CHARLES MACKLIN.
A little child, about the last year of the reign of William III.,--a
boy who is said to have been born, _Anno Domini_ 1690, was taken to
Derry, to kiss the hand of, and wish a happy new year to, the old
head of his family, Mr. M'Laughlin. This ceremony was kept up in
the family circle, because the M'Laughlins were held to be of royal
descent, and the Mr. M'Laughlin in question to be the representative
of some line of ancient kings of Ireland!
In the summer of 1797, an old actor is dying out in Tavistock Row,
Covent Garden. Hull and Munden, and Davies and Ledger, and friends
on and off the stage, occasionally look in and talk of old times with
that ancient man, whose memory, however, is weaker than his frame. He
has been an eccentric but rare player in his day. He had acted with
contemporaries of Betterton; had seen, or co-operated with, every
celebrity of the stage since; and did not withdraw from that stage
till after Braham, who was among us but as yesterday, had sung his
first song on it. He gave counsel to old Charles Mathews, and he may
have seen little Edmund Kean being carried in a woman's arms from
the neighbourhood of Leicester Square to Drury Lane Theatre, where
the pale little fellow had to act an imp in a pantomime. The old
man, carried, in the summer last named, to his grave in the corner
of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, was the child who had done homage to
a traditional king of Ireland, so many years before. If Macklin
(as Charles M'Laughlin came to call himself) was born at the date
above given, the incidents of his life connect him with very remote
periods. He was born two months before King William gained the battle
of the Boyne;[9] and he lived to hear of Captain Nelson's prowess, to
read of the departure to India of that Lieutenant-Colonel Wellesley,
whose career of martial glory culminated at Waterloo, and to have
seen, perhaps, a smart young lad, just then in his teens, the Hon.
Henry Temple,--now Viscount Palmerston and Prime Minister of England!
Five sovereigns and five-and-twenty administrations, from Godolphin
to Pitt, succeeded each other, while Charles Macklin was thus
progressing on his journey of life.
Charles Macklin represents contradiction, sarcasm, irritability,
restlessness. It came of a double source,--his descent and the
line of characters which he most affected. His father was a stern
Presbyterian farmer, in Ulster; his mother, a rigid Roman Catholic.
At the siege of Derry, three of his uncles were among the besiegers,
and three among the besieged; and he had another,--a Roman Catholic
priest, who undertook to educate him, but who consigned the mission
to Nature. I have somewhere read that at five-and-thirty, Macklin
could not read, perfectly; but _that_ is a fable; or at eight or
nine, he could hardly have played Monimia, in private theatricals,
at the house of the good Ulster lady, who looked after him more
carefully than the priest, and more tenderly than Nature.
In after years, Quin said of Macklin that he had--not _lines_ in his
face, but _cordage_; and again, on seeing Macklin dressed and painted
for Shylock, Quin remarked that if ever Heaven had written villain on
a brow it was on that fellow's! One can hardly fancy that the gentle
Monimia could ever have found a representative in one who came to be
thus spoken of; but he is said to have succeeded in this respect,
perfectly, and in voice, feature, and action, to have counterfeited
that most interesting of orphans with great success.
It was a fatal success, in one sense. It inspired the boy with a
desire to act on a wider stage. It created in him a disgust for the
vocation to which he was destined,--that of a saddler,--from which
he ran away before he was apprentice enough to sew a buckle on a
girth; and the lad made off for the natural attraction of all Irish
lads,--Dublin. His ambition could both soar and stoop; and he entered
Trinity College as a badge-man or porter, which illustrious place and
humble office he quitted in 1710.
Except that he turned stroller, and suffered the sharp pangs which
strollers feel,--and enjoyed the roving life led by players on the
tramp, little is here known of him. He seems to have served some
five years to this rough and rollicking apprenticeship, and then to
have succeeded in being allowed to appear at Lincoln's Inn Fields,
in 1725, as Alcander, in "OEdipus." His manner of speaking was found
too "familiar," that is, too _natural_. He had none, he said, of the
hoity-toity, sing-song delivery then in vogue; and Rich recommended
him to _go to grass again_; and accordingly to green fields and
strolling he returned.
