CHAPTER XVI.

COMPETITION, AND WHAT CAME OF IT.

"Augustus," as it was the fashion to call George I., by performing

a justifiable act, inflicted some injury this year, by restoring

the Letters Patent of Charles II. to Christopher Rich, of which the

latter had been deprived, and under which his son, John, opened the

revived theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on the 18th December 1714,

with the "Recruiting Officer." The enlarged stage was "superbly

adorned with looking-glasses on both sides;" a circumstance which

Quin said "was an excellent trap to such actresses who admired

their own persons more than they attended to the duties of their

profession." Some good actors left Drury for the Fields;--Keen,

the two Bullocks, Pack, Spiller, Cory, Knap, Mrs. Rogers, and Mrs.

Knight. Cibber rather contemptuously says of such of the above as he

names, that "they none of them had more than a negative merit,--being

able only to do us more harm by 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."

John Rich's company in the Fields either played old pieces, or

adaptations from them, or "from the French"; none of which deserved

even a passing word, except a roaring farce--pieces which now grew

popular--called "Love in a Sack," by Griffin, whom I notice not as

an indifferent author, but as an excellent comedian, who made his

first appearance in a double capacity. Griffin may also be noticed

under a double qualification. He was a gentleman and a glazier. His

father was a Norfolk rector, and had been chaplain to the Earl of

Yarmouth,--that gallant Sir Robert Paston, who was in France and

Flanders with James, Duke of York. In the Paston Free School, at

North Walsham, Griffin learnt his "rudiments," having done which

his sire apprenticed him to the useful but not dignified calling of

a glazier. The "'prentice lad," disgusted at the humiliation, ran

away, took to strolling, found his way, after favourable report, to

Rich's theatre, and there proved so good an actor, that the Drury

Lane management ultimately lured him away to a stage where able

competitors polished him into still greater brilliancy. The season

concluded on the last day of July[102] 1715 with a "benefit for Tim

Buck, to release him out of prison."

In the following October, Drury commenced a season which, save a

few days of summer vacation, extended to the close of August 1716.

During this time, Shakspeare's best plays were frequently acted,

old comedies revived with success, and obscure farces played and

consigned to oblivion. The great attempt, if not success, of the

season, was the comedy of the "Drummer, or the Haunted House," first

played in March 1716, and not known to be Addison's till Steele

published the fact after the author's death. Tonson, however, knew

or suspected the truth, for he gave £50 for the copyright. Wilks,

Cibber, Mills, and Mrs. Oldfield could not secure a triumph for the

play--which Steele thought was more disgraceful to the stage than

to the comedy. There is a novel mixture of sentiment, caricature,

and farcical incident in this piece. Warton describes it as "a just

picture of life and real manners; where the poet never speaks in

his own person, or totally drops or forgets a character, for the

sake of introducing a brilliant simile or acute remark; where no

train is laid for wit, no Jeremys or Bens are suffered to appear."

More natural, it was less brilliant than the artificial comedies

of Congreve; but its failure probably vexed the author, as it

certainly annoyed the publisher. Tickell omitted it from his edition

of Addison's works, but Steele gave these reasons for ascribing it to

the latter; they are a little confused, but they probably contain the

truth:--"If I remember right, the fifth act was written in a week's

time.... He would walk about his room, and dictate in language with

as much freedom and ease as any one could write it down.... I have

been often thus employed by him.... I will put all my credit among

men of wit, for the truth of my averment, when I presume to say,

that no one but Mr. Addison was in any other way the writer of the

'Drummer.' ... At the same time, I will allow that he has sent for me

... and told me, that 'a gentleman, then in the room, had written a

play that he was sure I would like; but it was to be a secret; and he

knew I would take as much pains, since he recommended it, as I would

for him.'"

