The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate school

The College of Liberal Arts

ACTRESSES ON THE LONDON STAGE, 1670-1755:

A PROSOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY

A Dissertation in

English

by

Susan M. Martin

© 2008 Susan M. Martin

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2008

ii

The dissertation of Susan M. Martin was reviewed and approved* by the following: Robert D. Hume Evan Pugh Professor of English Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee Clement C. Hawes Professor of English John T. Harwood Senior Director, Teaching and Learning with Technology Associate Professor of English Associate Professor of Science & Technology Laura Knoppers Professor of English Philip Jenkins Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Humanities Robert Edwards Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and Comparative Literature Director of Graduate Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

iii

Abstract

When the London theatres re-opened after the restoration of the monarchy in

1660, actresses appeared on the public English stage for the first time. At first a novelty,

women playing women’s roles became not only desirable but essential to theatrical

operations henceforth. This thesis argues that in order to gain an accurate picture of the

place which women occupied in the theatre, and how this new occupation functioned,

actresses at different levels need to be considered. To this end I will employ the technique

of prosopography (group biography) for tracking and analyzing the professional and

personal experiences of a significant number of actresses in the long eighteenth-century.

For a prosopographical study two elements need to be in place, (1) sufficient data

for a detailed survey, which can provide credible results, to be carried out, and (2) a

system which enables the relevant data to be extracted from the information available. I

contend that the advantage of this method, often employed by historians and social

scientists, is that it allows for consideration not only of the major actresses of the period,

but also the minor company members. My aim is not to create detailed biographies of

individuals but to look for patterns and trends in the group as a whole and thus provide as

broad a view of female acting careers in the eighteenth-century as extant records will

allow.

Table of Contents

Abstract iii

Preface v

Acknowledgements vii

Chapter One: The Profession of ‘Actress’ and the Potentialities of Prosopography 1

Chapter Two: Sample 1 1670-1675 26 Susanah Elliott 28 Margaret Rutter 29 Eleanor Leigh, née Dixon 31 Elizabeth Barry 34 Chapter Three: Sample 2 1710-1715 87 Mrs. Clark(e) 90 Mrs. Hunt 91 Hester Booth, née Santlow 99 Anne Oldfield 127 Chapter Four: Sample 3 1750-1755 173 Sarah Toogood 187 Miss(es) Davis 189 Jane Green, née Hippisley 193 Kitty Clive 207 Chapter Five: Conclusion 252 Works Frequently Cited 288

Appendix A: London Theatre Chronology 289

Appendix B: Actors’ careers 298 Appendix C: Will transcriptions Hester Booth 307 Barton Booth 311 Anne Oldfield 313

Jane Green 317

v

Preface

Actresses on the London Stage 1670-1755: A Prosopographical Study

investigates the development of acting as a profession for women from its early years to

the middle of the eighteenth century. During this time period, women performing on the

public stage progressed from being a novelty to being a standard part of theatrical

operations; this study examines how the actresses engaged with this “new” profession.

The method of prosopography (group biography) focuses on gathering as much

information as possible, about as many members of a given population as possible, and

thus allowing group patterns and variations to become discernible. This approach is ideal

for the study of actresses in the long eighteenth century since it takes into consideration

not only the experiences of all the members of the group but also allows for variations

within the amount, and type, of data available. Since prosopography has not previously

been used either in the context of the eighteenth century, or theatre history, Chapter One

explains both the method and the way in which I have applied it to my subject matter.

Since the number of actresses active in the years 1670-1755 is too great for this

study to cover completely, I have chosen three sample groups—1670-1675, 1710-1715,

and, 1750-1755—wherein all actresses active, whether at the beginning or end of their

careers, are included. These groups are not statistically random but have been chosen to

give as broad coverage as possible of a time when many changes took place in the

theatre, the drama performed, and the society in which they operated. Chapter Two deals

with the 1670-1675 sample group, Chapter Three with 1710-1715, and Chapter Four with

1750-1755; all are organized in a similar manner.

vi

Each chapter concerned with a sample group examines the professional and

personal lives of four actresses whose careers exemplify four different “types”: a very

brief involvement with the theatre and little or nothing known about the actress’s

personal life; a career spanning a number of years where there is some detail on

professional activity but little on personal life; a longer career where information on both

professional and personal lives is available, but the actress in question remained minor; a

long career with professional and personal information extant, where the actress became

one the leading players of her day. For each actress all extant information is examined

both in the context of her individual career and how that career compares with, and

relates to, those of others in the same sample group.

The final chapter draws together the material from the three sample groups and

discusses the patterns that have emerged from the data regarding the actresses’

professional, and personal, lives. An important part of this study is the consideration of

how the professional, and personal, overlap and interweave—previous works on

eighteenth century actresses have tended to focus on one aspect or the other. I contend

that, only through a detailed examination of all professional and personal extant

information, can conclusions be drawn about the development of acting as a profession

for women in the long eighteenth century.

vii

Acknowledgements

A dissertation is rarely the product of individual effort and my work is certainly

no exception. I want to thank all the people who have helped me throughout this long

process.

My advisors Robert D. Hume and Clement C. Hawes have provided advice and

guidance above and beyond the call of duty—my thanks to them for plowing through

endless drafts of the “weekly pages” which have, indeed, finally become this dissertation.

Thank you also to my committee, John Harwood, Laura Knoppers, and Philip Jenkins,

for their help and support.

Many and heartfelt thanks go to all my friends, on both sides of the Atlantic, for

their constant encouragement, sense of humor, and willingness to listen—at all hours of

the day and night.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to my mother, Catherine Martin, and to

the memory of my late father, Patrick Ormond Martin, both of whom have always

encouraged me to take the more interesting road.

1

CHAPTER 1: The Profession of ‘Actress’ and the Potentialities of Prosopography

When the London theatres re-opened after the restoration of the monarchy in

1660, actresses appeared on the public English stage for the first time. At first these

women were a novelty, something new and scandalous to attract public attention to

theatres that had been officially closed during the interregnum. However, within a short

space of time, as the public grew to expect women on the London stage, women playing

women’s roles became not only desirable but essential to theatrical operations. The aim

of this study is to examine this new profession for women in the long eighteenth-century

and to analyze the personal and professional patterns that emerge from consideration of

the data gathered.

Actresses in the long eighteenth-century: existing scholarship.

While a certain amount of scholarly attention has been directed towards the question of

why women became acceptable on stage in the Restoration era and a number of

individual biographies have been written about the leading actresses, no one has yet

attempted to pull together the collective experiences of these first female actors. In the

past, the fragmentary nature of extant records combined with the large number of

individuals involved would have made such a study a very daunting task.

Contemporary eighteenth-century biographies of actresses such as Ann Oldfield

tend to be sensationalist in nature and mercenary in aim— several accounts were rushed

into print at the time of her death to capitalize on public interest. More recent works

either concentrate on a single actress, for example Mary Nash’s The Provok’d Wife

2

(1977)1, a study of the actress Susannah Cibber, or look at a group of leading performers,

Elizabeth Howe’s The first English actresses (1992) and Gilli Bush-Bailey’s Treading

the Bawds (2006)2.

The studies which have been done on the role of the actress in Restoration and

eighteenth-century theatre have been few in number, highly selective in their choice of

material, and, especially with the older works, given to sweeping generalizations rather

than detailed analysis. In the twentieth century, interest in the first females on the British

stage seems to occur sporadically, with a number of works appearing in the late 1920s

and early 1930s.3 These works tend to be conversational in tone, imparting to the reader

long forgotten tidbits of gossip and rumour, with little, if any signs of the academic rigour

demanded today. For example, Rosamond Gilder, in 1931, states that

The actresses [of the Restoration] were particularly difficult to control.

They were forever dashing off on private business, handing over their parts

to some more stolid sister who at the moment had no lover to divert her from

her duties.4

While this pronouncement may or may not be true, Gilder offers no definite evidence to

support her claim. Her project was very ambitious, probably overly so, as it attempted to

trace the ancestry of women on the stage from the classical Greek and Roman eras

through to their emergence on the stages of continental Europe and then to England. Her

1 Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977. 2 Elizabeth Howe The first English actresses: Women and drama 1660-1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Gilli Bush-Bailey Treading the Bawds: Actresses and playwrights on the Late-Stuart stage (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006) . 3 For example: Otis Skinner Mad Folk of the Theatre: Ten Studies in Temperament (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1928); Henry Wysham Lanier The First English Actresses, From the Initial Appearance of Women on the Stage in 1660 till 1700 (New York, The Players Series, 1930); Rosamund Gilder Enter the Actress: The First Women in the Theatre (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931). 4 Gilder p. 147.

3

mission seems to have been, at least in part, to try to reclaim the character of the

Restoration actress— she freely acknowledges that many were “light-hearted and light-

headed” (p. 150) but goes on to describe others who

devoted their whole existence to the theatre, who lived and breathed

and had their being within its bounds, acted an inconceivable number

of parts and brought to their profession a hardy devotion which made

them true mainstays of the stage. (p. 150)

Gilder seems to divide these first actresses into sinners and saints, leaving little room for

any consideration of their actual contribution to the theatrical life of the time. Enter the

Actress, while giving an interesting view some of the concerns of theatre historians in the

1930s, belongs to the “genteel amateur” genre and unfortunately provides little

substantial scholarship from which to build more detailed investigations.

In his A History of English Drama 1660-19005, first volume published in 1923,

Allardyce Nicoll refers to the shady reputations and mercenary nature of many of the

first actresses while grudgingly acknowledging that they may have had some talent:

We have to recognize that some of these women had a true artistic

genius for the stage: but, at the same time, we must be careful not to

assume that they always aided unselfishly in the interpretation of the

works of dramatic art. The majority must have thought more of a fine

gown, or maybe of a coach and pair, than of a fine play. (Vol. 1, p. 72)

Nicoll does not find it necessary to describe the actors of the Restoration in such terms,

Thomas Betterton, Michael Mohun, Charles Hart, are all discussed only in terms of the

roles which they played and the acting styles which they adopted; no mention is made of 5 6 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923 - 1959.

4

their possible personal motivations or reasons for their choice of career. Although his

primary focus was the drama, Nicoll does also include sections in each volume on

theatrical matters—the theatre space, scenery, audience composition, actors and

actresses—but given the large scope of the project, these tend to be brief notes with the

aim of helping the reader gain greater insight into the types of drama under discussion,

rather than a comprehensive account of theatrical business of the era. With regard to the

sections devoted to actors and actresses, no mention is made of any changes in conditions

or practices, other than those of acting styles and how they related to the plays being

performed.

More recently, scholarly interest in actresses of the long eighteenth-century has

been sporadic, with only two full books devoted to the subject — John Harold Wilson’s

All the King’s Ladies: Actresses of the Restoration (1958)6 and Elizabeth Howe’s The

first English actresses— both of which deal primarily with the Restoration and late

seventeenth-century. No recent works have considered the actual eighteenth-century, and

none has attempted to trace the development of women’s acting throughout the period.

Wilson states his purpose as “to gather all available information about the actresses … to

consider what kind of women they were, the conditions under which they lived and

worked, their behavior on stage and off, and finally, the effect they had on late

seventeenth-century drama.”7 To achieve this, his method is to provide five general

chapters (Enter the Actress; Behind the Scenes; On Stage; In Petticoats and Breeches;

and The Actress and the Play), followed by an eighty-three page appendix which lists

alphabetically, and provides as much information as possible on, the actresses of the

6 Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. 7 Preface p. viii.

5

London stage from 1660 to 1689. Given that Wilson was working before the publication

of either The London Stage 1660-18008 or A Biographical Dictionary of Actors,

Actresses, Musicians, Dancers etc. in London 1660-18009 he does well to have achieved

some of his goals. However, the value judgments that are implied in the preface by

Wilson’s concern for his actresses “behavior” continue throughout his analysis in the

text. In the fifth chapter, when evaluating the possible influence of actresses on the plays

being written, he concludes that “Regrettably, we must add, their influence was not

always good, morally or dramatically.” (p. 92) Such comments seem impressionistic at

best, and there seems little to gain in moralizing about the sex lives of actresses.

When reading one of Wilson’s general chapters, such as “The Actress and the

Play,”one finds quite a lot of detail on leading performers but little if any sense of how all

the performers within a given company operated as a whole. He discusses the pairing of

actresses that took place, beginning with Rebecca Marshall and Elizabeth Boutel in the

Kings Company of 1666—two physically contrasting actresses who played villainess and

ingénue respectively, with great success in a number of different plays—and

demonstrates how this tradition continued with such notable actresses as Elizabeth Barry

and Anne Bracegirdle. While it would be impossible to consider each female performer

in detail, given both lack of primary information and constraints of length, Wilson makes

no attempt to link the theatrical world of the stars to that of the foot soldiers. His entry on

the minor actress Mrs. Norton reads:

NORTON, MRS. (Duke’s Company, 1662-70). Mrs. Norton is not mentioned

8 11 vols. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1960-8. 9 16 vols. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973-93.

6

by Downes, yet according to Pepys (December 27, 1662) she was the “fine

wench” who replaced Mrs. Davenport as Roxalana in The Siege of Rhodes

and played the role “rather better in all respects for person, voice and

judgment than the first Roxalana.” Since Mrs. Davenport left the stage

in January, 1662, and Pepys first saw Mrs. Norton on December 1, 1662,

she must have joined the company at some time between those dates.

Her name appears in no dramatis personae, yet she remained a

member of the company for eight years. On July 2, 1666, Pepys met her

at Peg Pen’s house and described her as “a fine woman, indifferent

handsome, good body and hand, and good mien, and pretends to sing, but

do it not excellently.” In 1670 she left the company under unpleasant

circumstances. On December 5, 1670, the Lord Chamberlain issued a

warrant to “take into Custody the body of Mrs Norton late one of his

Maties Comoedians & to bring her before mee to answer unto such

things as shall be then & there objected agt her” (LC 5, 188, p. 61).10

This entry gives most of what is known about Mrs. Norton; all the Biographical

Dictionary has to add is the fact that she became a member of the King’s Company at

Bridges Street in the 1669-70 season, and the suggestion that her Christian name may

have been Ruth—based on a petition by one Ruth Norton against her husband Luke on 28

October 1671. Therefore it is neither the quality nor the quantity of the information

provided by Wilson with which I wish to take issue, but rather the manner in which he

organized his material and dealt with his subject matter. His five chapters are a mixture of

fact and historical gossip; we gain a certain sense of how the principal actresses fitted in 10 All the King’s Ladies pp. 175-176.

7

with the theatrical scene of the time but no real impression of how a theatrical company

worked. Wilson does not, for example, try to account for the rise of certain actresses,

consider the importance to a performer of owning a role or look at how new roles were

apportioned. While the appendix of actresses was the only one of its kind at the time and

thus very useful for readers, it would perhaps have been more appropriate, given

Wilson’s stated aims at the beginning of the book, had he instead tried to work some of

the lesser-known actresses in to his overall picture. The information Wilson gathered

was as accurate as could be at the time but he makes little or no attempt to take the next

step and construct some form of argument with or develop an analysis of that which he

has collated.

Writing thirty-four years after Wilson, Howe acknowledges his “pioneering study

. . . a useful and informative book which nevertheless seem out of date in the light of

more recent research of the period and its theatre” (p. x). She points to the interesting

absence of detailed and separate “critical evaluation” on the influence early actresses had

on both individual plays and the general style of popular drama being written at the time.

Howe outlines two strands of enquiry for her work (1) to look at the consequences of the

introduction of women to the English stage for the drama of the period and (2) to study

the “individual influences” which a number of the leading female players had, through

plays that were written for them.11 Howe’s individual chapters are a mixture of general

information and theorizing on the role of women in changing drama, combined with

individual case studies:

1. The arrival of the actress (Why actresses in 1660?; The new professionals

and their status; The actress as prostitute) 11 Preface p. x.

8

2. Sex and violence (The actress and her body in tragedy; Rape; Sexual

rhetoric; Venice Preserved; Comic objects of desire; Breeches roles; The

actress and comic change)

3. The actress, the dramatist and comedy (Nell Gwyn and the creation of the

gay couple; Comic heroines 1670-8; Elizabeth Currer as whore 1675-9;

Elizabeth Barry as comedienne 1676-81; Susannah Mountfort and Anne

Bracegirdle)

4. Life overwhelming fiction (Prologues and epilogues; The relation between

actress, persona and stage roles: Anne Bracegirdle, Elizabeth Currer, the

actress in general)

5. Elizabeth Barry and the development of Restoration tragedy (The

actresses and the decline of heroic drama 1670-80; Thomas Otway and

Elizabeth Barry; Elizabeth Barry and ‘she-tragedy’; Elizabeth Barry and

Rowe’s The Fair Penitent)

6. The actress as dramatic prostitute (The Revenge and Elizabeth Barry;

Elizabeth Barry and Aphra Behn 1681-2; The Barry cast-mistress 1690-

1700)

7. The angel and the she-devil (Angels and devils 1660-5; The impact of

Rebecca Marshall and Elizabeth Boutell; The Barry-Bracegirdle

partnership 1689-1700; Female pairing in comedy; Congreve’s use of

Barry and Bracegirdle)

8. Conclusion: the achievement of the first English actresses

9

As can be deduced from these chapter headings, as well as Howe’s stated aim, her central

focus is on the connection between the drama of the Restoration period and its actresses,

rather than on actresses as part of a theatre history. Some chapters are more cohesive

than others, for example: Chapter 2 – Sex and Violence - has a rather random series of

subheadings which to a certain extent distract and detract from the points which are being

made. Howe also tends to concentrate on particular individuals, such as Elizabeth

Barry—details of whose life and career form the backbone of four of the eight chapters—

while this is understandable, since Barry is one of the early actresses about whom we

have a considerable amount of information, it does provide a very one-sided view of

acting as a career for women in the late seventeenth-century.