I suppose some manager had his eye on Macklin at Southwark Fair,
in 1730, for he passed thence immediately to Lincoln's Inn Fields.
He played small parts, noticed in another page, and was probably
thankful to get them, not improving his cast till he went to Drury
Lane, in 1733, when he played the elder Cibber's line of characters,
and in 1735 created Snip in the farce of the "Merry Cobler," and
came thereby in peril of his life. One evening, a fellow actor,
Hallam, grandfather of merry Mrs. Mattocks, took from Macklin's
dressing-room, a wig, which the latter wore in the farce. The players
were in the "scene room," some of them seated on the settle in front
of the fire, when a quarrel broke out between Hallam and Macklin,
which was carried on so loudly that the actors then concluding the
first piece were disturbed by it. Hallam, at length, surrendered the
"property," but, after doing so, used words of such offence that
Macklin, equally unguarded in language, and more unguarded in action,
struck at him with his cane, in order to thrust him from the room.
Unhappily the cane penetrated through Hallam's eye, to the brain, and
killed him. Macklin's deep concern could not save him from standing
at the bar of the Old Bailey on a charge of murder. The jury returned
him guilty of manslaughter, without malice aforethought, and the
contrite actor was permitted to return to his duty.
Among the friends he possessed was Mrs. Booth, widow of Barton Booth,
in whose house was domiciled as companion a certain Grace Purvor,
who could dance almost as well as Santlow herself, and had otherwise
great attractions. Colley Cibber loved to look in at Mrs. Booth's to
listen to Grace's well-told stories; Macklin went thither to tell his
own to Grace; and John, Duke of Argyle, flitted about the same lady
for purposes of his own, which he had the honesty to give up, when
Macklin informed him of the honourable interest he took in the friend
of Mrs. Booth. Macklin married Grace, and the latter proved excellent
both as wife and actress--of her qualities in the latter respect I
have already spoken.
For some years Macklin himself failed to reap the distinction he
coveted. The attainment was made, however, in 1741, when he induced
Fleetwood to revive Shakspeare's "Merchant of Venice," with Macklin
for Shylock.
There was a whisper that he was about to play the Jew as a serious
character. His comrades laughed, and the manager was nervous. The
rehearsals told them nothing, for there Macklin did little more than
walk through the part, lest the manager should prohibit the playing
of the piece, if the nature of the reform Macklin was about to
introduce should make him fearful of consequences. In some such dress
as that we now see worn by Shylock, Macklin, on the night of the 15th
of February,[10] 1741, walked down the stage, and looking through the
eyelet-hole in the curtain, saw the two ever-formidable front rows of
the pit occupied by the most highly-dreaded critics of the period.
The house was also densely crowded. He returned from his survey, calm
and content, remarking, "Good! I shall be tried to-night by a Special
Jury!"
There was little applause, to Macklin's disappointment, on his
entrance, yet people were pleased at the aspect of a Jew whom
Rembrandt might have painted. The opening scene was spoken in
familiar, but earnest accents. Not a hand yet gave token of
approbation, but there occasionally reached Macklin's ears, from
the two solemn rows of judge and jury in the pit, the sounds of a
"Good!" and "Very good!" "Very well, indeed!"--and he passed off more
gratified by this than by the slight general applause intended for
encouragement.
As the play proceeded, so did his triumph grow. In the scene with
Tubal, which Dogget in Lansdowne's version had made so comic, he
shook the hearts, and not the sides of the audience. There was deep
emotion in that critical pit. The sympathies of the house went all
for Shylock; and at last, a storm of acclamation, a very hurricane of
approval, roared pleasantly over Macklin. So far all was well; but
the trial scene had yet to come.
