As the Act prohibiting performance of any play or interlude which was
not sanctioned by the Lord Chamberlain passed about the time that
this print was published, and is particularly referred to in the
engraving, a short view of the English drama, and the circumstances
which occasioned the Bill's being brought into the House of Commons,
seems immediately connected with the subject.
Our first theatrical exhibitions had a religious tendency;[144] they
were under the direction of the clergy, represented a story compiled
from the Bible, or some legendary tale of a canonized saint, and
were denominated mysteries. In the year 1378, the scholars of Paul's
School presented a petition to Richard II., praying his Majesty to
prohibit some unexpert people from presenting the History of the Old
Testament, to the great prejudice of the clergy, who had been at much
expense in order to represent it publicly at Christmas. In 1390,
interludes were played at Skinner's Well; and again, in 1409, the
parish clerks of London performed plays for eight days successively
at Clerkenwell, which took its name from these right learned and
worthy performers. Their play had for its subject the creation of the
world, and was honoured with the presence of most of the nobility in
the kingdom, and very many gentry also attended. This unenlightened
period has been properly called "the dead sleep of the Muses."
They did not presently awake: the moralities which followed were
produced in a kind of morning dream. They, however, had some shadow
of meaning, which is more than can be said of the exhibitions which
preceded them. The mysteries represented, in a confused and senseless
manner, some incredible tale; but in the moralities a plan was aimed
at, and something like poetry was attempted. The virtues, vices, and
affections of the mind were frequently personified; good actions
were rewarded, and wickedness chastised. Religion was at that time
professed to be the leading object, and even their amusements had a
tendency to promote it: were moralities performed now, they would
unquestionably turn upon politics.
In the reign of that _most righteous_ prince Henry VIII., very
properly distinguished from the monarchs who preceded him as
"Defender of the Faith," and so forth, an Act was made for the
promoting of true religion. In this Act a clause is inserted,
"restraining all rimours or plaiers from singing in songs, or playing
in interludes, anything that should contradict the acknowledged
doctrines."
It was customary at this time to enact these moral and religious
dramas in private houses; and the _dramatis personæ_ were so
contrived, that five or six actors might represent twenty characters.
"Players," says honest John Stowe, "were in former times retainers to
noblemen; and none had the privilege to act plays but such as were
so retained. These divertissements were then a recreation, and used,
therefore, now and then occasionally; but afterwards, by abuse, they
became a trade and calling, and so remain unto this day."
In 1574, Sir James Hawes being Mayor, the Common Council of London
passed an Act, wherein it was ordained that no play should be openly
acted within the liberties of the city, wherein should be uttered
any words, examples, or doings, of any unchastity, sedition, or such
like unfit or uncomely matters, under the penalty of five pounds, and
fourteen days' imprisonment. And further, that no plays should be
acted till first perused and allowed by the Lord Mayor and Court of
Aldermen. But even these sagacious and judicious laws failed in their
effect, for the drama remained not only dead, dull, and unprofitable,
but depraved; when, like the sun bursting through a cloud,
"Immortal Shakspeare rose;
Each change of many-colour'd life he drew,
Exhausted worlds, and then imagin'd new:
Existence saw him spurn her bounded reign,
And panting Time toil'd after him in vain:
His pow'rful strokes presiding truth confess'd,
And unresisted passion storm'd the breast."
From that period to this, theatrical amusements have undergone
many changes, which do not come into my plan to relate, and the
Legislature have passed many Acts to check their licentiousness,
which it is not my province to enumerate.
A short time previous to the publication of this print, our dramatic
writers thought proper to dip their pens in the sea of politics.
To check this growing evil, it has been said that the minister
contrived to have a very indecent performance (fabricated for the
express purpose of showing the enormities of writers for the theatre)
presented to one of the managers. It was brought from the manager
to the minister, shown to a number of persons in power, and made a
pretence for bringing in a Bill to prohibit the performance of any
play or interlude until it had been perused and received the sanction
of the Lord Chamberlain for the time being. By the friends of the
ministers of that day this account has been contradicted. They assert
that a piece called the _Golden Rump_, containing much personal abuse
of George II. and Queen Caroline, was on the point of being acted at
the theatre in the Haymarket. Sir Robert Walpole having notice of it,
procured a copy, in consequence of which the performance was stopped,
and the Act passed. It was introduced as intended to explain, amend,
and enforce so much of an Act made in the twelfth year of the reign
of Queen Anne as related to rogues, vagabonds, and common players of
interludes.
Lord Chesterfield, in a very long speech, reprobated the principle
upon which it was founded, and exerted all his eloquence to prevent
its passing into a law. This oration gave a temporary popularity to
the speaker, but did not serve the cause for which it was made. The
Bill passed; but the people were so irritated that the power which it
gave the Lord Chamberlain should be exerted in favour of foreigners,
that in the year 1738, when some French actors, authorized by his
licence, attempted to perform a French play at the Haymarket, a mob
in the street broke the windows, and attempted to pull down the
house, though many persons of high rank, and the French ambassador,
were in the boxes.
The print to which this little account is introductory, receives a
title from its female performers only; and yet in this theatrical
house of _commons_ we discover at least four representatives of the
other sex, viz. Apollo, Cupid, and two male devils.
[Illustration: (end of chapter floral icon)]