The general conclusions at which Howe arrives are that actresses were

commercially very successful for their theatres, though less well paid than their male

counterparts; they were exploited sexually on and off stage; no actress ever turned to

playwriting whereas many actors did; though Restoration comedy may appear to display

equality between the sexes, it actually supported the gender norms and stereotypes of the

time; the presence of women on the stage appears to have encouraged writers of tragedy

to provide ever more lurid examples of physical female suffering. As Howe phrases it

“The legacy of the first English actresses to drama, to theatre and to their own sex is a

mixed one.”12

As well as the chapters described, Howe also provides two useful appendices:

“Major actresses and their roles in new plays,” and “Plays in which Barry and

Bracegirdle appeared together.” In the first of these she gives the year of first

performance, the dramatist, the role, and the type (young girl, wife, villainess etc.); 12 The first English actresses p. 176.

10

however, what is not indicated is how long these roles remained in an individual’s

possession. This would have provided readers with a much more valid sense of an

actress’s career path and could also have given a sense of the possible connections

between performers—if a leading actress did surrender a part, to whom was it allocated?

Also, probably because of given restraints on time and page numbers, Howe does not

give a complete list of roles performed for any actress and while the list of new roles does

give a sense of the style of parts played it is only a portion of the whole picture.

What both Wilson and Howe fail to do is to provide any real sense of how acting

as a career choice affected all the women involved, as a group; they look at the major

players and the influence, if any, which these women exercised over their working

conditions. While this is understandable given the lack of detailed source material for

many seventeenth and early eighteenth-century actresses, I consider that it is possible to

give an account of acting as a profession for women in the long eighteenth-century by

using methodologies other than those adopted by either Wilson or Howe.

Covering similar territory to Howe but with a different emphasis is Bush-Bailey’s

Treading the Bawds (2006) which looks at the inter-relationship between leading

actresses and female playwrights at the end of the seventeenth century. Her focus is on

the “star” players, particularly Elizabeth Barry and Anne Bracegirdle, and the power

which they wielded both as actresses and co-managers of the Lincoln’s Inn Fields

company with Thomas Betterton. Given the direction that Bush-Bailey has chosen for

this study, a consideration of the lower ranks of actresses is not strictly necessary but in

her desire to prove that the theatre of the time was not completely male dominated, she

11

does ignore the experiences of the vast majority of women involved in the acting

profession.

Two other recent publications include actresses from the long eighteenth century

as part of a wider history of women on the stage. Kirsten Pullen’s Actresses and Whores:

On Stage and in Society (2005) looks at actresses from the eighteenth to twentieth

centuries in the context of the links between performance and prostitution.13 For the

chapter on “Betty Boutell”, she argues that “Within the ideology of rake sexuality,

women are aggressively constructed as objects available for pleasure” (p.29), but fails,

for example, to take into account that the audience was not composed entirely of rakes, or

indeed, of men. Pullen’s concern is with the sexuality of the actresses and her

understanding of how that sexuality was perceived by the audience; she does not attempt

to make any evaluation of acting as a profession for women either in the context of the

individual actresses, or over the time periods covered.

Edited by Maggie Gale and John Stokes, The Cambridge Companion to the

Actress (2007) is a collection of sixteen essays which “pursues the professional actress

across the centuries and across two continents.”(p.3).14 The structure of a Companion

allows for broad coverage of the topic of “the actress” but at the same time its authors are

necessarily bound by the format—the essays are approximately twenty pages in length

and are quite general in nature. The two essays which cover the Restoration and the

eighteenth century—Gilli Bush-Bailey’s “Revolution, legislation and autonomy” and

Elizabeth Eger’s “Spectacle, intellect and authority: the actress in the eighteenth

13 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 14 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

12

century”—both provide an introduction to the subject that is for a general, rather than a

specialized, audience.

A very different approach to the study of the acting profession is taken by G. E.

Bentley in The Profession of Player in Shakespeare’s Time (1984).15 His stated intention

is to “help to indicate the usual conduct of the Elizabethan playwrights and their

employers…” (p. x) and thus to correct many incorrect assumptions that studies of

individual playwrights and their works frequently make about conditions of performance.

Bentley deliberately chooses the term ‘player’ over that of ‘actor’ based on extant records

such as parish registers, diaries, and the records from the office of the Master of the

Revels; he clearly states in the preface that he does not seek to collect together such

contemporary records as are available but rather to offer an interpretation of the

documents he has found. Bentley organizes his work into three sections

first the relations between the player and his company; then the

three components of all adult companies—sharers, hired men, and

apprentices; then three aspects of the players’ activities—managing,

touring, and casting; and then an attempt to draw some of the material

together in a summarizing statement. (p. xiii)

The sources which he has available to him are even more sporadic than those available

for the eighteenth-century. Therefore while Bentley is in essence trying to categorize

acting as a profession, a lack of specific evidence about a substantial number of

individual actors makes treatment of them impossible in group-biographical terms. There

is, however, extant and reliable information for certain very well-known players, such as

Edward Alleyn, who left large estates, detailed wills and charitable bequests—but these 15 Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

13

are very much the exception rather than the rule. Thus Bentley’s work concentrates on

setting the background conditions for performance in the time of Shakespeare as opposed

to considering the minutiae of performers’ lives and career paths.

In contrast, Tracy C. Davis in Actresses as Working Women: Their Social

Identity in Victorian Culture (1991)16 and The Economics of the British Stage, 1800-1914

(2000)17 provides a very detailed and exacting analysis of women acting in the

nineteenth-century. One of the principal advantages of working in this century is the

advent of the census, introduced in Britain in 1841; another is the existence of more

complete records for theatres and companies. Though analysis of sources for the

eighteenth-century should provide a view of the acting profession for women, without

census reports it is impossible to place this in the larger context of women’s work during

that period. Although Davis’s sources cannot be replicated, her methods and approach to

the topic are of interest, particularly the manner in which she chose to tackle her central

question— how does women’s work on the stage relate to their social existence off it?18

Davis does not consider personal and professional lives to be separate entities and

therefore cannot see how one can be studied without the other, a point with which I agree

wholeheartedly. She chooses to conduct her study by applying different methodologies

to the same central questions. Using first the perspective of social and labor history, then

the historical demography of the acting profession, followed by an analysis of the

interconnections between economic circumstances and social consequences for women in

the nineteenth-century workplace, Davis constructs a detailed picture of the social and

economic lives of women who worked as actresses during this period. The depth of the

16 London: Routledge, 1991. 17 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 18 Introduction to Actresses as Working Women p. xi.

14

information available for the nineteenth-century allows for such an approach whereas that

available for the eighteenth does not.

A different approach is taken by Deborah Rohr in The Careers of British

Musicians, 1750-1850: A Profession of Artisans19, a study which bridges the eighteenth

and nineteenth centuries and looks at a related profession, that of musician. She attempts

to reconstruct the position which professional musicians held in society and explore the

links which bound the members of this particular profession together. The methodology

which Rohr devises for this work draws on a number of sources: what she describes as

her “gently Marxist assumption” that the lives of the musicians are closely interwoven

with the life of the music of the period; developments in the history of the transmission of

social ideas; and the “evolution of gender studies and feminist history” which have

provided new perspectives for studies in social history.20

Rohr considers that professional musicians in Britain in this period “occupied a

complex and ambiguous social status that did not fit neatly into existing social

categories” (p. 1). Furthermore, her attempts to place musicians in a wider social context

led her away from a consideration of individual lives towards “a study of career patterns

and perceptions” (p. 2). Rohr organizes her materials into ten chapters—the first two and

the last dealing with the social and professional perceptions of musicians by others and

themselves, including detailed information on their family backgrounds where available;

chapter three looks at the issue of patronage; chapter four considers musical education;

chapters five to eight divide the profession into church musicians, secular musicians

(singers and instrumentalists), teachers and composers; chapter nine deals with the varied

19 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 20 Introduction p. 4.

15

financial repercussions of life as a professional musician. The sources which she uses are

a combination of the records of such groups as the Royal Society of Musicians and the

Royal Academy of Music, and early editions of dictionaries such as Sir George Grove’s

Dictionary of Music and Musicians.21 These, and others, Rohr used to create a

biographical catalogue of “almost 6,600 professional musicians who worked between

1750 and 1850 in all branches and levels of musical activity” (p. 2) which she then uses

as her statistical basis. Her aim with this book is to provide as detailed and

comprehensive an account as possible by considering (1) “The social and economic

conditions of musical careers” (p. 4) with all there inherent challenges and (2) “the

complex networks of values and perceptions that were interwoven with musical

experience” (p. 4). To this end she determines that

A synthesis of approaches to both these groups of issues is essential if

we are to understand musicians who focused simultaneously on

sometimes desperate economic struggles, complex social interactions,

and the creation and production of music. We need to take all these

elements into account in order to reconstruct the mentalitiés of

professional musical life. (p. 4)

Much the same could be said for the professional actor, and as with the records for actors,

the extant information increases greatly as one moves into the nineteenth century; almost

all the tables in the book deal with material collated from post-1800 sources. For

example, in chapter nine, “The fortunes of musicians,” Rohr looks at the catalogue of the

Royal Society of Musicians; while this organization was founded in 1738, its records

become more detailed towards the end of the eighteenth-century, allowing the creation of 21 London: 1879.

16

tables such as Table 20, page 158, which shows the RSM premiums for the year 1822.

The information is significant as premiums paid by musicians were dictated by age,

therefore this information allows Rohr to display the age range of professional musicians

active during this period. The existence of financial details over a period of time also

permits such statements as

The amounts earned by musicians in a single year are less useful in

assessing the economic realities of their careers than their lifetime

earnings. Indeed, a long-term view of musicians earnings makes it

clear that their chances of avoiding destitution were very slim . . . . (p. 157)

When dealing with actresses of the eighteenth-century no such generalizations are

possible as we do not have a consistent record of what actresses were paid over the length

of their careers. Thus while some of Rohr’s approach is of interest when considering

actresses of the long eighteenth-century, as with Davis, the difference in both quantity

and quality of sources makes a huge impact on what is possible.

Questions and problems

Previous studies of actresses in the long eighteenth-century have failed to offer

any comprehensive view of the profession as a whole; the aim of this dissertation is to

analyze the personal and professional patterns that emerge from the consideration of such

questions as the following:

• How were these women recruited to this new form of employment?

• Were their family backgrounds an influence?

17

• Did actresses marry, and have families?

• As actresses became the norm and not a novelty, did their motivating

factors change?

• How did different careers paths develop for different women?

• How long did their careers last?

• Were those who specialized in a particular type of role more, or less,

successful than those who did not?

• Were conditions for actresses the same, or different, in the various

companies?

• Did their working conditions differ from those of actors, and if so, how?

• What impact did individual actresses have on the writing and production

of plays?

• What changes took place in the acting profession as the long eighteenth-

century progressed?

• What estates did actresses leave?

I propose to answer these and related questions by examining the biographical and

professional information available for a large and varied sample of actresses from 1670-

1755, and therefore developing as detailed a picture as is possible from archival evidence

of how acting as a profession for women expanded and developed during this time

period. This composite or collective biography will include looking at the details of how

the different companies operated and the place which the actresses occupied in the

theatrical hierarchies which developed. This dissertation will differ from previous works

on actresses of the eighteenth-century as it will consider not only the major actresses of

18

the period, but also the minor company members, and will try to give as broad a view of

acting careers as extant records will allow.

To look at what may be gleaned about a particular individual, we can set out what

is known about any actress from a starting point of her Biographical Dictionary entry.

Take for example Charlotte Butler, who was active on the stage from 1673-93 as actress,

singer and dancer:

Family – supposedly daughter of “a decay’d knight”

Company – Duke’s

First recorded performance – late February 1680 at Dorset Gardens

First role – Serina in The Orphan, also spoke the epilogue.

Other known roles – Marinda in The Revenge

Lucretia in The Atheist

Sophia in The Fortune Hunters

Flavia in The Libertine

Philadelphia in Bury Fair

Statilia in The Treacherous Brothers, plus the epilogue

Airy in The English Friar

Levia in The Amorous Bigot, plus the prologue

Belinda in The Man of Mode

Constantia in The Chances.

Singing assignments – in Dioclesian

Amphitryon

Sir Anthony Love

19

The Prophetess

King Arthur

The Wives’ Excuse

Cleomenes

The Fairy Queen.

Known salaries – 1693/4 40s per week

Change in company – moved to Smock Alley, Dublin, in 1694 after request for

salary increase to 50s per week was rejected by the Duke’s company

management.

Last performance – she never returned to the London stage and the details of her

performances in Dublin are lost.

Contemporary comment – yes, unflattering from a number of anonymous satires;

praise from Cibber for her acting and from Richard North for her musical ability.

Physical appearance- brunette, dark eyes, considered very handsome.

As can be seen from this summary of available information, there is not enough data here

upon which to base any general comments about actresses in the late seventeenth-

century. We cannot say that because Butler’s request for a salary increase was denied

that others were also; neither can we state that those who left the London stage invariably

went to Smock Alley never to return. Many others may have been refused increases and

may have gone to Dublin, but evidence from one individual is not enough to suggest a

particular practice or even suggest a trend. However, when a number of such accounts

are considered together, then some overall picture should begin to emerge.

20

Prosopography

In The Past and the Present Revisited (1987)22 Lawrence Stone defines

prosopography as

the investigation of the common background characteristics of a group of

actors in history by means of a collective study of their lives. The method

employed is to establish a universe to be studied, and then to ask a set of uniform

questions – about birth and death, marriage and family, social origins and

inherited economic position, place of residence, education, amount and source of

personal wealth, occupation, religion, experience of office, and so on. (p. 45)

Stone discusses the roots of such studies and their uses in the field of historical research,

differentiating between what he terms (1) the elitist school, concerned with small groups

of subjects in great detail and (2) the mass school, which deals with large numbers of

subjects for whom there is little detail available (p. 46). Historians, of both schools, have

been using the methods of prosopography since the 1920s but in the last twenty years

most scholars appear to have used the ‘mass school’ approach, possibly because the

manipulation of large amounts of data has become increasingly feasible with advancing

computer technology. A reflection of the popularity of prosopography among historians

can be seen in the establishment of a journal, Medieval Prosopography in the early

1980s.

A large number of studies have been carried out in areas where there is a lot of

basic statistical information available but not much detail on particular individuals. For

22 London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1987.

21

example Keats-Rohan’s work on the Domesday Book,23 her collection of essays on the

prosopography of Britain and France in the tenth to twelfth centuries,24 and a number of

studies on the classical world25 illustrate this approach. In her essay “’Un vassal sans

histoire?: Count Hugh II (c. 940/955-992) and the Origins of Angevin Overlordship in

Maine” Keats-Rohan opens with the statement:

The analysis of Prosopographical data is perhaps at its most useful

when it provides an insight into the dynamics of a society by permitting

us to trace the way that relationships were formed, developed and

ultimately changed. 26

She then proceeds to disentangle an interlocking, and sometimes contradictory, mass of

charters, contemporary personal accounts, and contemporary histories, saying that while

little is known of the individual counts of Maine there exists enough information to piece

together an overview within the general context of French and British history, when all

these different accounts are correlated. Keats-Rohan concludes that:

None of the disparate texts we have examined here tells a complete

or comprehensible story on its own . . . the details we have isolated from

these texts do not make much sense in their original contexts; once assembled and

pieced together, they yield a cogent story within a fairly clear chronological

framework.27

23 KSB Keats-Rohan Domesday people: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents, 1066-1166 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1999). 24 Ibid Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The prosopography of Britain and France from the tenth to the twelfth century (Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1997). 25 For example: Debra Nails The People of Plato: a prosopography of Plato and other Socratics (Indianapolis: Hackett Publications, 2002); Catherine Custner Prosopography of Roman Epicureans from the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1988); AHM Jones The prosopography of the later Roman Empire 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971-1992). 26 Family Trees and the Roots of Politics essay 10, p. 189.

22

The technique of prosopography does not appear to have been utilized in the

fields of English literature or theatrical history; studies in these areas have tended to

concentrate on individual authors, theatres, or specific themes within the literature of a

given period. For any prosopographical study two elements have to be in place, (1)

sufficient data to enable a detailed study that can produce credible results, and (2) a

system or set of questions developed to extract the information required from the data

available. As with any form of analysis, the results obtained can only be as relevant as the

questions asked. The importance of choosing the right questions, and operating on as

broad a scale as possible, can be seen in the work of Lewis Namier, the political historian

often considered to be the “father” of prosopography. As Linda Colley28 points out,

Namier’s interest in psychoanalysis and his belief in the importance of personal

correspondence led him to ignore more public sources such as newspaper articles and

pamphlets, which were often very useful indicators not only of trends in opinion but also

areas of potential controversy. By omitting such sources, Namier’s work,29 although still

considered groundbreaking for its time, is now viewed in many instances as being

seriously flawed. By devising a set of questions that cover both personal and

professional aspects of actresses’ lives I hope to avoid such possible pitfalls.

His determination to follow a pre-set path led to his ignoring such factors as

religion, which in the study of allegiances formed in the British House of Commons in

the Georgian era has since proved to be crucial to the networks and interconnections

27 Ibid p. 208. 28 Lewis Namier (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1989) Chapter 2. 29 Including The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (1929) and England in the Age of the American Revolution (1930).