It came; and there the triumph culminated. The actor was not loud,
nor grotesque; but Shylock was natural, calmly confident, and so
terribly malignant, that when he whetted his knife, to cut the
forfeit from that bankrupt there, a shudder went round the house,
and the profound silence following told Macklin that he held his
audience by the heart-strings, and that his hearers must have already
acknowledged the truth of his interpretation of Shakspeare's Jew.
When the act-drop fell, then the pent-up feelings found vent, and
Old Drury shook again with the tumult of applause. The critics went
off to the coffee-houses in a state of pleasurable excitement. As
for the other actors, Quin (Antonio) must have felt the master-mind
of that night. Mrs. Pritchard (Nerissa), excellent judge as she was,
must have enjoyed the terrible grandeur of that trial-scene; and even
Kitty Clive (Portia) could not have dared, on that night, to do what
she ordinarily made Portia do, in the disguise of young Bellario;
namely, mimic the peculiarities of some leading lawyer of the day.
And Macklin?--Macklin remarked, as he stood among his fellows, all of
whom were, I hope, congratulatory, "I am not worth fifty pounds in
the world; nevertheless, on this night am I Charles the Great!"
That Pope was in the house on the third night, and that he pronounced
Macklin to be the Jew that Shakspeare drew, is not improbable;
but the statement that Macklin, soon after, dined with Pope and
Bolingbroke at Battersea is manifestly untrue, for the latter was
then living in retirement, at Fontainbleau. It could not have been
in such company, at this period, that Pope asked the actor, why
he dressed Shylock in a red hat, and that Macklin replied, it was
because he had read in an old history that the Jews in Venice were
obliged, by law, to wear a hat of that decided colour;--which was
true.
Macklin was proud and impetuous, and often lost engagements, by
offending; and regained them by publicly apologising. He was an actor
well established in favour, when, in the season of 1745-46, he made
his first appearance as an author in an _àpropos_ tragedy for the '45
era, "Henry VII., or the Popish Impostor." The anachronism in the
title is only to be matched by the violations done to chronology
and propriety in the play,--a crude work, six weeks in the doing.
It settles, however, in some degree, the time when Macklin left
the Church of Rome for that of England. It must have been prior to
the period in which he wrote the above-named piece. After it took
place, he used to describe himself "as staunch a Protestant as the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and on the same principles;"--a compliment,
I suppose, to John Potter!
After playing during four seasons at Drury Lane, Macklin spent from
1748 to 1750 in Dublin, where he and his wife were to receive £800
a year. He delighted the public, and helped to ruin the manager,
Sheridan, who was unable to fulfil his engagement, and got involved
in a lawsuit. From 1750 to 1754[11] Macklin was at Covent Garden,
where one of his most extraordinary parts was Mercutio, to Barry's
Romeo!--a part for which he was utterly unfit, but which he held to
be one of his best!--not inferior to Woodward's! His view of the
rival Romeos, too, had something original in it. Barry, he said, in
the garden scene, came on with a lordly swagger, and talked so loud
that the servants ought to have come out and tossed him in a blanket;
but Garrick sneaked into the garden, like a thief in the night. And
at this critical comment the latter did not feel flattered.
In 1754[12] Macklin introduced his daughter, with a prologue, and
withdrew himself from the stage, to appear in a new character, that
of master of a tavern, where dinners might be had at 4s. a head,[13]
including any sort of wine the guest might choose to ask for! The
house was under the Piazza, in Covent Garden; and Mr. Macklin's
"Great Room in Hart Street" subsequently became George Robins'
auction-room. I do not like to contemplate Macklin in this character,
bringing in the first dish, the napkin over his arm, at the head
of an array of waiters, who robbed him daily; that done, he steps
backwards to the sideboard, bows, and then directs all proceedings by
signs. The cloth drawn, he advances to the head of the table, makes
another servile bow, fastens the bell-rope to the chair, and hoping
he has made everything agreeable, retires!