At Lincoln's Inn Fields, the season of 1715-16 had this of remarkable

in it, that John Rich revived the "Prophetess," as it enabled him to

display his ability in the introduction and management of machinery,

and his success in raising the prices of admission. Bullock's farce,

the "Cobbler of Preston," was begun on a Friday, finished the next

day, and played on the Tuesday following--in order to anticipate

Charles Johnson's farce,--like this, derived from the introduction to

the "Taming of the Shrew," at Drury Lane. Of the other plays--one,

the "Fatal Vision," was written by Aaron Hill, who, having lost

property and temper in a project how to extract olive oil from

beech-nuts, endeavoured to inculcate in his piece the wrongfulness of

giving way to rash designs and evil passions. This play he dedicated

to the two most merciless critics of the day, Dennis and Gildon.

Then of the "Perfidious Brother," it is only to be stated that it

was a bad play stolen by young Theobald from Mestayer, a watchmaker,

who had lent him the manuscript. That an attorney should have the

reprehensible taste to steal a worthless play seemed a slur upon

the lawyer's judgment. Another new play, the "Northern Heiress," by

Mrs. Davys, a clergyman's widow, but now the lively Irish mistress

of a Cambridge coffee-house, reminds me of the five-act farces of

Reynolds, with its fops, fools, half-pay officers, fast gentlemen,

and flippant ladies. There are ten people married at the end, a

compliment to matrimony, at the hands of the widow; but there is a

slip in poetical justice; for, a lover who deserts his mistress, when

he finds, as Lord Peterborough did of Miss Moses, that her fortune

was not equal to his expectations, marries her, after discovering

that he was mistaken.

Herewith we come to the Drury Lane season of 1716-17. Booth, Wilks,

and Cibber had a famous company, in which Quin quietly made his way

to the head,[103] and Mrs. Horton's beauty acted with good effect

on Mrs. Oldfield. In the way of novelty, Mrs. Centlivre produced

a tragedy, the "Cruel Gift," in which nobody dies, and lovers are

happily married. The most notable affair, however, was the comedy,

"Three Hours after Marriage," in which Gay, Pope, and Arbuthnot,

three grave men, who pretended to instruct and improve mankind,

insulted modesty, virtue, and common decency, in the grossest way,

by speech or inuendo. There is not so much filth in any other comedy

of this century, and the trio of authors stand stigmatised for their

attempt to bring in the old corruption. In strange contrast we have

Mrs. Manley, a woman who began life with unmerited misfortune, and

carried it on with unmitigated profligacy, producing a highly moral,

semi-religious drama, "Lucius."

But while moral poets were polluting the stage, and immoral women

undertaking to purify it, a reverend Archdeacon of Stowe, the

historian, Lawrence Echard, in conjunction with Lestrange, put on

the stage of Drury Lane, a translation of the "Eunuchus" of Terence.

It did not survive the third night; but the audience might have

remarked how much more refinedly the Carthaginian of old could treat

a delicate subject than the Christian poets of a later era--or, to

speak correctly, than the later poets of a Christian era.

In this season I find the first trace of a "fashionable night," and

a later hour for beginning the play than any of subsequent times. I

quote from Genest:--"18 June, 1717. By particular desire of several

Ladies of Quality. 'Fatal Marriage.' Biron, Booth; Villeroy, Mills;

Isabella, Mrs. Porter; Victoria, Mrs. Younger. An exact computation

being made of the number which the Pit and Boxes will hold, they are

laid together; and no person can be admitted without tickets. By

desire, the play is not to begin till nine o'clock, by reason of the

heat of the weather--nor the house to be opened till eight." What a

change from the time when Dryden's Lovely exclaimed:--

"As punctual as three o'clock at the playhouse!"

The corresponding season (1716-17) at Lincoln's Inn requires but

brief notice. Rich, who had failed in attempting Essex, played,

as Mr. Lun, Harlequin, in the "Cheats, or the Tavern Bilkers," a

ballet-pantomime--the forerunner of the line of pantomime which,

notwithstanding our presumed advance in civilisation, still has

its admirers. In novelty, Dick Leveridge, the singer, produced

the burlesque of "Pyramus and Thisbe"--those parts being played

by himself and Pack, with irresistible comic effect, especially

when caricaturing the style of the Italian opera, where your hero

died in very good time and tune. English opera was not altogether

neglected in the Fields, but little was accomplished in the way of

upholding the drama. Bullock produced a comedy, which he was accused

of stealing from a manuscript by Savage--"Woman's a Riddle." It is a

long, coarse farce, in which the most decent incident is the hanging

of Sir Amorous Vainwit, from a balcony, as he is trying to escape

in woman's clothes, which are caught by a hook, and beneath which a

footman stands with a flambeau. We learn, too, from this comedy, that

young ladies carried snuff-boxes in those days.