23

which developed. In England in the Age of the American Revolution when looking at the

groups and factions of the British parliament of 1761 Namier says that:

There were no parties or groups with an exclusive, registered

membership . . . each Member was bound by different, and often

conflicting, loyalties, and was directed by various, frequently

contrary, interests . . . (p. 203)

That picture is one of many small, loosely knitted, shifting

groups of which hardly any is of a uniform character, but most

show some predominant characteristic, and can be described accordingly

as bearing an oligarchic, territorial, professional, political, or a family

character. (p.206)

While Namier investigates certain aspects in great detail, his didactic style allows no

room for possibilities other than those he has included.

In a more recent work that utilizes the technique of prosopography, Ralph W.

Mathiesen working on the Roman world of Late Antiquity (c. A.D. 260-640)30 stresses

the fact that the prosopographer needs

1) to include as much relevant information as possible about each person

and, at the same time, 2) to store the data in a structured format which allows for

rapid access and quantitative analysis. (p. 258)

Although I agree that the data collected needs to be easily accessible, I do not assume

that quantitative analysis should always be the primary goal. Mathiesen’s collection of

essays focuses primarily on political and military appointments, where in many instances

he has only the names of the individuals involved with perhaps some indication of 30 Studies in the History, Literature and Society of Late Antiquity (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1991).

24

kinship; therefore his use of prosopography is necessarily slanted towards the

quantitative. The aim of my study is not simply to provide lists of tables showing, for

example, numbers of actresses employed over the long eighteenth-century by different

companies, but rather to use such data to form as comprehensive a picture as possible of

the lives and working conditions of actresses in this period. To this end a certain amount

of subjective analysis will be necessary, particularly when working with the varieties of

sources that are extant for the eighteenth-century, including diaries, poems, and memoirs,

as well as the more easily quantified theatrical records and cast lists.

I envisage my work taking place in a mid-point between the schools identified by

Stone, since the records available are extensive but vary wildly in individual detail. I

want to avoid becoming part of the elitist school since not only do most of the existing

works on eighteenth-century actresses concentrate on those women who reached the top

of their profession, but I believe that any analysis of the major figures cannot and will not

produce an accurate synopsis of the profession as a whole. The mass-school approach is

not entirely appropriate for this study either as it focuses on large populations for whom

there is very little data across the board— for some actresses we have a great deal of

information, both professional and personal, while for others we know little but their

names and a few of the roles which they performed. Also, there is no chronological

progression in the amount of information available: that is, although theatre records

generally become more detailed as the long eighteenth-century progresses, there are still

large numbers of obscure actresses from the later period about whom we know very little.

Thus this study needs to accommodate the differing levels of information available and I

do not wish to confine the possibilities by electing to conform to one particular school of

25

thought or another. The implications of the results of this study, promise to provide a

broad impact with the potential to alter received narratives of theatre history.

26

Chapter 2: Case Studies – Sample 1 1670-1675

In order to illustrate the different types of career paths and amounts of extant

information on the actresses working during this time period, I am including a case study

for each of the following: Susanah Elliott (1671-1673); Margaret Rutter (1661-1680);

Elinor Leigh (1670-1707); Elizabeth Barry (1675-1710).31 These four actresses provide

examples of the differing types of career which can be found during this period:

1. A very brief involvement with the theatre and little

or nothing known about the actress’s personal life.

2. A career spanning a number of years where there is some

detail on professional activity but little on personal life.

3. A longer career where information on both professional

and personal lives is available, but the actress in question

remained minor.

4. A long career with professional and personal information

extant, where the actress became one the leading players

of her day.

These different career paths illustrate the variety of ways in which actresses interacted

with the theatre—for some, being a professional actress was no more or less than a job;

when something, or someone, better became available they moved on. For others, acting

became a lifelong career which brought a modicum of success and modest, though

reasonably secure, financial returns. For a few, the stage was where they gained fame

and fortune—whether or not either of these lasted varied considerably from actress to

31 The dates given indicate beginning and end of career.

27

actress. The four actresses included in this case study not only provide examples of these

types of career but also act as illustrations of the sort, and amount, of information

available for study.

Table 1. All actresses active during the years 1670-1675. Note: The career lengths given here have been rounded up to the nearest year.

Career length Date of first Date of last

(in years) performance performance Barry, Elizabeth 35 1675 1710 Betterton, Mary 34 1660 1694 Boutel, Elizabeth 32 1664 1696 Burroughs, Mrs 1 1672 1673 Butler, Charlotte 12 1680 1692 Cartwright, Mrs 1 1671 1671 Clough, Mrs 3 1670 1673 Corbett, Mary 7 1675 1682 Corey, Katherine 32 1660 1692 Cox, Elizabeth (Betty) 10 1671 1681 Coysh, Mrs John 11 1668 1679 Currer, Elizabeth 15 1675 1690 Eastland, Mrs 10 1661 1671 Elliot, Susanah 2 1671 1673 Farley, Elizabeth 18 1660 1678 Ford, Mrs 1 1671 1671 Gwyn, Eleanor 7 1664 1671 James, Elizabeth 7 1669 1676 Jennings, Mrs 9 1662 1671 Johnson, Mrs 3 1670 1673 Knapper, Mrs 3 1674 1677 Knepp, Mary 15 1664 1679 Lee, Mary 15 1670 1685 Leigh, Elinor 37 1670 1707 Lilburne, Mrs 1 1670 1670 Long, Jane 12 1661 1673

28

Mackarel, Betty 30 1674 1704 Marshall, Rebecca 17 1660 1677 Norris, Mrs 22 1662 1684 Norton, Mrs 8 1662 1670 Osborn, Margaret 23 1671 1694 Pratt, Mrs 21 1671 1692 Rathbun, Jane 1 1671 1672 Reeves, Anne 5 1670 1675 Rutter, Margaret 19 1661 1680 Shadwell, Anne 26 1661 1687 Slade, Elizabeth 7 1668 1675 Spencer, Mrs 2 1673 1675 Twyford, Mrs Timothy 13 1676 1689 Uphill, Susanna 6 1669 1675 Wright, Mrs 1 1670 1670 Wyatt, Mrs 1 1675 1675

SUSANAH ELLIOTT

Very little is known of Mrs. Elliott’s career with the King’s Company, and

nothing of her personal circumstances has survived. The Biographical Dictionary cites a

warrant from the Lord Chamberlain re-admitting her to the company in March 1673—she

had been on the company lists for 1671 and 167232—but no explanation is given either

for her dismissal or her re-admittance.

There are no roles listed for Susanah Elliott so presumably she had such minor

parts that they did not merit mention in the cast lists. Although the extant lists for the late

seventeenth-century are not comprehensive, if Mrs. Elliott had moved up the ranks there

would have been some mention of her over the course of the three years she seems to

32 As given by The London Stage.

29

have been active. She disappears from the King’s Company lists after 1673 and does not

appear again.

Of the thirteen minor actresses with the company during this period, three acted

for one season only, and excepting Mrs. Elliott, the rest had careers which lasted from

five to twenty years. The extant information on these actresses varies considerably—for

some we know only the roles that they played; for others more personal information is

available, usually dependant on the connections these actresses had with more well

known figures from inside and outside the theatrical world, and whether or not they were

involved in any legal claims for which records have survived.

MARGARET RUTTER

Also a minor actress with the King’s Company, Mrs. Rutter’s career lasted from

1661 to circa 1680—she is listed as one of “His Majesty’s Weomen Comaedians” in the

company roster from March 26, 166133—and slightly more is known about her career and

personal life than is of Mrs. Elliott’s. We do not know how she came to be one of the first

actresses on the English stage, nor anything of her martial status. As the Biographical

Dictionary points out, her name was quite a common one and it appears in a number of

London parish registers during the period when we know she was working in the city;

thus making impossible any claim that one or other of the entries definitely refers to the

actress Margaret Rutter.

Extant records do however show that she was sued for debt twice, in December of

1667 by John Humphreys for the sum of ₤9 and in July of 1671 by Humphrey Weld for

₤200—a huge sum of money at the time. We do not know the outcome of these actions 33 Document Register item 70.

30

against Mrs. Rutter but the Biographical Dictionary suggests that her absence from the

stage between the 1673/74 season and January 1675 might be because she was being held

in debtors’ prison. Other explanations are of course equally possible: she could have left

the stage because she was being ‘kept’ by some man and returned when the arrangement

ended; she might have become pregnant and had to take some months off; she could have

moved temporarily to Ireland or Scotland—evidence from a promptbook cast list shows

her performing in The Man of Mode in Edinburgh circa 1679/80, and she may have been

there earlier also. However, given the magnitude of the second debt,34 the explanation of

debtors’ prison is at least as plausible as the others.

Of the roles that Margaret Rutter played, we have fourteen reasonably certain

ones. The first mention The London Stage has of her is for the role of Dame Pliant in

Jonson’s The Alchemist on December 16, 1661; the Biographical Dictionary suggests she

may not have played this part until later in her career. However, the role of Dame Pliant

(a meek and malleable young widow) is a secondary one, which acts as a foil to the feisty

and cunning nature of Doll Common. In terms of performance, Dame Pliant is not a

challenging or demanding part— therefore her playing this role early in her career is a

distinct and reasonable possibility.

Mrs. Rutter went on to play a series of ladies and attendants in both new plays and

revivals of works by Beaumont and Fletcher, and Shakespeare; extant cast lists never

show her rising above the heights of Emilia in Othello but nevertheless she developed a

steady line in such roles, both in comedies and in tragedies, that kept her employed on the

34 We have very few surviving salary figures for actors of this period, but Judith Milhous in “United Company Finances, 1682-92” Theatre Research International (1981-82) 46, estimates that for the 1682-3 season the United Company actors’ pay scale went from £19 and 5s to £115and 10s. Given that actresses were paid less and that Mrs. Rutter’s debt was incurred some eleven years previous to these estimates in 1671, a debt of £200 was vast indeed.

31

London stage for nearly twenty years. The roles that we have listed for Margaret Rutter

show that she seems to have settled into a pattern early on in her career of playing either

‘the confidant’ of the leading lady, or ‘the older woman’ who offers advice to the leading

characters. While this pattern could be regarded as showing a performer stuck in a series

of minor roles and thus indicative of a lack of success, it does show an actress who was in

constant employment and one who would have been a necessary part of the company.

Any theatrical company needs a number of flexible and reliable players who know the

repertory and who can be depended upon to learn their lines and perform their roles, in

either tragedy or comedy, without any fuss. Other than her two encounters with the law

over debt, there is nothing in the records to suggest that Margaret Rutter was not one of

these necessary players—if she had been unreliable, the King’s Company would surely

not have continued to employ her steadily over such a long period. Other than the

reference to Mrs. Rutter in the Scottish promptbook list of 1679/80, there is no further

evidence of her acting career, or life, after the autumn season of 1677.

ELINOR LEIGH (née Dixon)

An actress with the Duke’s Company for over thirty years, Elinor Leigh’s career differs

significantly from many of the other minor actresses of her time. Although the details of

her beginnings in the theatre are unclear, the assumption of the Biographical Dictionary

that her father was James Dixon—one of Davenant’s original actors—is logical since a

family connection is one of the most likely answers to the question of how young women

became introduced to the world of the theatre at this time. She acted with the Duke’s

under the name of Mrs. Dixon from September 1670, or possibly a little earlier, until

32

November 1671; married a fellow actor, Anthony Leigh in December of 1671 and

continued to act under her married name until her retirement in 1707.

Elinor Leigh differs from most other actresses of this period in that we know more

about her, primarily because she was married to one of the Duke’s Company’s leading

actors, and also in the way in which her career developed and was sustained. She has

more known absences from the stage than any other actress—which correlate with her

family circumstances. She bore nine children and suffered the loss of her husband, in

1692, and yet her career continued and is woven around these events, as can be seen

below:

Event date Period of absence from stage

1673 birth of Michael May 1673 - October 1676 March 1676 baptism35 of Marmaduke April 1678 baptism of Elinor (died) April 1677 – January 1680 July 1680 baptism of Francis September1681 baptism of Elinor April 1682 - March 168336 July 1684 baptism of Anthony September 1686 baptism of Charlot January 1686 – January 1688 July 1688 baptism of John July 1691 baptism of Anne January 1691 – December 1691 December 1692 death of husband January 1691 – February 1693 The number and duration of Mrs. Leigh’s absences from the stage is very unusual and

demonstrates both her own interest in remaining a professional actress and the Duke’s

Company’s willingness to retain her as such.

35 The dates for Anthony and Elinor Leigh’s children come from various parish registers and therefore refer to baptism rather than birth. Given the rates of infant mortality for the time, and the belief in the importance of infant baptism, the ceremony would most likely have performed within a few days of the child’s birth. 36 This is the one period of absence which does not correspond with a birth or death in the family; as the Biographical Dictionary (9: 227) points out, this was around the time of the unification of the companies; Mrs. Leigh may simply have decided to take a break until the new company had settled down. Alternatively, and probably more likely, is that in the jockeying for position that occurred at the formation of the United Company, she may have had difficulty in getting roles.

33

As the wife of Anthony Leigh, Mrs. Leigh would not have needed to continue

acting for financial reasons—her long absences from the stage alone would seem to

indicate that money was not a consideration; many other actresses had children or

suffered personal losses and were back on stage within a week. Thus the logical answer

as to why she continued her career for over thirty years would seem to be that she

enjoyed the theatre and her work there. Given her husband’s profession, and, if the

Biographical Dictionary is correct, her father’s as well, then the ‘one big family’ factor

also needs to be taken into consideration. Mrs. Leigh’s first roles were in productions

where Mrs. Mary Betterton played the leading female part, and even when Mrs. Betterton

retired from the stage she remained very involved in training and helping the younger

performers. Both the Bettertons seem to have taken a very familial approach to the

Duke’s Company members—including looking after widows of company members.

Records show that Elinor Leigh was receiving a weekly salary of 10s in the period before

her husband’s death and that this was increased to 30s per week after his death in

December 1692. This increase would seem to indicate that the company management

recognized and honored a responsibility towards its long time actors and actresses. How

this related to an actor’s position within the company is not possible to estimate.

Mrs. Leigh’s first role, under her maiden name Dixon, was as an attendant named

Melvissa in Edward Howard’s The Women’s Conquest, 1670; followed by the role of

Orinda, the leading lady’s sister, in Settle’s Cambyses in 1671. This began the

establishment of a career pattern similar to that of Margaret Rutter—playing the role of

friend, confidant, or sister to the leading female in a wide variety of tragedies and

comedies. Over the course of her thirty-three year career Mrs. Leigh’s roles did not

34

change to any noticeable degree; in fact she began to play ‘older’ parts very early in her

career and then simply maintained them. Her absences from the stage do not appear to

have had any effect on the roles she played—she was never demoted to smaller parts on

any of her returns. Of course given the lack of extant records for most minor performers

with whom Mrs. Leigh can be compared, the influence her husband’s position as a

leading actor exerted is not possible to determine; however it cannot have hurt.

ELIZABETH BARRY

Public private life

Both the career and life of Elizabeth Barry differ greatly from those of the three

actresses already considered. In terms of her career path, success, popularity, infamy, and

the amount of extant information available on her, Mrs. Barry is unique for this period.

The Biographical Dictionary refers to her as “the first great English actress”37; she had a

career which spanned thirty-five years and which saw her rise to being the leading actress

with the Duke’s Company, maintain her position on the unification of the two patent

companies and become co-manager with Thomas Betterton when the senior actors left

the United Company and set up at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Although Elizabeth Barry was

second-in-command to Thomas Betterton she never became a sharer in the company; at

this point none of the actor/managers were, so in 1700 the Lord Chamberlain, to help

restore order, gave Betterton (alone) the power to spend up to 2 pounds on immediate

necessities, but decisions still had to be ratified by the sharers.

Unlike the extant records on Mrs. Elliott, Mrs. Rutter and Mrs. Leigh—for whom

we have little personal detail—there appears to be a wealth of information on Mrs. Barry. 37 Biographical Dictionary ( I, 313).

35

The issue when dealing with this information on Elizabeth Barry becomes how to sift ‘the

truth’ from the rumors, gossip and scurrilous verses which surround her. Her original

family circumstances are unclear but she was living under the guardianship of Sir

William Davenant and his wife by 1668, when she would have been approximately ten

years old. Her first recorded performance with the Duke’s Company was in 1675, when

she played the minor role of Draxilla, a maid, in Otway’s Alcibiades.

The story of her stage training, which seems to have made its first appearance in

print in The History of the English Stage (1741)—author uncertain but published by the

infamous Curll—has been recounted in every work which mentions Mrs. Barry,

including the Biographical Dictionary.38 The author of this history states that Mrs. Barry

performed at an earlier date and was so bad that she was sacked; her performance was

seen by John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester, who made a wager with some friends that he

could turn this girl into one of the finest actresses on the stage in six months; he then took

Mrs. Barry to the country where he coached her for the six months and then returned her

to the Duke’s Company a highly polished and accomplished actress. That Mrs. Barry

became Rochester’s mistress sometime around 1675 is not in dispute—a number of his

letters to her survive, and she bore him a daughter in December 1677—however, the

chances that the anecdote about her training is true are not very good. Robert D. Hume

has pointed out that, not only would the Earl of Rochester have lacked the necessary

stage experience to train anyone in voice projection and gesture, but that other records

38 Most recent works, such as Elizabeth Howe’s The first English actresses: Women and drama 1660-1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) p. 114, include Barry’s supposed training as an anecdote which is possible though not provable.