The lectures on the drama and ancient art, and the debates which
followed, in his Great Room, the "British Inquisition," were not in
much better taste. The wits of the town found excellent sport in
interrupting the debaters, and few were more active in this way than
Foote. "Do you know what I am going to say?" asked Macklin. "No,"
said Foote, "_do you?_" On the 25th of January 1755, Charles Macklin
was in the list of what the _Gentleman's Magazine_ used to politely
call the "B--ts," as failing in the character of vintner, coffee-man,
and chapman. His examination only showed that he had failed in
prudence. He had been an excellent father, and on his daughter's
education alone he had expended £1200.
He remained disengaged till December 12th, 1759, when he appeared
at Drury Lane, as Shylock, and Sir Archy Macsarcasm, in "Love à la
Mode," a piece of his own. From the profits received on each night
of its being acted, Macklin stipulated that he should have a share
during life. The arrangement was advantageous to him, although this
little piece was not at first successful. After a season at Drury, he
passed the next at the Garden, and in 1763[14] reappeared in Dublin,
at Smock Alley, then at Crow Street, and Capel Street, under rival
managers Mossop, Sheridan,[15] or Barry, and with more profit to
himself than to them. In 1773 he returned to Covent Garden, where he
made an attempt at Macbeth, which brought on that famous theatrical
"row" which Macklin laid to the enmity of Reddish and Sparks, and of
which I have spoken, under that year. With intervals of rest, Macklin
continued to play, without increase of fame, till 1780,[16] when he
produced his original play, the "Man of the World," and created, at
the age, probably, of ninety years, Sir Pertinax Macsycophant, one of
the most arduous characters in a great actor's repertory. The Lord
Chamberlain licensed this admirable piece with great reluctance,
for though the satire was general, it was severe, and susceptible
of unpleasant and particular application. Shylock, Sir Pertinax,
and Sir Archy, were often played by the old actor, whose memory
did not begin to fail till 1788, when it first tripped, as he was
struggling to play Shylock. The aged actor tottered to the lights,
talked of the inexplicable terror of mind which had come over him,
and asked for indulgence to so aged a servant; and then he went on,
now brilliantly, now all uncertain and confused. He was to play the
same character for his benefit, on May 7th, 1789, and went into the
green-room dressed for the part. Whether he was then in his 90th or
his 100th year, the effort was a great one; and, anticipating it
might fail, the manager had requested Ryder, an actor of merit, who
had been a great favourite and a luckless manager in Ireland, to be
ready to supply Macklin's place.
The older performer seeing good Miss Pope in the green-room, asked
her if she was to play that night. "To be sure I am, dear sir," she
said; "you see I am dressed for Portia." Macklin looked vacantly at
her, and, in an imbecile tone of voice, remarked, "I had forgotten;
who plays Shylock?" "Who? why you, sir; you are dressed for it!"
The aged representative of the Jew was affected; he put his hand to
his forehead, and in a pathetic tone deplored his waning memory;
and then went on the stage; spoke, or tried to speak, two or three
speeches, struggled with himself, made one or two fruitless efforts
to get clear, and then paused, collected his thoughts, and, in a few
mournful words, acknowledged his inability, asked their pardon, and,
under the farewell applause of the house, was led off the stage, for
ever.
As an actor, he was without trick; his enunciation was clear, in
every syllable. Taken as a whole, he probably excelled every actor
who has ever played Shylock, say his biographers; but I remember
Edmund Kean, and make that exception. He was not a great tragedian,
nor a good light comedian, but in comedy and farce, where rough
energy is required, and in parts resembling Shylock, in their earnest
malignity, he was paramount. He was also an excellent teacher, very
impatient with mediocrity, but very careful with the intelligent.
Easily moved to anger, his pupils, and, indeed, many others stood in
awe of him; but he was honourable, generous, and humane; convivial,
frank, and not more free in his style than his contemporaries; but
naturally irascible, and naturally forgiving. Eccentricity was second
nature to him, and seems to have been so with other men of his blood.
