the whole of his property in the theatre, was either mortgaged or sold; and the patent, which had been assigned to some creditors, was advertised to be disposed of by public auction. Two bankers became the purchasers, and they received into the management Mr. Lacey, to whom the conduct of the theatre was entrusted. The calamities of the times affected the credit of many persons at this juncture; and amongst the rest, that of the new managers, who found themselves obliged to stop payment. Their misfortunes occasioned the patent to be again offered for sale: few appeared with courage enough to venture upon it, even at the low price then demanded. At length it was proposed, by Mr. Lacey, that he and Mr. Garrick should become joint purchasers. The offer was accepted; a renewal of the patent was solicited and obtained; all the preliminaries were in a short time settled; and in the year 1747, the house was opened with a prologue, written by Dr. Johnson, and spoken by Mr. Garrick. The new partners were furnished with abilities to make their purchase advantageous to themselves, and agreeable to the public. While Garrick's admirable performances ensured good houses, the industry and attention of Lacey were employed in promoting the convenience of their visitors. The harmony which subsisted between them, contributed not a little to the success of their speculation; and their efforts in the end, procured for both, riches and respect. After Garrick had quitted the theatre as manager and performer, he did not entirely withdraw his attention from the stage; but continued occasionally to assist, and advise, the authors, actors, and patentees, who succeeded him. Notwithstanding the many brilliant stars which have since risen and set, in the dramatic hemisphere, it seems inexpedient to bring down our account of this theatre to the present time ;— partly because its more recent history consists of events too nearly resem

The Play Bill announcing his first appearance, was published in No.16, page 256, of the MAGNET.

« AnteriorContinuar »