36

concerning him show that he was elsewhere during the period he was supposed to have

been sequestered with Mrs. Barry. 39

Unfortunately, even current scholars fall into this trap—the most recent

biographer of the Earl of Rochester, James William Johnson, repeats the Barry anecdote

as if there were no doubt surrounding its veracity. 40 Johnson asserts that

Just fifteen, pretty but inexperienced, Mistress Barry left the

protection of Lady Davenant for that of Lord Rochester. The gauche

and seemingly untalented girl became a Galatea to his Pygmalion;

during the first months of cohabiting, he coached her in the tricks of acting,

imparting to her the secrets of feminine charm and coquetry he

instinctively knew… By his own playful seductiveness, he showed her

how to win over future audiences. (p. 178)

This statement demonstrates a distressing lack of understanding of the theatrical world

and the skills needed to thrive therein. The Earl of Rochester appears to have been a

theatre-goer but there is a very large gap between being an interested, well-informed

audience member and being a theatre professional. An ability to appreciate a “good”

performance or play is very unlikely to translate suddenly into the ability to teach the

voice projection and inflection, movement, blocking, and gesture needed for the stage.

Acting, at least good acting, whether in the eighteenth-century or today is much more

than a collection of “tricks” and while we have few extant instruction manuals in English

from the period, there are a number from France which demonstrate the complex series of

movements and gestures which were expected, particularly in tragedy.

39 Theatre History Studies, 5 (1985), 16-19. 40 James William Johnson A Profane Wit: The Life of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, 2004), p. 178.

37

Johnson is also making an automatic assumption about Elizabeth Barry’s physical

appearance—she was young and became an actress; therefore she was “pretty.” On the

contrary, all contemporary accounts describe her as not particularly attractive; the

Biographical Dictionary quotes Anthony Aston’s description

She was not handsome, her mouth opening most on the right

side, which she strove to draw t’other way . . . she was middle-

sized and had darkish hair, light eyes, dark eyebrows, and was

indifferent plump . . . (I: 325)

Not even her greatest admirers would have described Elizabeth Barry as ‘pretty’—her

strength lay in her ability to convince an audience with her voice and gestures in spite of

her lack of physical beauty. While there are few contemporary descriptions of actresses,

comment is usual made if they were particularly beautiful; this is never the case with any

remarks about Mrs. Barry—Cibber, describes her in his Apology as

Mrs. Barry, in Characters of Greatness, had a presence of elevated Dignity,

her Mien and Motion superb, and gracefully majestick; her Voice full, clear,

and strong, so that no Violence of Passion could be too much for her.

He continues to praise her abilities in the other emotions but never extols her beauty.

Since Johnson’s work is a biography of Rochester, not Mrs. Barry, one cannot

expect many pages to be devoted to her as an individual. However, to view her only in

terms of Rochester does a disservice not only to Elizabeth Barry and her acting abilities

but also to the profession of which she was a member. Johnson even describes Mrs.

Barry’s great tragic roles in terms of her relationship to Rochester and the child,

38

Elizabeth, that she bore him—he removed their infant daughter from her mother’s care

for a time, and Johnson states

But she never was returned to her mother, who acquired “a scandalous

reputation as a mercenary whore.” Barry’s growth as a tragic actress

was marked after Betty’s loss . . . We can only wonder whether her

former lover saw her in The Orphan and how he reacted when the

mother of his bastard daughter lamented the fate of a love child

born of a doomed and illicit union. (p. 305)41

This ignores several facts: Rochester died when their daughter was only three years old

and she appears to have been returned to Mrs. Barry before that; we do not have an exact

date for Betty’s death, but she as was twelve or thirteen at the time this occurred in 1689-

90 whereas The Orphan, which was the real beginning of Mrs. Barry’s career in tragedy,

premiered in 1680, when her daughter was alive and well. Elizabeth Barry was a well

established actress fifteen years into her career when her child died. While there is no

definite proof as to Rochester’s whereabouts during February 1680, when The Orphan

premiered, this was five months before his death on July 26th 1680, and he had been

seriously ill for some months prior to this. Therefore his attendance at the theatre, even if

he were in London during this time, seems highly unlikely. Johnson’s re-arrangement of

information and the highly dramatic language in which it is expressed might be suitable

for a tragedy to be performed on stage but adds nothing to our understanding of Mrs.

Barry and her role as one of the leading actors of her time.

41 Johnson’s quotation is taken from John Harold Wilson’s Court Satires of the Restoration (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976) pp. 220, 224.

39

The account of Mrs. Barry’s “training” is an example of the type of story or

anecdote which begins with an unreliable source but when often repeated gains

acceptance and eventually becomes treated as fact until someone takes the time to

investigate the account and its circumstances in detail. As with all information for this

period, however, records of individuals and families are scarce and frequently

incomplete—no matter how diligent the scholar, some things are impossible to prove one

way or another; an informed estimate using the available material is all that can ever be

achieved.

While the theatrical records for the late seventeenth-century are not complete, the

extant cast lists for the Duke’s Company do show Mrs. Barry’s progress from her first

minor role to the part which secured for her a reputation as the company’s leading

tragedy actress—Monimia in Otway’s The Orphan. This she first played in 1680, some

five years after her debut and it was a role which was created specifically for her by the

playwright. Thomas Otway had also written the play in which Mrs. Barry first performed

and he continued to write parts tailored to her strengths, not only for artistic reasons but

personal ones also. Most playwrights sensibly wrote plays suited to the members of the

company to which they were directly attached or if they were freelance, tailored their

work to the company they hoped would accept the play for performance. However,

Otway apparently nursed an unrequited passion for Elizabeth Barry for a number of years

as his surviving letters show

“I love you, I dote on you; Desire makes me mad, when I am near you;

and Despair, when I am from you … I lov’d you early…”

“. . . I have languish’d for seven long tedious Years of Desire, jealousy

40

and despairing; yet, every Minute I see you, I still discover something

new and more bewitching . . . Give me a word or two of comfort . . . I cannot

bear a Kind look, and after it a cruel Denial.”42

If genuine, these letters show not only Otway’s crushed feelings and continuing devotion

but also indicate some of the capriciousness which was considered to be part of Mrs.

Barry’s character. The problem with these letters however, is that we cannot say either

that they were definitely written by Thomas Otway, or that they were written to Elizabeth

Barry.

The Biographical Dictionary notes that the letters were not published until 1697,

and then anonymously, and not attributed to Otway until 1713, the year of Mrs. Barry’s

death. However, an edition of 1699 in which these letters are included names Otway not

only on the individual letters but in the title matter—Familiar Letters; Vol 1. Written by

the right honourable John, late Earl of Rochester, to the Honble Henry Savile, Esq; and

other letters, by persons of honour and quality. With letters written by the most

ingenious Mr Thomas Otway, and Mrs. K. Philips. Publish’d from their original copies.

With modern letters by Tho. Cheek, Esq; Mr Dennis, and Mr Brown, London: printed for

Rich, Wellington, at the Lute in St Paul’s Churchyard, 1699. The Biographical

Dictionary does not say by whom the attribution was made nor does it comment on its

reliability. Otway had been dead since 1685, and given the volume, and scurrilous nature,

of items written about Elizabeth Barry she was unlikely to have made any complaint

about these letters, so any attribution issues would not have been contradicted by the

principals supposedly involved. Although modern scholars cannot hope to prove

42 The Biographical Dictionary (1: 316-317) quotes this letter and excerpts from several others.

41

attribution one way or the other, we can examine both the letters themselves and the

possible circumstances surrounding their release into print.

The only letters of Otway’s included in the 1699 volume are the six “Love-

Letters, by Mr. Thomas Otway” which are addressed only “To Madam_________”. In

content they are very general—there is no mention of the theatre or his writing characters

in his plays for her at which she could excel. The author uses highly emotional language

such as

Could I see you without Passion, or be absent from you without Pain

I need not beg your Pardon for this Renewing my Vows, that I love

you more than Health, or any Happiness here

(Letter 4)

and several times rebukes his beloved for ignoring him and favoring others

But when You became anothers, I must confess, that I did then rebel,

(Letter 1)

I have consulted my Pride, whether after a Rival’s Possesion, I ought

to ruine all my Peace for a Woman that another has been more blest in,

(Letter 2)

but never is anything specific mentioned. The phrasing of these letters is so general that

they read, at least to a modern audience, more as sort of template for letters from a

lovelorn swain to the woman who persists in ignoring him rather than letters from a real

man to a real woman expressing genuine feeling. Montague Summers quotes a “great

modern critic” though he does not say whom, as saying of these letters “They might be

the letters of any man to any woman” to which Summers adds “Perhaps, after all, the true

42

love-letter is that which might be written by any man to any woman.”43 This I take issue

with—universality may be the mark of a great love-letter in the literary sense, but I doubt

any woman, particularly one so well used to compliments and praise as Elizabeth Barry,

would find a generic exercise in the genre either appealing or flattering. Summers, though

he acknowledges Mrs. Barry’s great acting talent obviously had a very low opinion of her

as a person

Mrs. Barry, I doubt not, was hard as adamant, and possibly sexless.

I imagine she was the perfect whore . . . Such a woman whilst having

no care for impoverished Otway would never release him. For he

could write her parts as scarce any other contemporary dramatist save

Dryden could offer. The wretched broken-hearted poet was held in

captivity, realizing the hopelessness of his love, never able to break

his chain.44

In his unquestioning acceptance of the attribution of the love-letters, Summers fails to

account for two factors. First, as he himself says, Otway knew Mrs. Barry, he wrote

wonderful parts for her—why then would he not, when writing these letters, make

reference to her acting and the fabulous roles he wished to continue creating for her; he

was not writing to some unknown actress glimpsed only on the stage, he knew and

worked with this woman. Secondly, knowing her as he did, Otway’s use of sentimental

appeal seems highly inappropriate—even allowing for the bias of contemporary satires

and comments on Mrs. Barry’s character; she must have been a tough and independent

woman to prosper in the theatre world of the time—ending his first letter

43 Montague Summers, ed., The Works of Thomas Otway, 3 vols. (London: The Nonesuch Press, 1925), Introduction p. lxiv. 44 Ibid p. lxiv.

43

You never were belov’d or courted by a Creature that had a

nobler or juster Pretence to your Heart, than the Unfortunate,

and (even at this time) Weeping

Otway

does not seem the best way in which to win over an actress who dealt every day with an

excess of emotion on stage. Otway knew the type of man who attracted Elizabeth Barry,

surely if had written love letters to her, he would have used his writing skills to better

effect to counter his deficiencies, such as lack of fortune and position. The final letter

printed in the collection is the shortest, least sentimental and most specific of the group

To Madam____________

You were pleas’d to send me word you would meet me in the

Mall this Evening, and give me further Satisfaction in the

Matter you were so unkind to charge me with; I was there

but found you not; and therefore beg of you, as you would

ever with yourself to be eased of the highest Torment it

were possible for you Nature to be sensible of, to let me

see you sometime to Morrow, and send me word, by this

Bearer, where, and at what Hour, you will be so just, as either

to acquit or condemn me; that I may, hereafter, for your sake,

either bless all your bewitching Sex; or, as often as I henceforth

think of you, curse Womankind for ever.

This letter, although it does contain some sentiment, seems at least more like the sort of

note that could have been sent after a missed rendezvous—there is no need for specifics

44

as both parties are aware of the incident at hand. Then again, the situation does seem

generic and could belong to any couple or no real couple at all.

Having considered the style of the letters, I will take up the next issue: how did

they find their way into print? There are two possibilities, one, that Otway wrote out and

kept copies of all his letters which were then discovered or salvaged by a friend after his

death and these eventually found their way onto a publisher’s desk. The alternative is

that the letters were kept by Elizabeth Barry and that some enterprising servant or

acquaintance found them and sold them to a publisher. Neither of these scenarios seems

particularly likely. Otway was a professional playwright who at times was financially

secure but mostly not—would he have had the leisure to copy out letters sent, when that

time could have been better spent writing for the stage and thus earning a living; what

would have been the purpose of copying the letters, if they were a true expression of his

feelings then he would not have needed a written reminder. Whether or not Elizabeth

Barry was as hard hearted and mercenary as she has often been painted, the likelihood of

a woman with a myriad of admirers keeping the love-letters of a man in whom she had

absolutely no romantic interest seems slim indeed. If she tossed them aside they could

have been picked up and kept by a servant, but why? Otway was just another cog in the

wheel of the theatre, another playwright trying to make a living getting his work

performed; he had no title, no independent fortune, he was respected for his plays but he

was no superstar whose letters might be worth something if collected.

The next consideration with these letters, since we cannot definitely prove them

either true or false is: What do they contribute to our knowledge of Elizabeth Barry and

the times in which she worked on the London stage if they are genuine, and also what do

45

they tell us if they are a fabrication? If these letters were written by Otway to Mrs. Barry

then they help support the picture of her as a cold woman who happily dallied with a

variety of other men while ignoring him. During the time of her acquaintance with

Otway, Elizabeth Barry was Rochester’s mistress for a number of years, possibly the

mistress of another playwright, Sir George Etherege, following that and also—if even

half the contemporary satires and lampoons on her private life are to be believed—

countless others before, during and afterwards. Why she remained aloof from Otway is

not known. One possibility is that, since he had neither rank nor fortune, he was of no use

to her except for the roles he wrote and as he continued to write for her anyway, she had

no motivation to take him as a lover.

If we take the letters to be a fabrication, either by a publisher or another author,

then this still tells us something—it points to the fascination the world of the theatre was

starting to hold for the public towards the end of the seventeenth century. Otway had

been dead for twelve years when this collection was first published, yet he is referred to

in the title as “the most ingenious Mr. Thomas Otway.” Although his plays were very

popular and were still part of the repertoire, his relationship or lack thereof with Mrs.

Barry, not his works was the focus of the letter writer. At the time of publication

Elizabeth Barry’s acting career was flourishing and she was also second-in-command to

Betterton at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. She was both famous and infamous—perhaps the

author and/or publisher hoped to provoke some reaction from her by including the letters,

which would then have increased interest in the book and thus increased sales. If that

were the aim then they must have been disappointed; there is no known response by Mrs.

Barry either to these letters or any other comments on her dealings with Thomas Otway.

46

Whether some part of the reading public was fascinated by this seeming glimpse behind

the curtain we have no way to know, but the publication of these letters does seem to be a

first step towards the kind of celebrity compilations about actors and actresses that Curll

was to produce in the eighteenth century.

Elizabeth Barry was excoriated by a number of satirists of the course of her long

career one such, the embittered failed playwright Robert Gould, describes Mrs. Barry as

“A ten times cast off Drab, in Venus Wars

Who counts her Sins, may as well count the Stars:

………………………………………………….

There never was so base a thing, so proud:

Yet covetous, she’l prostitute with any,

Rather than wave the getting of a penny.”45

Given that Gould attributed his lack of theatrical success to Mrs. Barry, among others, his

cannot be called an impartial judgment but it is supported by other verses and writings of

the time. Tom Brown in his description of the playhouse refers to Mrs. Barry and Thomas

Betterton, who had recently headed the players revolt from the United Company, as

Now for that Majestical man and woman there; stand off, there is no

coming within a hundred yards of their high mightinesses . . . See what

a deference is paid ’em by the rest of the cringing fraternity, from fifty

down to ten shillings a-week; you must needs have a more than ordinary

opinion of their abilities. Should you lie with her all night she would

not know you next morning, unless you had another five pounds at her

service; or if you go to desire a piece of courtesy of him, you must attend 45 From “The Playhouse: A Satyr,” published in 1689.

47

longer than at a secretary’s of state . . . nor will her celebrated modesty

suffer her to speak to a humble servant, without a piece or two to rub

her eyes with and to conceal her blushes; while she sluggishly goes

through a vacation she might take more pains in, did she not grudge a

pennyworth for a penny.46

As with the Gould satire, the ways in which Mrs. Barry and Betterton are satirized is

quite different. Betterton is attacked in terms of his vanity—his personality, parentage

and morals are left alone. The case with Mrs. Barry is quite different; Gould describes

her as a mercenary whore as does Brown, who adds laziness and an inattention to her

stage performances to her list of sins. Brown’s reference to her playing during the

summer season is unsubstantiated. Mrs. Barry certainly had no need for either the extra

money or the experience this would have brought—typically the junior members of a

company were the only ones who worked in the slow summer season; they needed the

money and the opportunity to play some more important roles that were always occupied

by senior company members during the regular season. The implication that she was

unprofessional and ‘sluggish’ is also unfounded; whatever else her detractors said about

her, Mrs. Barry’s abilities on stage were rarely, if ever, questioned. The only reason

Brown could have for including these references would be as an attempt to bolster the

image of Elizabeth Barry as a mercenary creature who cared little for anything else but

money.

Unlike the many fabrications and items of hearsay which surround Mrs. Barry’s

life and career, there are some incidents for which we do have hard evidence. One of the

more spectacular of these is the death of one of her lovers in her dressing room at the 46 Tom Brown Amusements Serious and Comical (London: 1695).

48

theatre. The incident occurred on June 10, 1685 when Captain Henry Goring, Mrs.

Barry’s current lover, was murdered by Mr. Charles Dering, a former lover during a

fight.47 Reports of the coroner’s inquiry, the original being lost, describe, among others,

Mrs. Barry’s testimony

after the play was done, & that she was going up staires to undress

herself, the sd Mr Dering and Mr Goring did both offer themselves

to lead her up, she to prevent them both went back again cross the

Stage & so went up to her undressing room… Mr Dering came up

into the sd room, who she did often desire to go down & told him

if he did not go out of the sd room she could not undress herself,

whereupon she left the room . . . after she heard a noise in the sd room

(but did hear no body go up staires although she had always an eye

upon the staires) whereupon she hastily run up the staires…& that

as soon as she had opend the door & saw them she cryd out murder.48

This testimony was corroborated by that of two other actors, William Mountfort and John

Wiltshire, who were changing out of costume and arrived on the scene of the fight around

the same time as Mrs. Barry. Her reported testimony has a number of interesting points;

at no time does Mrs. Barry make any reference to her relationship with either gentleman;

she seems to place considerable emphasis on her efforts to get rid of them both, also on

the fact that she was with two female friends and her “dressing woman”; by keeping an

eye on the stairs she seems to indicate that she thought trouble might erupt, she knew

they had been drinking, and was trying to prevent it—apparently Goring went up to her

47 See Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, “Murder in Elizabeth Barry’s Dressing Room” Yale University Library Gazette, 79 Numbers 3-4 (April 2005), 149-174 for a full account of the affair. 48 Quoted in the Milhous and Hume article p. 155.