His nephew and godson, the Rev. Charles Macklin, held an incumbency
in Ireland, which he lost because he would indulge in a particular
sort of Church discipline. At the close of his sermon he used to
administer the benediction, and the bagpipes. With the first he
dismissed the congregation, and, taking up the second, he blew his
people out with a lusty voluntary.
When Macklin left the stage, his second wife, the widow of a Dublin
hosier, and a worthy woman, looked their fortune in the face. It
consisted of £60 in ready money, and an annuity of £10. Friends were
ready, but the proud old actor was not made to be wounded in his
pride; he was made, in a measure, to help himself. His two pieces,
"Love à la Mode," and the "Man of the World," were published by
subscription. With nearly £1600 realised thereby, an annuity was
purchased of £200 for Macklin's life, and £75 for his wife, in case
of her survival. And this annuity he enjoyed till the 11th of July
1797, when the descendant of the royal M'Laughlins died, after a
theatrical life, not reckoning the strolling period, of sixty-four
years.
If Macklin was really of the old school, that school taught what was
truth and nature. His acting was essentially manly, there was nothing
of trick about it. His delivery was more level than modern speaking,
but certainly more weighty, direct, and emphatic. His features were
rigid, his eye cold and colourless; yet the earnestness of his
manner, and sterling sense of his address, produced an effect in
Shylock that has remained, with one exception, unrivalled.
Boaden thought Cooke's Sir Pertinax noisy, compared with Macklin's.
"He talked of _booing_, but it was evident he took a credit for
suppleness that was not in him. Macklin could inveigle as well as
subdue; and modulated his voice almost to his last year, with amazing
skill."
In his earlier days, Macklin was an acute inquirer into meaning; and
always rendered his conceptions with force and beauty. In reading
Milton's lines--
"Of man's first disobedience and the fruit
Of that FOR-BID-DEN tree--whose mortal taste
Brought DEATH into the world, and ALL our woe,"
the first word in capitals was uttered with an awful regret, the
suitable forerunner, says Boaden, "to the great amiss" which follows.
Macklin's chief objection to Garrick was directed against his
reckless abundance of action and gesture; all trick, start, and
ingenious attitude were to him subjects of scorn. He finely derided
the Hamlets who were violently horrified and surprised, instead of
solemnly awed, on first seeing the Ghost. "Recollect, sir," he would
say, "Hamlet came there to see his father's spirit."
Kirkman gives us a picture of Macklin, in his old age, which is
illustrative of the man, and his antagonism to Quin. The scene is at
the Rainbow Coffee House, King Street, Covent Garden, in 1787, where
some one of the company had asked him if he had ever quarrelled with
Quin. "Yes, sir," was the answer. "I was very low in the theatre as
an actor, when the surly fellow was the despot of the place. But,
sir, I had--had a lift, sir. Yes; I was to play the--the--the boy
with the red breeches;--you know who I mean, sir;--he, whose mother
is always going to law;--you know who I mean!" "_Jerry Blackacre_, I
suppose, sir?" "Aye, sir,--_Jerry_. Well, sir, I began to be a little
known to the public; and egad, I began to make them laugh. I was
called the _Wild Irishman_, sir; and was thought to have some fun in
me; and I made them laugh heartily at the boy, sir,--in Jerry.
"When I came off the stage, the surly fellow, who played the scolding
Captain in the play; Captain--Captain--you know who I mean!"
"_Manly_, I believe, sir?" "Aye, sir,--the same _Manly_. Well, sir,
the surly fellow began to scold me; told me I was at my tricks, and
that there was no having a chaste scene for me. Everybody, nay,
egad, the manager himself, was afraid of him. I was afraid of the
fellow, too; but not much. Well, sir, I told him I did not mean
to disturb _him_ by my acting, but to _show off a little myself_.