Taverner, the proctor, also produced a comedy quite as extravagant,

and not a whit less immoral than Bullock's--the "Artful Husband."

It had, however, great temporary success, quite enough to turn the

author's head, and by his acts to show that there was nothing in it.

The "Artful Husband," however, brought into notice a young actor

who had but a small part to play,--Stockwell. His name was Spiller.

The Duke of Argyle thought, and spoke well of him before this. On

the night in question, Spiller, who dressed his characters like

an artist, went through his first scenes exquisitely, and without

being recognised by his patron, who came behind the scenes, and had

recommended him warmly to the notice of Rich. Genest says he hopes

this story is true. I am sure it is not improbable; and for this

reason. I once saw Lafont acting the Son in "Père et Fils." Opposite

to the side on which he made his exit an aged actor, who represented

the father, passed me. I was delighted with the truth and beauty

of his acting, and at the end of the scene asked who he was. To my

astonishment, I heard that Lafont, whom I had well known as an actor

for more than twenty years, was playing both parts. This identifying

power was Spiller's distinguishing merit. Riccoboni saw the young

actor play an old man with a perfectness not to be expected but from

players of the longest experience. "How great was my surprise," says

Riccoboni, "when I learnt that he was a young man, about the age

of twenty-six. I could not believe it; but owned that it might be

possible, had he only used a broken and a trembling voice, and had

only an extreme weakness possessed his body, because I conceived

that a young actor might, by the help of art, imitate that debility

of nature to such a pitch of excellence; but the wrinkles of his

face, his sunk eyes, and his loose yellow cheeks, the most certain

marks of age, were incontestable proofs against what they said to me.

Notwithstanding all this, I was forced to submit to truth, because I

was credibly informed that the actor, to fit himself for the part of

this old man, spent an hour in dressing himself, and disguised his

face so nicely, and painted so artificially a part of his eyebrows

and eyelids, that at the distance of six paces it was impossible not

to be deceived."

In the next season, at Drury (1717-18), the only remarkable piece

produced was Cibber's adaptation of "Tartuffe," under the name of

the "Nonjuror." In the lustre of the "Nonjuror" paled and died out

the first play by Savage, "Love in a Veil." Not twenty years had

elapsed since this luckless and heartless young vagabond was born,

in Fox Court, Gray's Inn Lane, his unknown mother, but not that

light lady, the Countess of Macclesfield, wearing a mask. Savage

had passed from a shoemaker's shop to the streets, had written a

poem on the Bangorian Controversy, had adapted a play translated

from the Spanish, by the wife of Mr. Baron Price, and which Bullock

re-adapted and produced at Drury Lane before Savage could get his own

accepted. "Love in a Veil" seems to have been founded on an incident

in the Spanish comedy; but however this may be, it failed to obtain

the public approval. The author, however, did not altogether fail;

generous Wilks patronised the boy, and Steele, befriending a lad of

parts, designed to give him £1000, which he had not got, with the

hand of a natural daughter, whom the young and wayward poet did not

get. The "Nonjuror" alone survives as a memorial of the Drury season

of 1717-18.

We owe the piece to fear and hatred of the Pope and the Pretender.

It addressed itself to so wide a public that Lintot gave the liberal

sum of a hundred guineas for the copyright, and it was so acceptable

to the King that he gave a dedication fee of twice that number of

guineas to the author, who addressed him as "dread Sir," and spoke

of himself as "the lowest of your subjects from the theatre."