49

dressing room by a different route so she did not see him. Although we do not,

unfortunately, have Mrs. Barry’s own words, this testimony seems to indicate a woman

who was not eager to be associated with scandal, at least not this particular one; who was

not flaunting her lovers to the public, nor the fact that they had fought over her and who

was obviously capable of dealing with drunken admirers while going about the business

of the theatre. Nothing appears to have been made of Elizabeth Barry’s part in the affair

in the reports of the day, and we have no comment on the reaction of any of the three

actors who arrived on the scene. As Milhous and Hume point out, judging by the speed

at which Goring bled to death from a neck wound, his carotid artery must have been cut;

this would have resulted in blood spurting across the room, probably over Mountfort,

Wiltshire and Mrs. Barry. These were people used to stage deaths not being covered in

real blood; did they maintain their sang-froid or did hysteria break out? Unfortunately the

dry coroner’s reports tell us nothing and no other records of the incident appear to have

survived.

Although tragedy was her acknowledged forte, Elizabeth Barry had an incredible

range as an actress and continued to play leading comedy roles also. Her skill as an

actress; her great popularity with the audiences; and the force of her personality

combined to give her a level of power within the company never before, and not for some

time afterwards, held by a woman in the English theatre. Elizabeth Barry’s stage career,

and life, were not by any means typical for actresses of this period and while her abilities

should not be denigrated, the part that good fortune— as well as good management—

played in her career must not be ignored. She was lucky that while she was establishing

herself with the Duke’s Company there really was no significant competition for the roles

50

in which she came to excel. When Mrs. Barry began, Mary Betterton was the leading

female player and though by all accounts an excellent actress, she appears to have lacked

ambition and been prepared to play second fiddle to her more famous and flamboyant

husband, Thomas. She was also ageing, and, apparently not gracefully. If Elizabeth Barry

had had some serious competition at the beginning of her career she would probably not

have risen to the virtually unassailable position she assumed from the 1680s onwards;

once she became established no upcoming actress with any sense tried seriously to

challenge her position. The greatest threat to Mrs. Barry’s dominance could have been

Anne Bracegirdle, who began acting with the United Company in 1688, but whose

temperament—both on and off stage—was so different from Mrs. Barry’s that they

complemented each other and became friends rather than rivals.

Another fortunate circumstance for Elizabeth Barry was her lack of children. She

did have one daughter, by the Earl of Rochester, in December 1677 but despite her much-

talked-about promiscuity, no children after that. During that year she seems to have spent

a considerable amount of time with Rochester as there are no roles recorded for her

between July 1677 and April 1678. Her only other significant absence from the stage, that

we are aware of, may also be connected with her child. When playing the lead role in the

premiere of John Crowne’s Darius, April 1688, Mrs. Barry became very ill, was carried

from the stage and made no further appearance that we know of, until the autumn of

1689. There is no record of the date of death of her daughter but it was around this time;

as the Biographical Dictionary points out, the two incidents may be connected but we do

not have enough facts to make any definite claims. Elizabeth Barry may have had other

pregnancies that were not known about—though none of the lampoons or satires on her

51

ever mention the possibility and surely their authors would have delighted in adding such

a juicy piece of gossip if it existed and secrets are very difficult to keep in small world

such as the theatre. Backstreet abortion would have been an option for an unwanted

pregnancy but the chances of serious illness as a result were high and as we have no other

record of a major absence for Mrs. Barry from the stage this seems unlikely. One

possible explanation for Elizabeth Barry’s lack of children is infertility through disease.

As the Earl of Rochester died of syphilis and Mrs. Barry had been his mistress in his later

years, it is very possible that she at least contracted a subsidiary infection which resulted

in her infertility. Whatever the cause, there is little doubt that further children would have

proved a great inconvenience to her acting career. While some actresses did have

children and continue to work, these were not the leading performers—not only would

child bearing and rearing have been difficult to combine with the demands of role after

role, management would not have taken kindly to its star performer decamping for

several months at a time. For a woman, serious stage ambitions and children were not a

good combination.

Mrs. Barry’s roles, prologues and epilogues

In the midst of scandal, incident and numerous relationships, Elizabeth Barry

maintained her position as her company’s leading actress for over thirty years. During

the course of her career she acted at least one hundred and twenty-nine different roles that

we know of, and very probably more than this; one hundred and eighteen of these roles

were in new plays and thus were created by her (see Table 2). At the beginning of her

career Mrs. Barry acted in whatever parts were assigned her, whether in tragedy or

52

comedy, as did all newcomers and minor performers. Her outstanding ability for tragic

roles, which was recognized by all from her 1680 performance in Otway’s The Orphan

onwards, did not mean that she surrendered comic parts—though she did tend to play the

darker roles in comedy as her career progressed. Of the one hundred and twenty-nine

known new roles Mrs. Barry played, there is fairly even division with sixty-seven tragic

roles and sixty-two comedic ones; a year-by-year breakdown of her new roles shows no

overall shift to tragedy occurring but does indicate a greater emphasis on it in later years.

Table 2. Mrs. Barry’s new roles in tragedy and comedy, by year.

Year No. of roles in tragedy No. of roles in comedy

1675 1 0 1676 2 5 1677 0 4 1678 1 3 1679 1 3 1680 4 4

1681 1 4 1682 4 3 1683 1 1 1684 1 1 1685 0 1 1686 2 2 1687 0 0 1688 2 0 1689 2 0 1690 3 2 1691 0 3 1692 4 1 1693 0 4 1694 3 1 1695 1 3 1696 1 2 1697 4 5 1698 4 0

53

1699 5 0 1700 2 2 1701 6 1 1702 0 1 1703 2 2 1704 2 1 1705 1 2 1706 3 1 1707 3 0 1708 1 0 Total 67 62

These roles are of course not the only roles Mrs. Barry performed, she also took part in

various revivals and in new plays with unknown casts, as pointed out above but

unfortunately the documentation for these has not survived. Therefore, while this data

suggests that her stage time was almost equally divided between comedy and tragedy, no

definitive conclusion may be drawn.

The first known role we have for Elizabeth Barry, leaving aside the confusion

about her beginnings on the stage and the Rochester legend, is that of Draxilla in Thomas

Otway’s Alcibiades, his first play, performed in late September 1675. This was a minor

part where Mrs. Barry played the role of sister to the hero and friend/confidant to his

betrothed—these two leads were played by Mr. and Mrs. Betterton.

One of her first comedic roles was in Sir George Etherege’s The Man of Mode

(March 1676), but there is some dispute over which part she actually played at this point

in her career. John Downes lists Mrs. Barry for the role of Mrs. Loveit with Mrs.

Betterton as Bellinda, Mrs. Leigh as Lady Woodvil and Mr. Betterton as the lead

Dorimant. The reason that modern scholars and critics have questioned this role for

Elizabeth Barry at this time is that Mrs. Loveit—one of Dorimant’s former mistresses—is

a complex character who would have been difficult for a young and inexperienced actress

54

to perform creditably. John Harold Wilson suggests that the role may have been created

by Mary Lee in 1676 and was then inherited by Mrs. Barry at a later date.49 Elizabeth

Howe also supports a later date for Mrs. Barry to play Mrs. Loveit, principally because of

the style of roles that she was playing at this time. Howe suggests that Mrs. Barry would

have been far more likely to have taken the role of Harriet, Lady Woodvil’s daughter, at

this point; she also stresses that ‘the discarded mistress’ is not a character type that

Elizabeth Barry was playing at this stage of her career, being invariably cast as a virginal

young girl or young wife.50 However, both Wilson and Howe fail to consider the

practicalities of a working theatre—things do not always go according to plan; arguments

occur and actors storm off or leading players get sick and have to be replaced at the last

minute. Any one of a number of situations could have propelled Elizabeth Barry into a

role for which she would, under normal circumstances, not have been considered. Robert

D. Hume has considered this issue in the context of the plausibility of the rest of the cast

and also the overall reliability of Downes cast-lists.51 He concludes that as the Downes

cast is workable, given the other actors involved and their age/experience at the time,

then Mrs. Barry as Mrs. Loveit, though a seemingly unlikely choice, is probably correct.

Hume also points out that whether or not Elizabeth Barry got this role by accident or

design, her performance in it was probably what began the blossoming of her career in

1676.

49 All The King’s Ladies p. 111. 50 The first English actresses p.80. 51 “Elizabeth Barry’s First Roles and the Cast of The Man of Mode,” Theatre History Studies, 5 (1985), 16-19.

55

Table 3. Elizabeth Barry’s known new roles. Play titles in bold are tragedies or dramatic plays/operas in which Mrs. Barry had a tragic role. ♦ indicates role mentioned in The Biographical Dictionary ‡ As has been discussed, there is some dispute over when Mrs. Barry first performed this role. ‡‡ Although Mrs. Barry continued to act until June 1710 she did not take on any new roles after this date. Year Play Playwright Role 1675 Alcibiades ♦ Otway, Thomas Draxilla 1676 The Man of Mode ♦ ‍‍‡ Etherege, Sir George Mrs Loveit Abdelazer ♦ Behn, Aphra Leonora The Wrangling Lovers ♦ Ravenscroft, Edward Elvira Tom Essence Rawlins, Thomas (?) Theodocia Madam Fickle ♦ Durfey, Thomas Constantia Titus and Berenice ♦ Otway, Thomas Phaenice The Cheats of Scapin ♦ Otway, Thomas Lucia 1677 The Rover ♦ Behn, Aphra Hellena The Fond Husband ♦ Durfey, Thomas Emilla The French Conjurer ♦ Porter, Thomas Clovinia The Constant Nymph ♦ Anon Phillisides 1678 The Destruction of Troy ♦ Banks, John Polyxena Friendship in Fashion ♦ Otway, Thomas Mrs Goodvile The Counterfeits ♦ Leanerd, John Clara Squire Oldsapp ♦ Durfey, Thomas Sophia 1679 The Feign'd Curtezans ♦ Behn, Aphra Cornelia The Woman Captain ♦ Shadwell, Thomas Mrs Gripe The Virtuous Wife ♦ Durfey, Thomas Olivia Caius Marius ♦ Otway, Thomas Lavinia 1680 The Loving Enemies ♦ Maidwell, Lewis Camilla The Orphan ♦ Otway, Thomas Monimia The Soldiers Fortune ♦ Otway, Thomas Lady Dunce The Revenge ♦ Behn, Aphra Corina Theodosius ♦ Lee, Nathaniel Athenais The Spanish Friar ♦ Dryden, John Leonora

56

The Princess of Cleve ♦ Lee, Nathaniel Princess Lucius Junius Brutus Lee, Nathaniel Teraminta 1681 The Rover, Part II Behn, Aphra La Nouche King Lear ♦ Tate, Nahum Cordelia The Lancashire Witches Shadwell, Thomas Isabella The London Cuckolds Ravenscroft, Edward Arabella 1682 The Plain Dealer ♦ Wycherley, William Olivia A King and No King Beaumont & Fletcher Panthea Venice Preserv'd ♦ Otway, Thomas Belvidera Vertue Betray'd Banks, John Anna Bullen The City Heiress Behn, Aphra Lady Galliard Rule a Wife and Have a Wife Fletcher, John Margueritte The Duke of Guise Dryden, John Marmoutier 1683 The Atheist ♦ Otway, Thomas Porcia Constantine the Great Lee, Nathaniel Fausta 1684 Lucina's Rape ♦ Wilmot, John Lucina The Northern Lass Brome, Richard Mrs. Fitchow 1685 Sir Courtly Nice Crowne, John Leonora 1686 Mithridates Lee, Nathaniel Unknown The Banditti Durfey, Thomas Laura The Lucky Chance Behn, Aphra Lady Fulbank Mustapha ♦ Boyle, Roger Isabella 1688 The Injur'd Lovers Mountfort, William Oralya Darius ♦ Crowne, John Barzana 1689 Don Sebastian Dryden, John Almeyda The Massacre of Paris Lee, Nathaniel Marguerite 1690 The Rival Queens ♦ Lee, Nathaniel Roxana Distress'd Innocence Settle, Elkanah Orundana Amphitryon Dryden, John Alcmena King Edward III Bancroft, John Isabella The Scowrers Shadwell, Thomas Eugenia 1691 Win Her & Take Her Smyth, John Florella Greenwich Park Mountfort, William Dorinda The Wives' Excuse Southerne, Thomas Mrs Friendall

1692 Richard III ♦ Shakespeare, William Queen of England

The Marriage Hater Match'd Durfey, Thomas Lady Subtle

57

Cleomenes ♦ Dryden, John Cassandra Regulus Crowne, John Fulvia Henry II Bancroft, John Queen Eleanor 1693 The Maid's Last Prayer Southerne, Thomas Lady Malpert The Old Batchelor ♦ Congreve, William Laetitia The Richmond Heiress Durfey, Thomas Sophronia

The Double-Dealer ♦ Congerve, William Lady Touchwood

1694 Love Triumphant Dryden, John Victoria The Fatal Marriage ♦ Southerne, Thomas Isabella The Ambitious Slave Settle, Elkanah Celestina The Married Beau Crowne, John Mrs Lovely 1695 Love for Love ♦ Congreve, William Mrs Frail She Ventures and He Wins A Young Lady Urania Cyrus the Great Banks, John Panthea The She-Gallants Granville, George Lady Dorimen 1696 The Country-Wake Doggett, Thomas Lady Testie The Royal Mischief ♦ Manley, Delariviere Homais Love's a Jest Motteux, Peter Lady Single 1697 The City Lady ♦ Dilke, Thomas Lady Grumble

The Intrigue at Versailles Durfey, Thomas Madame de Vendsome

The Mourning Bride ♦ Congreve, William Zara The Provok'd Wife ♦ Vanbrugh, John Lady Brute

The Novelty: Every Act a Play. Act IV Motteux, Peter Elvira

The Innocent Mistress Pix, Mary Bellinda Boadicea ♦ Hopkins, Charles Boadicea The Deceiver Deceiv'd Pix, Mary Olivia Heroick Love Granville, George Chruseis 1698 Beauty in Distress Motteux, Peter Laura Fatal Friendship Trotter, Catherine Lamira Queen Catharine Pix, Mary Queen Catharine Rinaldo & Armida ♦ Dennis, John Armida 1699 Xerxes Cibber, Colley Tamira The Prince of Parma Smith, Henry Julia The False Friend Pix, Mary Adellaida Friendship Improv'd Hopkins, Charles Semanthe

58

Iphigenia ♦ Dennis, John Queen of Scythians

1700 The Way of the World ♦ Congerve, William Mrs Marwood The Fate of Capua Southerne, Thomas Favonia The Beau Defeated Pix, Mary Mrs Rich The Ambitious Stepmother Rowe, Nicholas Artemesia 1701 Altemira Boyle, Roger & Charles Altemira Tamerlane Rowe, Nicholas Arpasia The Double Distress Pix, Mary Leamira Antiochus the Great Wiseman, Jane Leodice The Czar Of Muscovy Pix, Mary Zarriana

Love's Victim Gildon, Charles Queen of Bayonne

The Ladies Visiting Day Burnaby, William Lady Lovetoy 170252 The Stolen Heiress Centlivre, Susannah Lucasia 1703 As you find it Boyle, Charles Eugenia The Fair Penitent ♦ Rowe, Nicholas Calista The Governor of Cyprus Oldmixon, John Issamanea The Fickle Shepherdess Anon Clarinda 1704 Liberty Asserted Dennis, John Sakia Zelmane Anon Zelmane The Biter Rowe, Nicholas Mrs Clever 1705 The Confederacy Vanbrugh, John Clarrisa Ulysses Rowe, Nicholas Penelope The Gamester Centlivre, Susannah Lady Wealthy 1706 The Revolution of Sweden Trotter, Catherine Constantia Almyna Manley, Delariviere Almyna Adventures in Madrid Pix, Mary Clarinda The British Enchanters Granville, George Archabon 1707 Phaedra & Hippolitus Smith, Edmund Phaedra The Royal Convert Rowe, Nicholas Rodogune

The Lady's Last Stake Cibber, Colley Lady Wronglove

52 The dearth of new roles for this year does not necessarily point to a diminution in Mrs. Barry’s involvement in the theatre; the fact is that we simply do not have many records from this period—there are no listings for the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Company between January and June 1702. The authors of The London Stage (2: 15) point out that “Although the theatres produced a great many new plays during this season, the extant records for the daily offerings are the scantiest for any season in the eighteenth-century.” Also, the theatres were closed for six weeks due to the death of King William.

59

1708 ‡ ‡ Irene Goring, Charles Sultana Valide

In the late 1670s, Mrs. Barry played mainly comedic roles, including Hellena in

Aphra Behn’s The Rover (March 24, 1677), coming to specialize in witty but virtuous

young women. However, her break-through role in tragedy came in 1680 with the part of

Monimia in Otway’s The Orphan. Here she played the virtuous young girl, loved by two

brothers one of whom she loves and marries; the rejected suitor manages to trick his

brother and replace him on their wedding night and the play ends with the wicked brother

overcome with remorse and all three committing suicide, overcome with guilt and shame.