Well, sir, in the other scenes I did the same, and made the audience
laugh incontinently;--and he scolded me again, sir. I made the same
apology; but the surly fellow would not be appeased. Again, sir,
however, I did the same; and when I returned to the green-room, he
abused me like a pickpocket, and said I must leave off my _d----d
tricks_. I told him I could not play otherwise. He said I _could_,
and I _should_. Upon which, sir, egad, I said to him flatly,--'you
lie.' He was chewing an apple at this moment; and spitting the
contents into his hand, he threw them in my face." "Indeed!" "It is
a fact, sir! Well, sir, I went up to him directly (for I was a great
_boxing cull_ in those days), and pushed him down into a chair, and
pummelled his face d----bly."
"You did right, sir."
"He strove to resist, but he was no match for me; and I made his
face swell so with the blows, that he could hardly speak. When he
attempted to go on with his part, sir, he mumbled so, that the
audience began to hiss. Upon which, he went forward and told them,
sir, that something unpleasant had happened, and that he was really
very ill. But, sir, the moment I went to strike him, there were many
noblemen in the green-room, full dressed, with their swords and large
wigs (for the green-room was a sort of state-room then, sir). Well,
they were all alarmed, and jumped upon the benches, waiting in silent
amazement till the affair was over.
"At the end of the play, sir, he told me I must give him
satisfaction; and that when he changed his dress, he would wait for
me at the Obelisk, in Covent Garden. I told him I would be with
him;--but, sir, when he was gone, I recollected that I was to play in
the pantomime (for I was a great pantomimic boy in those days). So,
sir, I said to myself, 'd---- the fellow; let him wait; I won't go
to him till my business is all over; let him fume and fret, and be
hanged!' Well, sir, Mr. Fleetwood, the manager, who was one of the
best men in the world,--all kindness, all mildness, and graciousness
and affability,--had heard of the affair; and as Quin was his great
actor, and in favour with the town, he told me I had had revenge
enough; and that I should not meet the surly fellow that night; but
that he would make the matter up, somehow or other.
"Well, sir, Mr. Fleetwood ordered me a good supper, and some wine,
and made me sleep at his house all night, to prevent any meeting.
Well, sir, in the morning he told me, that I must, for _his sake_,
make a little apology to him for what I had done. And so, sir, I,
to oblige Mr. Fleetwood (for I loved the man), did, sir, make some
apology to him; and the matter dropped."
Macklin's character has been described in exactly opposite colours,
according to the bias of the friend or foe who affords the
description. He is angel or fiend, rough or tender, monster, honest
man or knave,--and so forth; but he was, of course, neither so bad as
his foes nor so bright as his friends made him out to be. One thing
is certain, that his judgment and his execution were excellent. In
a very few tragic parts, he acted well; in comedy and farce, where
villainy and humour were combined, he was admirable and original.
Of characters which he played originally (and those were few),
he rendered none celebrated, except Sir Archy, Sir Pertinax, and
Murrough O'Doherty, in pieces of which he was the author. His other
principal characters were Iago, Sir Francis Wronghead, Trappanti,
Lovegold, Scrub, Peachum, Polonius, and some others in pieces now not
familiar to us.
That Macklin was a "hard actor" there is no doubt; Churchill, who
allows him no excellence, says he was affected, constrained, "dealt
in half-formed sounds," violated nature, and that his features, which
seemed to disdain each other,--
"At variance set, inflexible, and coarse,
Ne'er know the workings of united force,
Ne'er kindly soften to each other's aid,
Nor show the mingled pow'rs of light and shade."
But "Cits and grave divines his praise proclaimed," and Macklin had
a large number of admiring friends. In his private life, he had to
bear many sorrows, and he bore them generally well, but one, in
particular, with the silent anguish of a father who sees his son
sinking fast to destruction, and glorying in the way which he is
going.