Cibber adds, "Your comedians, Sir, are an unhappy society, whom

some severe heads think wholly useless, and others, dangerous to

the young and innocent. This comedy is, therefore, an attempt to

remove that prejudice, and to show what honest and laudable uses

may be made of the theatre, when its performances keep close to the

true purposes of its institution." Cibber goes on to remark, that

perhaps the idly and seditiously inclined may cease to disturb their

brains about embarrassing the government, if "proper amusements" be

provided for them. For such his play is rather a chastisement than an

amusement, and he thinks _that_ would have been all the better taken

had it not been administered by a comedian. The Nonjurors, whose

allegiance was paid to the Pretender, were perhaps not worthy of a

more exalted scourger; but he fears that truth and loyalty demanded

a nobler champion. He flatteringly alludes to the small number of

malcontents. His piece had either crushed them, or their forces were

not so great as supposed, "there being no assembly where people are

so free, and apt to speak their minds, as in a crowded theatre, of

which," says the courtly fellow, "your Majesty may have lately seen

an instance in the insuppressible acclamations that were given on

your appearing to honour this play with your royal presence."

On the night of representation, Rowe, in a prologue--he was now Poet

Laureate and Land Surveyor of the Customs in the Port of London,

deprecated the piece being considered unjustifiably discourteous.

"Think not our colours may too strongly paint

The stiff non-juring separation saint.

Good breeding ne'er commands us to be civil

To those who give the nation to the devil!"

The play was admirably acted by Booth, Colonel Woodvil; Mills, Sir

John; Wilks, Heartley; Cibber, Dr. Wolf (the Cantwell of the modern

arrangement); and Walker (soon to be famous as Captain Macheath),

Charles. Mrs. Porter played Lady Woodvil, and Mrs. Oldfield turned

the heads and touched the hearts of all lively and susceptible folks

by her exquisite coquetry, in Maria. The play was not a servile

imitation of, but an excellent adaptation to modern circumstances of,

the "Tartuffe." Thoroughly English, it abounds with the humour and

manner of Cibber, and despite some offences against taste, it was at

this time the purest comedy on the stage. There was farce enough for

the gallery, maxim and repartee, suggestions and didactic phrases for

the rest of the house. The success surpassed even expectation. It

raised against Cibber a phalanx of implacable foes--foes who howled

at everything of which he was, afterwards, the author; but it gained

for him his advancement to the poet-laureateship, and an estimation

which caused some people to place him, for usefulness to the cause of

true religion, on an equality with the author of "The Whole Duty of

Man!" Cibber foresaw the tempest, and, probably, also the prosperous

gales which were to follow, to which there is some allusion in the

Epilogue spoken by Mrs. Oldfield, which, of course, had a fling

against marriage:--

"Was't not enough that critics might pursue him?

But must he rouse a party to undo him?

These blows, I told him, on his plays would fall:

But he, unmov'd, cried, ----'s blood! we'll stand it all!"

In the theatre itself the opposition to the piece was confined,

Cibber says, to "a few smiles of silent contempt. As the satire was

chiefly employed on the enemies of the Government, they were not so

hardy as to own themselves such, by any higher disapprobation or

resentment." They made up for this constrained silence, as above

noted, and _Mist's Journal_, for fifteen years, lost no opportunity

of mauling the detested offender. With the editor of that paper,

says Cibber, "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 obliged 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 killed me. Soon after the 'Nonjuror' had

received the favour of the town, I read in one of his journals the

following short paragraph:--'Yesterday died Mr. Colley Cibber, late

comedian of the Theatre Royal, notorious for writing the _Nonjuror_.'

The compliment, in the latter part, I confess," adds Cibber, "I did

not dislike, because it came from so impartial a judge."

The stage lost this year an excellent actor, Irish Bowen, who, at

the age of fifty-two, was slain in duel by young Quin.[104] Hitherto

the sword had dealt lightly with actors. In 1692, indeed, Sandford

nearly killed Powell, on the stage. On the 13th of October they were

acting together, in "OEdipus, King of Thebes," when the former, to

whom a real dagger had been delivered by the property-man, instead

of a weapon, the blade of which run up, when the point was pressed,

into the handle, gave poor Powell a stab three inches deep; the wound

was, at first, thought to be mortal, but Powell recovered. Five years

later, in July 1697, I find brief mention in the papers of a duel

between an actor and an officer. The initials only of the principals

are given: "Mr. H., an actor, of Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre, fought

Mr. D., an officer, at Barnes Elms." Whether the former was young

Hodgson or young Harris is not now to be determined, nor the grounds

of the quarrel. The issue of it was that the player dangerously

wounded the soldier; and it is added, that both parties exhibited

brilliant courage. Bowen was the original representative of Sir

Joshua[105] Wittol ("Old Batchelor"), Jeremy ("Love for Love"), and

Foigard ("Beaux' Stratagem").