Although Momimia’s suffering is not the principal focus of the play, she is the innocent

victim, Mrs. Barry apparently poured such feeling into the delivery of her lines and her

physical actions that she swept the audience along on a tide of emotion. Downes says of

her performance

All the Parts being Admirably done, especially the Part of Monimia:

This, and Belvidera in Venice preserv’d, or a Plot Discover’d;

together with Isabella, in the Fatal Marriage: These three Parts,

gain’d her the Name of Famous Mrs. Barry, both at Court and City;

for when ever She Acted any of those three Parts, she forc’d Tears

from the Eyes of her Auditory, especially those who have any

Sense of Pity for the Distress’t.

These 3 Plays, by their Excellent performances, took above

all the Modern Plays that succeeded.53

53 Downes p. 79.

60

Otway had written Monimia specifically for Mrs. Barry and not only he continued to

write for her, but other playwrights quickly realized the advantage of writing tragic

heroines for such an accomplished actress to play. Indeed, Howe credits Mrs. Barry’s

abilities, at least in part, for the shift in the focus of tragedies being written after The

Orphan away from the male/heroic towards the female/domestic. The lasting impact of

this play and Mrs. Barry’s role in it can be seen in the prologue to Nicholas Rowe’s The

Ambitious Stepmother, first performed in December 1700—twenty years after the

premiere of The Orphan— at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. In this prologue, spoken by Betterton,

the author asks that his audience appreciate the quality of his tragedy as audiences of the

past did with Otway’s:

…Nor let the men, the weeping fair accuse

Those kind protectors of the Tragic Muse,

Whose Tears did moving Otway’s labours crown,

And made the poor Monimia’s Grief their own:

Those Tears, their art, not weakness has confest

And they wept most, because they judg’d the best.

O cou’d this Age’s Writers hope to find

An audience to Compassion thus inclin’d,

The Stage would need no Farce, nor Song, nor Dance,

Nor Capering Monsieur brought from Active France.

(ll. 11-21)

While the complaint against the degeneration of the ‘modern’ stage is a common one, the

fact that Elizabeth Barry’s role as Monimia was considered to have set the standard for

61

tragic acting shows the extent of the lasting effect the combination of Otway’s writing

and her performance had on both writers and audiences.

One of Mrs. Barry’s next tragic roles was in Nahum Tate’s reworking of

Shakespeare’s King Lear (c. March 1681) when she took the part of Cordelia, which was

written for her. In this version however, Cordelia is no longer a minor character and play

in fact becomes the love story of Cordelia and Edgar who not only survive the tragic and

heart-wrenching events but eventually get to live happily ever after.

As well as roles performed, another factor to be taken into consideration when

looking at an acting career is the assignment of prologues and epilogues. These, either

written by the playwright or a friend, were a means for direct communication with the

audience and were usually assigned to the most successful and popular performers—if

the play involved a breeches role then the epilogue was often given to that actress who

would then give her usually saucy speech still in her breeches. The first recorded

epilogue for Elizabeth Barry is to Thomas Otway’s Friendship in Fashion performed on

April 5, 1678 in which she played the role of Mrs. Goodvile. In this speech she asks for

consideration for playwrights ending with

Libels like spurious Brats run up and down,

Which their dull Parents were asham’d to own;

But vented ’em in others names, like Whores

They lay their Bastards down at honest Doors.

For shame leave off this higling way of Wit,

Railing abroad, and roaring in the Pit.

Let Poets live in peace, in quiet write,

62

Else may they all to punish you unite;

Join in one Force, to study to abuse ye,

And teach your Wives and Misses how to use you.

(ll. 17-26)

Since Mrs. Barry was the Earl of Rochester’s acknowledged mistress at this time, and had

given birth to his child some four months previously, Otway seems to be playing on the

audience’s awareness of this with his references to parents and bastards. Unfortunately

we have no record of Elizabeth Barry’s reaction to these comments—perhaps such public

remarks as these contributed to her continued refusal of Otway’s advances.

Mrs. Barry’s first prologue came in September 1679, to Thomas D’Urfey’s The

Virtuous Wife when she played Olivia, a breeches role. This prologue takes an unusual

form in that it begins with Mrs. Barry declaring that this play will never work and that

she doesn’t want to act in it; the actors Anthony Leigh and James Nokes then enter, the

latter dressed as an old woman, and there follows a humorous dialogue in which they

persuade her to continue.

The last recorded prologue or epilogue for Mrs. Barry is on April 7, 1709 when

she acted in, and spoke the epilogue for, a special performance of William Congreve’s

Love For Love which was being performed for what Danchin and others wrongly

describe as Thomas Betterton’s retirement benefit—in fact he never really did retire but

continued performing up to April 13, 1710, fourteen days before his death. The prologue,

a new one for this occasion, was written by Congreve and the new epilogue by Nicholas

Rowe. This was a major theatrical event, a special benefit for one of the great figures of

the London stage. For this Elizabeth Barry returned to the stage after a temporary absence

63

of a year,54 Anne Bracegirdle came out of retirement for this one night only and Thomas

Doggett returned to London. Mrs. Barry’s epilogue makes reference to the relationship

between Betterton, Bracegirdle and herself

So We, to former Leagues of Friendship true,

Have bid once more, our Peaceful Homes Adieu,

To aid old THOMAS, and to pleasure you….

Like Errant Damsels boldly we Engage

Arm’d as you see, for the Defenceless Stage;

Time was, when this Good Man no Help did lack,

And scorn’d that any She, should hold his Back,

But now … so Age and Frailty have ordain’d

By two at once, he’s forc’d to be sustained;

Danchin notes that the 1714 and 1733 printed editions describe all three actors on the

stage for this epilogue, with the two women clasping Betterton around the waist at the

last line of the above passage.55 The epilogue ends with a plea to the audience to

remember the all the years Betterton had given them pleasure on the stage with kindness.

The Tatler of April 12, 1709, in the report from “Will’s Coffee-house, April 8”, described

the event

On Thursday last was acted, for the Benefit of Mr. Betterton, the

Celebrated Comedy, call’d Love for Love. Those Excellent Players,

Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Bracegirdle, and Mr. Dogget, tho’ not at present

concern’d in the House, acted on that Occasion. There has not been

54 This temporary retirement is discussed in detail in the next section. 55 The Prologues and epilogues of the eighteenth century: The First Part 1701-1720, Vol II p. 430.

64

known so great a Concourse of Persons of Distinction as at that Time;

the Stage it self was cover’d with Gentlemen and Ladies, and when the

Curtain was drawn, it discovered even there a very splendid Audience.

This unusual Encouragement which was given to a Play for the

Advantage of so Great an Actor, gives an undeniable Instance, That

the True Relish for Manly Entertainments and Rational Pleasures is not

wholly lost. All the Parts were acted to Perfection; the Actors were careful

of their Carriage, and no one was guilty of the Affectation to insert

Witticisms of his own, but a due Respect was had to the Audience, for

encouraging this accomplish’d Player.

The report continues with a description of some of Betterton’s best known roles and

finishes with a note on an upcoming play by D’Urfey. The fact that the author

commented on how careful the actors were of both their carriage and their lines for this

particular performance would seem to imply that standards had been slipping. This is not

surprising since Drury Lane was, at this time, heading towards a change of management

with the temporary silencing of that theatre in June, 1709.

The circumstances surrounding the temporary closure of Drury Lane in June 1709

by the Lord Chamberlain were very complex, and unique. The manager of the theatre

was Christopher Rich, a business man whose only concern in Drury Lane was making

money—he alienated his actors with various penny-pinching strategies involving benefit

nights and house charges—but he held the patent rights so legally the actors had no

grounds on which to challenge him. Lord Chamberlain Kent interfered, ordered Rich to

change the rules concerning benefit charges and then issued an Order of Silence on June

65

6, 1709 when Rich failed to comply. This extent of government interference in the

running of the theatre was unprecedented and the end result was a genre split which

excluded Rich from theatrical activities—a united company of actors performed plays at

Drury Lane, an opera company occupied the Haymarket and Christopher Rich had no

part in either. 56

Elizabeth Barry’s ‘retirement’ 1708-1709

Why Mrs. Barry retired after her performance as Sophonisba on June 17, 1708 is

not clear. She was in her late forties and still playing most of the roles she had created—

no other actress appears to have been a threat to her. The Biographical Dictionary offers

no explanation, just states that she retired for nearly a year and returned for Betterton’s

benefit. Wilson suggests that the uniting of the two companies in 1708, which occurred

with the first genre-split separating the performance of plays and operas “seems to have

contributed to Mrs. Barry’s decision to retire” (p. 115). The fact that her last

performance was in June would seem to re-enforce this idea since leading actors did not

usually perform in the summer months—Elizabeth Barry typically acted from October to

March every year—therefore, a performance in June may indicate that she was under a

certain amount of pressure.

There are however, some changes that occur with Mrs. Barry’s roles preceding

her ‘retirement’ which are worth noting. The first of these is in Aphra Behn’s The Rover,

which premiered in 1677 with Elizabeth Barry in the role of Hellena—a young and

virginal girl, but one who is vivacious, outspoken and not afraid to pursue the man she

56 This is, necessarily, a very brief summary of the events of 1709-1710, for a full explanation see Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, “The Silencing of Drury Lane in 1709,” Theatre Journal 32:4 (December 1980), 427-447.

66

has set her heart on, Willmore, the “rover” of the title. This play was very popular and

continued to be performed quite regularly;57 unfortunately we do not have any extant cast

lists between the premiere and a performance at the Queen’s Theatre in January 1707.

This latter cast lists gives Hellena played by Anne Bracegirdle and Mrs. Barry now

playing Angelica—a worldly courtesan who nevertheless falls passionately in love with

Willmore only to lose him to Hellena. This change of roles makes sense given the thirty

year gap from when Elizabeth Barry had first played Hellena, and the cordial relationship

which existed between Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle. Although we do not have the

necessary records, the most likely change-over point would seem to be in 1703 as The

Rover had not been performed for the preceding eight years.

Another possibly significant change occurs with the March 1st production of

Otway’s The Orphan at the Queen’s Theatre in 1707. This play, and the role of Monimia,

was the start of Elizabeth Barry’s career as a leading tragic actress in 1680 but at the

above performance the role was played by Anne Oldfield though Mrs. Barry was still

active with the company. As with the role of Hellena, the change makes sense given the

time span but unless she was indisposed, the chances of Elizabeth Barry ceding one of

her greatest roles to a relative newcomer seem rather slim.

Table 4. Mrs. Barry’s roles and the actresses who performed them in her absence.

Date of performance Play Mrs. Barry's role

Succeeding actress

August 1708 The London Cuckolds Arabella Mrs. Rogers September 1708 The Lancashire Witches Isabella Mrs.

57 After its premiere in 1677, The Rover was performed in 1680, 85, 87, 90, 95 and 1703-18, 1720-43, 1748, 1757-60 and 1790.

67

Bradshaw Amphitryon Alcmena Mrs. Knight The Fatal Marriage Isabella Mrs. Rogers

Rule a Wife and Have a Wife Margueritte Mrs. Knight

The Rival Queens Roxana Mrs. Knight The Indian Emperor Almeria Mrs. Knight October 1708 The Spanish Fryar Leonora Mrs. Knight

Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Oldfield

Love for Love Mrs. Frail ???? Greenwich Park Dorinda Mrs. Rogers The Rover Angelica Mrs. Knight

King Lear * Cordelia Mrs. Bradshaw

The Northern Lass Mrs. Fitchow Mrs. Knight December 1708 Greenwich Park Dorinda Mrs. Rogers The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Knight January 1709 The Careless Husband Lady Easy Mrs. Knight

The London Cuckolds Arabella Mrs. Bradshaw

The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield

February 1709 Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Oldfield

The Fond Husband Emilia Mrs. Rogers The Northern Lass Mrs. Fitchow Mrs. Knight The Indian Emperor Almeria Mrs. Knight March 1709 The Gamester Lady Wealthy ???? Venice Preserv'd Belvidera Mrs. Rogers The Gamester Lady Wealthy Mrs. Porter April 1709 The Rival Queens Roxana Mrs. Porter

* Though The London Stage does not clarify whether or not this was the original Shakespearean play or Nahum Tate’s reworking, which was designed to showcase Mrs. Barry’s talents, most critics agree that Shakespeare’s Lear did not make a return to the London stage until the 1820s.

Of the five actresses who took over Elizabeth Barry’s roles in her absence, Mrs.

Anne Oldfield was the most prominent and also the one about whom the most

68

information survives today.58 Both Jane Rogers and Frances Maria Knight had acted

originally with the United Company but remained with Rich at Drury Lane when

Betterton, Mrs. Barry and the senior actors left the company to set up at Lincoln’s Inn

Fields—both these actresses were struggling to compete for parts with Mrs. Barry and

Mrs. Bracegirdle whilst in the United Company and seem to have made the best career

choice by staying with Rich. However, as we do not have any extant records detailing

the decision making process of who was to stay and who was to leave with the senior

actors, it is possible that Mrs. Rogers and Mrs. Knight were not given the option to move

to Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Given the management roles that Mrs. Barry and Mrs.

Bracegirdle were to assume with the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Company, the logical

assumption is that they would wish to take the best performers possible for the new

company but not those who would prove likely to challenge their dominance in their

chosen roles. This decision, if indeed it were consciously made, although obviously

motivated by a certain amount of self-interest, would also have been in the best interests

of the company as a whole. Given the circumstances that Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Bracegirdle

and Betterton had just experienced with the United Company at Drury Lane, internal

strife and an unhappy group of actors cannot have been a situation which they wished to

replicate, particularly given the less than ideal physical conditions at the Lincoln’s Inn

Fields premises.

Mrs. Knight in particular did very well in Drury Lane and played many of the

roles that Elizabeth Barry had originally created. Mrs. Rogers had a less consistent

career, moving between Drury Lane and Queens/third Lincoln’s Inn Fields from 1707 to

1718 and sustaining a long-running and unpleasant rivalry with Anne Oldfield. Both 58 Mrs. Oldfield falls in the next sample group and her career will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

69

Mary Porter and Lucretia Bradshaw began their careers with the Lincoln’s Inn Fields

Company and the Biographical Dictionary describes both actresses as protégées of

Elizabeth Barry—between them they acquired a number of Mrs. Barry’s roles after her

permanent retirement in June 1710.

The only one of these actresses who could provide a serious threat to Elizabeth

Barry was Anne Oldfield—whose rivalry with Mrs. Barry’s friend and acting partner,

Anne Bracegirdle, may have contributed to that actress’s decision to retire from the stage

whilst at the height of her career. As can be seen from the following table, Mrs. Oldfield

retained the role of Mrs. Loveit in Etherege’s The Man of Mode (which Mrs. Barry had

originated in 1676) even after Mrs. Barry had returned to the stage in October 1709.

Anne Oldfield had begun playing the role whilst at Drury Lane with Rich and had then

joined the company at the Queen’s Theatre in 1706 along with a number of Rich’s other

senior actors. Whether Mrs. Barry objected to this loss of one of her major roles is not

known.

Table 5. Mrs. Barry’s roles from the Betterton benefit performance to her retirement in June 1710. Note: No entry in the ‘Succeeding actress’ column indicates that Mrs. Barry performed this role at this time. Play titles in bold denote tragedies. Date of performance

Play Mrs. Barry's role Succeeding actress

April 1709 Love for Love Mrs. Frail The London Cuckolds Arabella Mrs. Bradshaw King Lear Cordelia “a young

gentlewoman” The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Knight The Marriage Hater Lady Subtle Mrs. Knight

70

Match'd May 1709 The Rover Angelica Mrs. Knight September 1709 Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter October 1709 Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Oldfield

The Fatal Marriage Isabella The Spanish Fryar Leonora The Rover Angelica

November 1709 Rule a Wife and Have a Wife

Margueritte

The Careless Husband Lady Easy Mackbeth Lady Mackbeth

December 1709 The Indian Emperor Almeria The Old Batchelor Laetitia [No cast] Mackbeth Lady Mackbeth

January 1710 The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield February 1710 King Lear Cordelia Mrs. Rogers

Rule a Wife and Have a Wife

Margueritte

March 1710 The Old Batchelor Laetitia [No cast] King Edward III Queen Isabella The Indian Emperor Almeria Benefit Mrs. Barry Mackbeth Lady Mackbeth Richard III Queen Mrs. Porter

April 1710 The Maid's Tragedy Evadne The Spanish Fryar Leonora The Rover Angelica [No cast] Macbeth Lady Macbeth Venice Preserv'd Belvidera [No cast]

May 1710 Richard III Queen Mrs. Porter The Fatal Marriage Isabella Mrs. Rogers The Rover Angelica [No cast]

June 1710 The London Cuckholds Arabella Mrs. Bicknell The Careless Husband Lady Easy

As can be seen from her list of roles, Mrs. Barry did not return to the stage immediately

after her appearance in Love for Love for Thomas Betterton’s benefit but rather came

back six months later which does fit with her usual pattern of performances (October to

April) prior to her temporary retirement. Just as there is no explanation of why she chose

to retire, there is nothing to indicate why she then chose to return at this point. On her

71

return she resumed most, but not all of her roles—she played Leonora in Dryden’s The

Spanish Fryar (a role she had created in 1680) in October, but when that play was

performed in November the role was taken by Mrs. Knight. As has already been

discussed, the role of Mrs. Loveit remained with Anne Oldfield.

Table 6.