Ten years before Macklin died, he lost his daughter. Miss Macklin
was a pretty and modest person; respectable alike on and off the
stage; artificially trained, but yet highly accomplished. Macklin
had every reason to be proud of her, for everybody loved her for
her gentleness and goodness. As a child, in 1742, she had played
childish parts, and since 1750, those of the highest walk in tragedy
and comedy, but against competition which was too strong for her. She
was the original Irene, in "Barbarossa," and Clarissa, in "Lionel and
Clarissa," and was very fond of acting parts in which the lady had
to assume male attire. This fondness was the cause, in some measure,
of her death; it led to her buckling her garter so tightly that a
dangerous tumour formed in the inner part of the leg, near the knee.
I do not fancy that Miss Macklin had ever heard of Mary of Burgundy,
who suffered from a similar infirmity, but the actress was like the
Duchess in this,--from motives of delicacy she would not allow a
leg which she had liberally exhibited on the stage, to be examined
by her own doctor. Ultimately, a severe operation became necessary.
Miss Macklin bore it with courage, but it compelled her to leave the
stage, and her strength gradually failing, she died in 1787,[17] at
the age of forty-eight, and I wish she had left some portion of her
fortune to her celebrated but impoverished father.
Miss Macklin reminds me of Miss Barsanti, the original Lydia
Languish, whose course on the London stage dates from 1777.[18] The
peculiarity of Miss Barsanti,--a clever imitator of English and
Italian singers,--was the opposite of that which distinguished Miss
Macklin. She had registered a vow that she would never assume male
attire; nevertheless, she was once cast for Signor Arionelli, in the
"Son-in-Law," a part originally played by Bannister. This was after
her retirement from London, and when she was Mrs. Lisley,--playing
in Dublin. The time of the play is 1779, but the actress, who might
have worn a great coat, if she had been so minded, assumed--for a
music-master of that period, in London--the oriental costume of a
pre-Christian, or of no period, worn by Arbaces, in _Artaxerxes_!
Miss Barsanti was an honest woman who, on becoming Mrs. Lisley,
wished to assume her husband's name, but that gentleman's family
forbade what they had no right to prohibit. Her second husband's
family was less particular, and in theatrical biographies, she is
the Mrs. Daly, the wife of the active Irish manager, of that name;
who is for ever memorable as being the _only_ Irish manager who ever
realised a fortune, and took it with him into retirement.
There remain to be noticed, before we pass to the Siddons period,
several actresses, of higher importance than the above ladies, as
well as actors, whose claims are only second to those of Macklin.
[Illustration: Mr. Foote as the Devil upon Two Sticks.]
FOOTNOTES:
[9] It is quite apocryphal that Macklin was two months old when his
father was killed at the Battle of the Boyne. When he was in full
possession of his faculties he said he was born in November 1699.
As he died in 1797 he had accomplished ninety-seven years, the age
stated on his coffin-lid, and was in his ninety-eighth year.--_Doran
MS._
Dr. Doran no doubt means that Macklin's father was not killed at the
Battle of the Boyne.
[10] 14th of February (2d edition).
[11] Macklin does not seem to have been at Covent Garden in 1754. He
had a farewell benefit at Drury Lane, 20th December 1753, after which
he opened his tavern.
[12] Miss Macklin made her first appearance, as a woman, on 10th
April 1751, on the occasion of her father's benefit.
[13] Cooke, whose account of this matter is very full, says 3s. a
head.
[14] Macklin was at Drury Lane, 1759-60; Covent Garden, 1760-61; and
was in Dublin, at Crow Street, in 1761-62.
[15] Sheridan was not manager after 1759. Macklin acted under the
management of Dawson also.
[16] 1781. The "Man of the World" was produced 10th May 1781.
[17] Should be 1781.
[18] Her English playing ended in 1777, after which year she acted
only in Ireland.
[Illustration: MR. SMITH AND MRS. YATES IN THE "PROVOKED HUSBAND."]