Quin passed over to Lincoln's Inn Fields in this season of 1717-18,

where he played Hotspur, Tamerlane, Morat ("Aurungzebe"), Mark

Antony, and created the part of Scipio, in the "Scipio Africanus,"

written by young Beckingham, the pride of Merchant Tailors' School.

Beckingham must also have been the pride of Fleet Street, and

especially of the craft of linen-drapers, of which his father was

a worthy and well-to-do member. The piece was played on the 18th

of February 1718. The author was then but nineteen years of age,

and was full of bright promise. A tragedy by one so young, excited

the public, and most especially the juvenile public, at Merchant

Tailors', where Dr. Smith was head-master. The Doctor and sub-masters

held the stage in abhorrence till now, when a brilliant _alumnus_

was likely to shed lustre on the corporation of "Merchant Tailors

and Linen Armourers." Now they proclaimed high jubilee, gave the

lads a half-holiday on the author's night, and joyfully saw the

whole school swarming to the pit of Lincoln's Inn, to uphold the

tragedy by this honoured _condiscipulus_. The masters, in this, acted

against their own former precept and example; but they made amends

for it by religious zeal, and by expelling all the Jewish pupils from

the school! Israel was the scapegoat, and the Christian sense of

propriety was gratified. But Quin's Scipio established a taste for

theatricals at Merchant Tailors', where classical plays were acted,

for some years, as at Westminster. Beckingham's tragedy exhibits a

romantic story, or stories, in a classical costume. There is severity

enough to gratify rigid tastes, with a little of over-warmth of

action on the part of one of three lovers, which shows that the young

poet was not unread in the older masters.

But there were worse and better plays than "Scipio" brought out

on the same stage this season. Taverner failed in a _pendant_ to

his "Artful Husband," the "Artful Wife." Bullock did little for

the credit of the stage by his farce of the "Perjuror," and Sir

Thomas Moore justly criticised his own tragedy of "Mangora, King of

the Timbusians," when he called it a "trifle." It is a very noisy

trifle, concerned with love, battle, murder, and worse, between

the Spaniards and South American Indians. Rich thought its bustle

might carry its absurdities successfully through, and Sir Thomas

stimulated the actors, when at rehearsal, by inviting them to supper,

at which Leigh, the two Bullocks, Williams, Ogden, Knapp, and

Giffard, Mistresses Knight, Bullock, and Kent, made a joyous party,

as hilarious as the audience was, whose laughter alone prevented them

from hissing down the nonsense of an obscure man who was knighted for

some forgotten service--certainly not for any rendered to the Muses.

The piece of this season which had stuff in it to cause it to live

to our own times, was Mrs. Centlivre's "Bold Stroke for a Wife."

Sprightly Mrs. Centlivre was as fervent a Whig as Cibber, and had

written verses enough in praise of Brunswick to entitle her to be

Poetess-Laureate, had the Princess Caroline had a voice in the

matter, when Rowe died this very year, and Newcastle recommended

tipsy Eusden for the office of "birthday fibber." The "Bold Stroke,"

laughed at and denounced by Wilks, and taken reluctantly in hand by

the actors, is a fair specimen of that lighter comedy which borders

upon farce, but in which the fun is genuine, and the incidents not

so improbable but that they may be accepted, or, by the rapidity of

their succession, laughed at and forgotten.

This season, withal, was not successful. It broke the heart of Keen,

actor and sharer. In the former capacity, though Savage thought his

life worth narrating, he won few laurels,--but his wreath was not

entirely leafless. He was loved, too, by his brethren of both houses,

whose subscriptions defrayed the expenses of a funeral, at which

upwards of two hundred persons walked in deep mourning.[106]

At this time, Drury, with its old, strong company, was patronised

by court and town. Plays, acted at Hampton Court, before the King,

were repeated in the public theatre. Of the former, I shall speak

in a future page. Two new comedies proved, indeed, inferior to Mrs.