Actresses who performed Elizabeth Barry’s roles after her retirement, July 1710 – June 1711. Note: There are no entries for August and September 1710 as none of the plays which were performed at the Queen’s Theatre during these months were ones for which Mrs. Barry had created a role. Play titles in bold denote tragedies. Date of Performance

Play Mrs. Barry's Role Succeeding actress

July 1710 The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Oldfield August 1710 September 1710 October 1710 Love for Love Mrs. Frail [Not listed] November 1710 The Spanish Fryar Leonora Mrs. Porter

The Fatal Marriage Isabella Mrs. Rogers Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter The Northern Lass Mrs. Fitchow Mrs. Knight Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Porter Macbeth Lady Macbeth Mrs. Knight The Rover Angelica Mrs. Knight The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Knight

December 1710 Amphitryon Alcmena Mrs. Knight The Maid's Tragedy Evadne Mrs. Knight

January 1711 Macbeth Lady Macbeth Mrs. Knight The Indian Emperor Almeria Mrs. Knight Venice Preserv'd Belvidera Mrs. Rogers

February 1711 Rule a Wife and Have a Wife

Margueritte Mrs. Knight

Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter The Northern Lass Mrs. Fitchow Mrs. Knight The Careless Husband Lady Easy Mrs. Knight The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield The Spanish Fryar Leonora Mrs. Knight

72

March 1711 The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield The Rover Angelica Mrs. Knight Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter Caius Marius Lavinia Mrs. Bradshaw The Rover Angelica Mrs. Knight

April 1711 Macbeth Lady Macbeth Mrs. Knight Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter The Indian Emperor Almeria Mrs. Knight The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield Valentinian Lucina Mrs. Bradshaw The Careless Husband Lady Easy Mrs. Knight

May 1711 The Fatal Marriage Isabella Mrs. Bradshaw The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Oldfield Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Oldfield

June 1711 The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield Rule a Wife and Have a Wife

Margueritte Mrs. Knight

As can be seen from the tables, the comedic roles which Elizabeth Barry created

maintained a stronger presence in the repertory than her more famous tragic roles, at least

in the year after her retirement. This may have been because her great tragic

performances were relatively fresh in audience and management minds and so closely

associated with her that the management was reluctant to stage those plays without her.

However, considering Mrs. Barry’s year-long absence from the stage for her temporary

retirement and the reduced number of roles she performed on her return this does not

seem particularly likely—especially given the presence of the tragediennes Mary Porter

and Frances Knight in the company. Many of Elizabeth Barry’s greatest roles in tragedy

were in plays from the 1680s and 90s; the possibility that tastes in tragedy had simply

changed needs to be considered.

The principal beneficiary from Elizabeth Barry’s retirement was Frances Knight

(10 roles), with Mary Porter (4 roles), Anne Oldfield (4 roles), Lucretia Bradshaw (3

73

roles) and Jane Rogers (2 roles) also benefitting. Surprisingly, given that Mary Porter

was the actress who eventually assumed Mrs. Barry’s mantle as the principal tragedienne

of the company, the roles which she inherited were all in comedies.

Table 7. Allocation of Elizabeth Barry’s roles after her retirement. Note: Play titles in bold denote tragedies.

Play Mrs. Barry's Role Succeeding actress The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Oldfield The Spanish Fryar Leonora Mrs. Porter The Fatal Marriage Isabella Mrs. Rogers Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter The Northern Lass Mrs. Fitchow Mrs. Knight Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Porter Macbeth Lady Macbeth Mrs. Knight The Rover Angelica Mrs. Knight The Old Batchelor Laetitia Mrs. Knight Amphitryon Alcmena Mrs. Knight The Maid's Tragedy Evadne Mrs. Knight The Indian Emperor Almeria Mrs. Knight Venice Preserv'd Belvidera Mrs. Rogers Rule a Wife and Have a Wife Margueritte Mrs. Knight Love for Love Mrs. Frail Mrs. Porter The Careless Husband Lady Easy Mrs. Knight The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield The Spanish Fryar Leonora Mrs. Knight The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Mrs. Oldfield Caius Marius Lavinia Mrs. Bradshaw Valentinian Lucina Mrs. Bradshaw The Fatal Marriage Isabella Mrs. Bradshaw Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Mrs. Oldfield

The allotment of parts seems to have remained very stable—by in large those who

had acquired Mrs. Barry’s roles during her temporary absence retained them when she

finally did retire. There were two exceptions: one, the role of Isabella in The Fatal

Marriage transferred from Mrs. Rogers, who played it in November 1710, to Mrs.

74

Bradshaw, who assumed the part in the May 1711 production; two, a less straightforward

change, the role of Laetitia in William Congreve’s comedy The Old Batchelor (1693)

which moved between Mrs. Knight and Mrs. Oldfield.

December 1708 – Mrs. Knight

April 1709 – Mrs. Knight

December 1709 – No cast

March 1710 – No cast

July 1710 – Mrs. Oldfield

November 1710 – Mrs. Knight

May 1711 – Mrs. Oldfield

The November 1710 performance by Frances Knight can be explained by Anne

Oldfield’s temporary absence from the stage—she is not advertised for any roles around

this time; this also explains Mary Porter’s temporary assumption of the role of Leonora in

John Crowne’s Sir Courtly Nice (1684) in December 1710, an Elizabeth Barry role which

had fallen to Anne Oldfield. This does not however explain the changeover from Mrs.

Knight to Mrs. Oldfield which occurred somewhere between May 1709 and July 1710.

That five very different actresses assumed the roles that Elizabeth Barry had

created is an impressive testimony to the range of her abilities. Frances Knight was not a

newcomer but had begun her career with the United Company in 1684 at roughly the

same time as Anne Bracegirdle. She played a wide variety of roles in both comedy and

tragedy over the course of her career; she was a dancer and on occasion also sang. Little

is known of her private life but she does seem to have had a dubious reputation. The

Biographical Dictionary cites A Letter to A.H. Esq. from 1698 which says that audiences

75

should not try to conflate actors’ roles with their actual personalities, giving as an

example that one should not be upset by Mrs. Knight playing “a very Modest and Chaste

one.”59 Tom Brown also makes a reference to Mrs. Knight’s reputation in one of his

“letters”— “Peg Hughes’s answer to Nell Gwynn”

should I have placed an esteem upon the riches that was left me,

the world might have supposed it was the greediness of gain that

made me yield my favours; and what had I been better than Madam

Ja—es, or Mrs. Knight of Drury Lane; had I exposed my honour for

the lucre of base coin, and sinned on for the sake only of advantage?60

Although these “letters” are frequently scurrilous, and both “sender” and “recipient” were

kept women—Margaret Hughes was the mistress of Prince Rupert and Nell Gwyn, of

course, was kept by Charles II—the fact that “they” would not stoop to the level of

women such as Mrs. Knight implies both that she had many lovers and was not averse to

taking payment from them. As is always the case with such sources, one cannot

definitively state that such a reputation was just or true, but the fact that Mrs. Knight was

mentioned quite casually in such a context by two separate authors gives some indication

of how she was regarded by the public.

Frances Maria Knight was involved, as a witness, in the trial of Captain Hill and

Lord Mohun for the murder of the actor William Mountfort (December 1692). Mrs.

Knight’s involvement in the matter and her relationship with Anne Bracegirdle is

described thus

About four days before the fatal encounter, Hill told her [Mrs. Knight]

59 Biographical Dictionary 9: 60. 60 Tom Brown Amusements Serious and Comical (London: 1695), “Letters from the Dead to the Living” p. 392.

76

that he was satisfied Mrs. Bracegirdle hated him. Mrs. Knight replied

that she did not believe she hated anybody or loved anybody. To this

remark Hill answered that she did love somebody, but he had thought

of a way to be even with that person . . . , He begged her to deliver a

letter to Mrs. Bracegirdle, but she refused on the ground that Mrs.

Bracegirdle, because she hated Hill, would not love anybody who

spoke for him, and Mrs. Knight had no desire to create enemies for

herself in the house, since she had some already. Hill demanded,

“What Enemies, Mountfort do you mean?” and then after an oath,

he concluded, “I shall find a way with him speedily.”61

While this description of events has no independent corroboration it does give a limited

picture of relations within the company at the end of 1692. Mrs. Knight’s account seems

to indicate that while outsiders considered her to be friends with Anne Bracegirdle she

did not see their friendship as being strong enough to support “the letter”; or she may

simply have wished to keep out of the whole messy business; a third interpretation could

be that Mrs. Bracegirdle was of an uncertain temperament and likely to turn on even

those who were her friends if they displeased her. Given what is known of Anne

Bracegirdle, the latter does not seem particularly likely. Little else is known of Mrs.

Knight outside the roles that she played. There is a four-year unexplained absence from

the London stage—she is not mentioned in cast lists between spring 1719 and fall 1723.

When Mrs. Knight returned to Lincoln’s Inn Fields she performed only in the 1723-24

season—after her retirement nothing else is known.

61 Albert S. Borgman The Life and Death of William Mountfort (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), pp. 125-126.

77

Not only did five different actresses inherit Mrs. Barry’s roles, they were all

actresses who had, or developed, substantial careers. Mary Porter, who gained four of

Elizabeth Barry’s roles, became the leading tragedy actress of the Drury Lane Company

from the 1710’s to the 1730’s. The Biographical Dictionary refers to Mrs. Barry as “her

mentor” but the only evidence for this appears to be the 1741 History of the English Stage

which describes Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle “spotting” her performing at

Bartholomew Fair and being so impressed that they convinced Betterton to accept her

into the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Company.62 How true this account is we have no way to tell.

Mrs. Porter’s first mention in the cast lists comes in 1698 when she spoke the epilogue to

Queen Catherine. Her acting career progressed steadily but not spectacularly with a

variety of roles in both tragedy and comedy at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. In 1705 she was with

Vanbrugh’s new Queen’s Theatre but became dissatisfied with her progress in the

company after two seasons. During this time the management had passed from John

Vanbrugh to Owen Swiney and in a letter to the Lord Chamberlain dated October 22,

1707 Mary Porter outlines her grievances against the company

When several of the Gentlewomen who played Principal Parts, either

neglected or were sick, she at a nights notice study’d and play’d them

perfect the next night and to satisfaction, for which she had hop’d for

encouragement or at least to have had such Parts given her by which

she might have gain’d reputation when there was more time to study

But instead thereof generally those Parts were given to such as were

below her.

That she was postponed in her Benefit Play to all the younger actors, 62 Biographical Dictionary 12: 91.

78

and not admitted to have it till the 2nd of May last when the Town was

almost empty and may Fayre was began.

…………………………………………………………………………

That a little before their beginning to Play this winter a Gentlewoman63

was taken in over her head, which will still be a means to take away

those Parts from her by which she hop’d to advance herself.64

Mary Porter seems not to have received any satisfaction to her complaints as she did not

perform at the Queen’s Theatre in the 1707-8 season—she is mentioned in the Lord

Chamberlain’s order to the managers at Drury Lane instructing that the actors

(Verbruggen, Pack, Mrs. Porter, Mrs. Bradshaw) who had left the Haymarket without a

proper discharge were not to be employed.65 Mrs. Porter, in conjunction with the other

actors who had been dismissed, petitioned the Lord Chamberlain, the Marquis of Kent, in

early January 1708 to be re-admitted to the new acting company at Drury Lane which had

been formed after the genre split mandated by the Order of Union of December 1707.

Humbly Sheweth—That your Petitioners having unhappily fal’n

under your Lordships displeasure, Leaving the Haymarket Play-House,

without your Lordship’s Permission; and your Petitioners being very

Sensible of their fault, humbly Request your Lordship, that out of

your wonted Goodness you wou’d be pleased to Pardon their

Misdemeanor, and Restore them to their Employment, that they

63 The Biographical Dictionary suggests that this gentlewoman may have been Mrs. Rogers but offers no explanation or evidence for the choice. Mrs. Jane Rogers did join the company at the Queen’s Theatre in the fall of 1707, making her first appearance on October 18th; she had been a leading player at Drury Lane prior to this and could well have been brought in over Mary Porter’s head. 64 The Document Register (I: Item 1905) gives the source of this letter as LC 7/3, fols. 102-103. 65 Document Register I: Item 1926.

79

may be Partakers of the Union so happily Accomplish’d by your

Lordship

And your Petitioners as in Duty Bound shall ever Pray etca.66

The lack of justification for their actions on the part of the actors, and the tone of

supplication, indicates that they considered that their reasons for leaving the Haymarket

would not be considered valid by the Lord Chamberlain’s office.

Mrs. Porter’s initial letter of complaint clearly demonstrates both the precarious

nature of the acting profession and the resentments, frustrations, and jockeying for

position that could, and did, arise within a company. However, Mrs. Porter’s fortunes

took a turn for the better with the new company where she began to build on her number

of roles and particularly those in tragedy for which she became best known.

One of the other actresses who signed the petition to be re-admitted to the Drury

Lane Company was Lucretia Bradshaw, who inherited three of Elizabeth Barry’s roles—

Lavinia in Otway’s Caius Marius (1679), Lucina in Rochester’s Valentinian (1684), and

Isabella in Southerne’s The Fatal Marriage (1694)—all of which were parts in tragedies.

The Biographical Dictionary says of Mrs. Bradshaw

She seems to have been a protégée of Elizabeth Barry, and after

Mrs. Barry retired, Lucretia succeeded to some of her major parts. (2: 284)

No evidence is offered for the assumption that Elizabeth Barry acted as a mentor to Mrs.

Bradshaw—further in the entry Anthony Aston’s comments on Lucretia Bradshaw are

refered to (he felt that Mrs. Bradshaw copied, unsuccessfully, Mrs. Barry’s style of

speaking her lines), but this does not seem to warrant the assumption of a close

66 Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, ed., Vice Chamberlain Coke’s Theatrical Papers 1706-1715 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982), Item 30.

80

relationship. Any junior actress, particularly one who wished to move up the ranks, might

reasonably try to imitate the most successful actress in the company and would have had

the opportunity for constant close observation of that actress’s style whether or not they

were friends or even on speaking terms. Given what is known of Mrs. Barry’s ambition

and temperament, her adoption of a protégée does not seem very likely. Her friendship

with Anne Bracegirdle was commented on and this is borne out by her will in which she

left Mrs. Bracegirdle ₤20, plus ₤200 “to save Mrs. Bracegirdle harmless from any debt of

the Play-House.”67 If Elizabeth Barry had been close to Lucretia Bradshaw then very

likely there would be some mention of the relationship between them somewhere.

Mrs. Bradshaw did not do particularly well when the division of Mrs. Barry’s

roles occurred. As the list in Table 6 shows, Lucretia Bradshaw only inherited three of a

possible twenty-one roles still regularly in the repertory; one of those she gained only

after Jane Rogers had performed it first. While Mrs. Barry is unlikely to have been able

to influence the management’s allocation of her roles after her retirement, if she had been

Mrs. Bradshaw’s mentor, she most likely would have helped her protégée learn and

develop a number of roles so that she would have been an obvious choice for the

management.

Aside from the roles which Lucretia Bradshaw inherited from Mrs. Barry, she was

a successful actress who played in a wide variety of tragedies and comedies. Her career

did not last particularly long—she played major roles from around 1706 but left the stage

to marry Martin Folkes, Esq. after the 1714 spring season. Her husband became a noted

academic who was vice-president of The Royal Society under Newton; she never

67 Biographical Dictionary I: 323.

81

returned to the stage and was confined to a house for lunatics in the late 1720’s having

gone “mad on religion” whilst in Rome with her husband and son.68

Elizabeth Barry, Anne Bracegirdle and Thomas Betterton—‘The Three Ruling B’s’

Although the benefit for the great Thomas Betterton seems to have touched both

the hearts and purse-strings of the theatre-going public, the triumvirate of Betterton,

Barry and Bracegirdle had not always been so favorably regarded. These three leading

performers led the actors’ revolt against the tyranny of Christopher Rich’s management

of the United Company and gained permission to set up a rival company at Lincoln’s Inn

Fields in 1695. In 1705 a vicious “Epistle Dedicatory” to a satiric play The Lunatick,69 by

one Franck Telltroth,70 was published—this was addressed “To the Three Ruling B---S at

the New-House in Lincolns-Inn-Fields” and opened

Most Arbitrary and Most Hermophrodite Conjunction,

Since it has been brought into a Custom to offer the Products

of the Brain to those who generally have the least Pretence to it,

by that Rule the following Play has a peculiar Right to appear

under so Illustrious a Protection as Yours, whose Sense and Honesty

are not less Conspicuous than Your High Birth, and Education.71

“Mr. Telltroth” goes on to criticize their choice of plays for performance and their

mercenary motives, crediting Betterton, Barry and Bracegirdle with having

68 Biographical Dictionary II: 286. 69 This is a work of three acts in forty pages whose structure and characters seem to indicate that its purpose was purely satiric and never performance oriented. 70 The Document Register, Item 1801, notes that this play was used by the playwright William Taverner in his 1713 work The Female Advocate. Perhaps he may also have been the original author. 71 The Lunatick. A Comedy. Dedicated to the Three Ruling B---S at the New-House in Lincolns-Inn-Fields. London: B. Bragg, 1705.

82

brought a Company, in a few Years, from Admiration,

to the Contempt of the Town; a Work beyond the Talent of

most Men,

This style of general slander could be easily dismissed as the bitter ranting of a would-be

playwright, such as Robert Gould, whose work had been dismissed by the Lincoln’s Inn

Fields Management and who was an outsider knowing nothing of the workings of the

theatre. However, Telltroth continues, gloating over the end of their reign—the

approaching genre split between the Haymarket and Drury Lane—and goes into some

very detailed accusations over the running of the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Company.

There will be no more Clandestine Sharing betwixt You without

the rest; no more private Accounts, and Double Books; no more

paying Debts half a score times over out of the Publick Stock,

yet never paying them in reality at all. There will be no more

sinking Three Hundred and fifty Pounds at a time in the Money

re-paid on a famous Singer’s Account, but never accounted for

to the rest of the Sharers; no more stopping all the Pay of the

Under Actors on Subscription-Nights, when you were allow’d

forty or fifty Pound a Night for the House, besides the Benefit

of the Galleries; nor more sinking the Court-Money in-to Your

own Pockets; and letting the Sallary People and Under Sharers

Starve without Pay . . .