Centlivre's "Bold Stroke," at the other house. Charles Johnson's

"Masquerade," borrowed a little from Shirley, and more from Molière,

furnished, in Ombre and Lady Frances Ombre, some ideas, probably, to

Cibber, when he placed a similar pair on the stage, in Lord and Lady

Townley. A worse piece was more successful,--the rambling comedy,

"Chit Chat," by a Mr. Thomas Killigrew, a gentleman who, like his

namesake, had a place at court, but not his namesake's wit. The

courtiers, with the Duke of Argyle at their head, carried the piece

through eleven representations, and enriched the treasury by £1000.

The great effort of the season was made in bringing out "Busiris," a

tragedy, by the Rev. Dr. Young, author of _Night Thoughts_. It was

played on March 7, 1719, by Booth, Elrington, Wilks, Mills, Walker

and Thurmond, Mrs. Oldfield and Mrs. Thurmond.

"Busiris" was Young's earliest tragedy. It is written in a stilted

and inflated style, and bears all the marks of a juvenile production.

The plot of the piece is void of all ingenuity; but there is little

that is borrowed in it, save the haughty message sent by Busiris to

the Persian Ambassador, which is the same as that returned by the

Ethiopian prince to Cambyses, in the third book of Herodotus. Of the

phrasing, and indeed of the incidents of this tragedy, Fielding made

excellent fun, in his mock tragedy of "Tom Thumb." The sovereigns

and courtiers of Egypt gave little trouble to be converted into

Arthur and Dollalolla, Noodle, Doodle, the great little prince, and

Huncamunca. The travestie is rich and facile; not least so in that

passage mimicking the various addresses to the sun, who is bid to

rise no more, but hide his face and put the world in mourning, On

these, Fielding remarks, that "the author of 'Busiris' is extremely

anxious to prevent the sun's blushing at any indecent object; and,

therefore, on all such occasions, he addresses himself to the sun,

and desires him to keep out of the way." It was dedicated to the Duke

of Newcastle, the patron of Eusden, the laureat, "because the late

instances he had received of his grace's undeserved and uncommon

favour, in an affair of some consequence, foreign to the theatre, had

taken from him the privilege of choosing a patron." If this favour

consisted in rewarding Young for writing for the court, the favour

_may_ have been "undeserved," but it was by no means "uncommon."

The concluding incident of this play,--the double suicide of

Memnon (Wilks) and Mandane (Mrs. Oldfield), found such favour in

the author's own estimation, that he repeated it in his next two

tragedies, in each of which a couple of lovers make away with

themselves. This tripled circumstance reminds a critic of the remark

of Dryden:--"The dagger and the bowl are always at hand to butcher a

hero, when a poet wants the brains to save him."

Dr. Young was at this time thirty-eight years of age, but was not

yet "famous." Born when Charles II. was king and Dryden laureat,

the Hampshire godson of the Princess Anne, was as yet only known as

having been the friend of the Duke of Wharton, and of Tickell; as

having first come before the public in 1713,[107] with a poem to

Granville, in which there is good dramatic criticism; and of having

since written poems of promise rather than of merit, the latest of

which was a paraphrase on part of the book of Job, which, curiously

enough, abounds with phrases which show the author's growing

intercourse with the playhouse and theatrical people. "Busiris" was

written in the year that "Cato" was played, but its performance was

delayed till this year, and its dramatic death occurred long before

"Cato" departed from the stage,--to be read, at least, as long as an

admirer of Addison survives.

[Illustration: Mr. Garrick as Hamlet.]

FOOTNOTES:

[102] Should be August.

[103] Quin can hardly be said to have been even near the head of this

company.

[104] See page 175 for some curious facts relating to this.

[105] Sir Joseph.

[106] He was buried at St. Clement's. Six actors held the

pall.--_Doran MS._

[107] 1712.

[Illustration: THE NEW AND OLD THEATRES ROYAL, HAYMARKET.]

"Their Majesties' Servants." Annals of the English Stage (Volume 1 of 3) · 第 16 / 18 章