“Telltroth” is clearly exaggerating the case, otherwise the company would have

collapsed; however, some of his accusations are very detailed and specific. We do not

83

know precisely to whom he is referring as the “famous Singer,” but a number of different

soloists were employed as entr’acte attractions, usually from France or Italy, on a

temporary contract. These performers were often promised huge sums, way beyond the

salary scale of the company, which often resulted in great financial difficulties. Downes

states that

In the space of the Ten Years past, Mr. Betterton to gratify the desires

and Fancies of the Nobility and Gentry; procur’d from Abroad the

best Dances and Singers, as, Monsieur L’Abbe, Madam Sublini,

Monsieur Balon, Margarita Delpine, Maria Gallia and divers others;

who being Exorbitantly Expensive, produc’d small Profit to him and his

Company; but vast Gain to themselves,72

Ticket prices were usually inflated when such performers appeared, in an attempt to

defray some of the cost.

“Telltroth” sounds like someone who was, or had been, a performer, a playwright

or an investor in the theatre—someone with a very definite axe to grind and who was

obviously party to the gossip and grumblings of the theatre. One unusual aspect of this

‘epistle’ is that it does not differentiate among the three performers. Other satires of the

period tend to attack Betterton for his vanity and Barry for her personal life—Mrs.

Bracegirdle had an exceedingly chaste reputation and as such did not provide an easy

target for the satirist’s pen—but other than the opening reference to the three as a single

hermaphrodite entity the complaints here are all of a professional and financial nature.

72 Downes pp. 96-97.

84

The Barry and Bracegirdle relationship

Some mention of the career of Anne Bracegirdle is necessary at this point—since

her stage career ran from 1680 to 1707 she does not fall within any of the sample groups

for this study, but she was a leading actress who was closely associated with Elizabeth

Barry for the duration of her career. Mrs. Bracegirdle began her theatrical life at an early

age—there is some dispute over her date of birth,73 but she was, at a young age adopted

by the Bettertons and there are several references from the late 1670s onwards to ‘a

young girl’ which may be she. The first mention of her in the Lord Chamberlain’s

accounts is on January 12, 1688 as a member of the United Company when, if the later

birth date is correct, she would have been seventeen years old.74 Her first named role, at

least the first that we have from surviving records, is that of Atelina—an innocent young

girl who is the victim of rape—in William Mountfort’s tragedy The Injur’d Lovers on

February 6, 1688. The only other named female role, Princess Oryala, a darker character,

was played by Elizabeth Barry. This pairing of Mrs. Barry as the more experienced

woman, often with a dark past, with Mrs. Bracegirdle as the virtuous, invariably virginal,

innocent girl was to set a pattern which lasted the duration of their years on the stage

together.

From their first performance in 1688 to their last in 1706 (excepting their

appearance for Betterton’s benefit in 1709)—in Delariviere Manley’s Almyna—Mrs.

73 The Biographical Dictionary discusses the uncertainty of her birth date and concludes that the earlier date of 1663 is the most likely. However, a letter to the Times Literary Supplement, May 2, 1986, offers evidence for the correct date of baptism for Anne Bracegirdle as November 15, 1671, at St Giles, Northampton. If correct, this would mean that she was 77 years old when she died, not 85 as her tombstone in Westminster Abbey indicates. 74 Given that Anne Bracegirdle was raised in the Betterton household, and the type of role for which she is first mentioned, the later birth date seems all the more likely. If the earlier were correct, then she would have been 25 when first mentioned in the Lord Chamberlain’s records, an impossibly late start for a girl virtually brought up in the theatre.

85

Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle appeared in fifty-six new plays together. The split between

tragedies and comedies is nearly even, with twenty-nine of the former and twenty-seven

of the latter, as can be seen in the table below.

Table 8: New plays in which Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle appeared together.

Note: Play titles in bold denote tragedies.

DATE PLAY PLAYWRIGHT 1688 The Injur'd Lovers William Mountfort 1690 Distress'd Innocence Elkanah Settle

King Edward the Third John Bancroft The Scowrers Thomas Shadwell

1691 The Wives' Excuse Thomas Southerne 1692 The Marriage-Hater Match'd Thomas Durfey

Cleomenes John Dryden Henry II John Bancroft

1693 The Maid's Last Prayer Thomas Southerne The Old Batchelor William Congreve The Richmond Heiress Thomas Durfey The Double Dealer William Congreve

1694 Love Triumphant John Dryden The Fatal Marriage Thomas Southerne The Married Beau John Crowne The Ambitious Slave Elkanah Settle

1695 Love for Love William Congreve She Ventures and He Wins A Young Lady Cyrus the Great John Banks The She-Gallants George Granville

1696 The Country-Wake Thomas Doggett The Royal Mischief Delariviere Manley Love's a Jest Peter Motteux

1697 The Intrigues at Versailles Thomas Durfey The Innocent Mistress Mary Pix The Deceiver Deceiv'd Mary Pix The Mourning Bride William Congreve The Provok'd Wife John Vanbrugh Boadicea, Queen of Britain Charles Hopkins

1698 Heroick Love George Granville Beauty in Distress Peter Motteux The Fatal Friendship Catherine Trotter

86

Queen Catharine Mary Pix 1699 The Princess of Parma Henry Smith

The False Friend Mary Pix Friendship Improv'd Charles Hopkins Iphigenia John Dennis

1700 The Way of the World William Congreve The Beau Defeated Mary Pix The Ambitious Stepmother Nicholas Rowe

1701 The Ladies Visiting Day William Burnaby The Double Distress Mary Pix Love's Victim Charles Gildon Tamerlane Nicholas Rowe

1703 The Fickle Shepherdess Anon. As You Find It Charles Boyle The Fair Penitent Nicholas Rowe

1704 Liberty Asserted John Dennis Zelmane Anon. The Biter Nicholas Rowe

1705 The Gamester Susannah Centlivre The Confederacy John Vanbrugh Ulysses Nicholas Rowe

1706 The British Enchanters George Granville The Adventures in Madrid Mary Pix Almyna Delariviere Manley

Although Elizabeth Barry had a reputation for being a rather “difficult” person,

she and Anne Bracegirdle appear to have been good friends off-stage as well as acting

partners on-stage. Whether or not this was because Mrs. Bracegirdle assumed a

subordinate role in both areas is impossible to say; they may simply have been friends

whose relationship off-stage had nothing to do with their on-stage roles.

87

Chapter 3: Case Studies – Sample 2 1710-1715

The actresses in this sample are all those who were active on the London stage

during the 1710-1715 theatrical seasons whether they were at the beginning, peak, or end

of their career’s during this time. There are thirty-one actresses in this sample, compared

to forty-two in the first, with career lengths ranging from one to forty-five years with a

greater number of long careers than in the 1670-1675 sample. The London theatre world

of the 1710s was a very different place from that of the 1670s—many changes in

company structure had occurred and women on the stage were no longer the novelty they

once had been. The most significant change in the theatres which occurred at the

beginning of this sample period was that after a time of considerable theatrical upheaval

including the silencing of Christopher Rich’s Drury Lane in 1709—which left the

Haymarket in sole possession of the field, performing plays four nights a week and

Italian opera the other two—a new genre split was finally agreed upon by the end of the

1710 season.75 This once again separated opera and musical entertainment from straight

theatre with the former performed at the Haymarket under the management of William

Collier and the latter at Drury Lane under Owen Swiney operating with the actors

Doggett, Cibber and Wilks. The fact that there was now only one official acting company

in London meant that fewer actors and actresses were required—thus retirement of older

personnel did not necessarily provide openings for new performers and due to surplus of

cast, the management were less inclined to take risks with new, untried actors. Table 1

lists all the actresses active during the 1710-1715 seasons and includes the dates when

they began and ended their acting careers. 75 This is a very basic explanation of an exceedingly complex situation in which the theatre patents, personnel and premises were passed between different combinations of management. For a date by date account see the “Theatre Chronology” on pp. 288-296.

88

Table 1 – Sample 2 Actresses

* Denotes a career with significant gaps in the record of performances; more than can be explained by a general lack of extant records for particular seasons. ** Denotes a career which was primarily as a dancer with acting as a secondary activity. ‡ Denotes uncertain career length due to confusion over names. Note: All the dates of first performance listed here refer to a first appearance on the London stage; a number of actresses began their stage careers either in Dublin or with smaller provincial companies.

Actress Career length Year of first Year of last ( in years) performance performance

Baker, Katherine * 29 1699 1728 Bicknell, Margaret nee Younger 21 1702 1723 Bradshaw, Lucretia 18 1696 1714 Clark(e), Mrs. ‡ 28 1695 1723 Cox, Susannah * 13 1702 1715 Cross, Letitia 38 1694 1732 Finch, Katherine * 23 1695 1718 Garnet, Mrs. 6 1715 1721 Horton, Christiana 38 1714 1752 Hunt, Mrs. 15 1704 1719 Kent, Mary, Mrs. Thomas * 26 1692 1718 Knight, Frances Maria 40 1684 1724 Mills, Margaret, Mrs. John * 21 1696 1717 Moore, Henrietta * 32 1698 1730 Mountfort, Susanna 15 1703 1718 Oldfield, Anne 31 1699 1730 Porter, Mary 45 1698 1743 Powell, Mary, Mrs. George * 28 1686 1714 Rogers, Jane 26 1692 1718 Rogers, Jane, Mrs. Christopher Bullock

22 1715 1737

Santlow, Hester, Mrs. Barton Booth 27 1706 1733 Saunders, Margaret 14 1707 1721 Sherburn, Elizabeth 2 1710 1712 Smith, Miss ** 5 1716 1721 Spiller, Elizabeth, Mrs. James * 31 1709 1740 Stockdale, Mrs. 1 1715 1715 Thurmond, Sarah, Mrs. John 22 1715 1737 Vincent, Mrs. 1 1715 1716 Willis, Mary * 33 1701 1734 Willis, Elizabeth, Mrs. Richard 44 1694 1738

89

Younger, Elizabeth 23 1711 1734

Of the thirty-one actresses in this second sample, twenty-four were active in 1710

and of those fourteen had at least ten years acting experience with a further five having at

least five years on the stage—the full range of career length is shown in Table 1.

Therefore, when the acting company was consolidated under at Drury Lane the

management had twenty-one very experienced actresses at their disposal, including the

renowned Mrs. Oldfield.

The method for selecting the individual case studies for this sample remains the

same as for the first group—choosing four actresses [Mrs. Clark(e); Mrs. Hunt; Hester

Santlow (later Mrs. Barton Booth); Mrs. Anne Oldfield] whose careers illustrate

respectively the following categories:

1. A very brief involvement with the theatre and little

or nothing known about the actress’s personal life.

2. A career spanning a number of years where there is some

detail on professional activity but little on personal life.

3. A longer career where information on both professional

and personal lives is available, but the actress in question

remained relatively minor.

4. A long career with professional and personal information

extant, where the actress became one the leading players

of her day.

One issue with the extant records concerning these actresses needs to be mentioned—that

while, in general, theatrical records tend to be more complete as the years progress, the

90

records from the early 1700s are very scant. Therefore though a career may appear to

have significant gaps and absences this is possibly due to a lack in the extant records;

unfortunately we cannot know when this is the case.

Mrs. Clark(e)

The entry in the Biographical Dictionary lists five known appearances for Mrs.

Clark which span twenty –eight years and which, as the authors point out, may or may

not all be by the same woman:

1695 Alice in The Mock Marriage at Drury Lane

1703-1705 a Mrs. Clarke occasionally sang and danced at Lincoln’s Inn Fields

1713 Giddy in The Doating Lovers at Lincoln’s Inn Fields

1722 Alicia in Jane Shore at the Haymarket

1723 a Mrs. Clark sang at a concert at Buckingham House

The Mock Marriage and The Doating Lovers are comedies, Jane Shore is a historical

piece and none of the three parts require any particular skills in singing and dancing.

While the possibility remains that these diverse appearances are all by the same woman,

if she did have some sort of career in the theatre for such a long time then surely there

would be some further evidence of her. The last item, the concert at Buckingham House,

seems particularly out of place—if Mrs. Clark had been approximately sixteen years of

age at her first performance in 1695, by this time she would have been forty-four. This is

no great age but minor singers tend to be young and for an older woman to have been

included in a prestigious performance one would expect her to be a performer of some

reputation, which this Mrs. Clark does not appear to have been.

91

This type of career—where there is confusion even over whether or not the

records are describing one person or more—illustrates the problems surrounding the

frequent lack of records and also those which occur with names. The latter covers two

separate issues: one, the situation where there are a number of performers who have the

same surname, who are working in roughly the same time period and about whom

nothing is known, not even their Christian names. The second issue is when there are

several family members who are performing at the same time for the same company and

if they are only referred to by surname can prove impossible to distinguish. This occurs

particularly with actresses since female performers are referred to by the title of “Mrs.”

after about the age of seventeen, whether or not they are married. If then a mother and

daughter are with the same company, as were Elizabeth Willis and her daughter Mary,

and are performing very similar roles, it becomes impossible to say which role belonged

to which actress.

Mrs. Hunt

The only extant records for this actress refer to her performances—we do not

know her Christian name, her dates of birth and death, where she came from or went to

after her stage career finished. The first record of Mrs. Hunt occurs in the cast of

Farquhar’s The Stage Coach when she played the role of Dolly; her last recorded

appearance was fifteen years later, in 1719, when she played Abigail in Beaumont &

Fletcher’s The Scornful Lady. There are several long absences in her performance

record—some of these may be due to the lack of complete casts and some are probably

due to personal reasons such as pregnancy; no definite conclusions are possible. When

92

Mrs. Hunt was active in London, she moved between companies, possibly in an attempt

to gain better parts. Her recorded roles show that while she never reached the level of

first, or even second, female lead she did have a line of substantial servant/companion

roles for a time. Table 2 shows both Mrs. Hunt’s company changes and the roles that she

played—repeat roles are listed only when this role was performed in a different company

from the initial performance.

Table 2 – Mrs. Hunt.

Date Company Role Play 1704 Feb. Queen's (LIF) Dolly The Stage Coach 1705 Feb. Favourite The Gamester 1706 April Prudence The Amorous Widow 1710 March Drury Lane Jiltup The Fair Quaker of Deal May Mrs. Security The Gamester June Nurse Love for Love 1715 Jan. New Lincoln's Inn

Field's Lucy The Old Batchelour

Jan. Jiltup The Fair Quaker of Deal Jan. Amlet The Confederacy March Ruth The Squire of Alsatia May Ben Love for Love June Rachel The City Ramble June Jenny Love in a Sack June Prate The Doating Lovers August Jacinta The False Count October Teresa Don Quixote Part II October Mrs. Mixum A Woman's Revenge November Widow Blackacre The Plain Dealer November the Aunt The London Cuckholds 1716 March Mopsa Presumptuous Love April Lady Greasy The Northern Heiress 1716 Oct. Drury Lane Lady Faddle The Country Wit December Lady Cockwood She Wou'd If She Cou'd 1717 Jan. Sarsnet Three Hourse After

Marriage August Dol Troop The Old Troop

93

August Lady Maggot The Scowrers 1718 April Nurse Love for Love July Crowstitch Love for Money August Mrs. Joyner Love in a Wood 1719 Jan Chat The Committee June Corsica The Bondman October the Hostess Henry IV Part I October the Landlady The Chances Novmber Abigail The Scornful Lady

Even within Mrs. Hunt’s rather limited range, a certain rise and fall of fortune is

discernable. Her second known role was Favourite in Susannah Centlivre’s The

Gamester in 1705—the serving woman of Angelica, played at this time by Anne

Bracegirdle—when Mrs. Hunt next appeared in this play, in 1710, she performed the role

of Mrs. Security, a pawnbroker. This was still a subsidiary role but a step up from that of

a servant. After her second absence from the stage Mrs. Hunt seems to have returned at

the same level—she played the character of Jiltup in Shadwell’s The Fair Quaker of Deal

for the first time in 1710 and then again in 1715 when she had been absent from the

London stage for approximately five years. She may have been acting elsewhere during

this period and therefore, when she joined a London company again, the management

simply slotted her back in to a role she knew and had been performing elsewhere.

Another possibility is that as an experienced actress she was employable for minor roles

even if she had had a break from the stage.

Another significant change in roles occurs with Mrs. Hunt’s performances in

Congreve’s Love for Love. On her first appearance in this play, in 1710, she performed

the role of the Nurse, a stock character; on her second, in 1715, she played the role of

94

Ben for her benefit night on May 10th; by her third recorded performance, in 1719, she

had returned to playing the Nurse. Mrs. Hunt’s choice of role for her benefit is an unusual

one, as the part of Ben, a male character, is one not usually performed by a woman—in

fact it was one of Dogget’s most well-known roles. This choice was probably a gimmick

to attract as large an audience as possible for Mrs. Hunt’s benefit—she had worked

alongside Dogget and would have been familiar with his approach to the part, perhaps

she may have used this to provide an “imitation” that the audience would have

recognized and appreciated. Her choice also gives us a brief glimpse of her as an

individual, a hint of the person behind the minor roles she usually played; Mrs. Hunt

apparently had the wit and nerve to try something new, and also the confidence that she

could carry off this role successfully.

Her gamble appears to paid of as on May 10th 1715 her benefit made £65 7s 6d,

which, as the gross amount was usually that which was entered in the records, would

have given Mrs. Hunt a profit of £20 7s 6d (the house took £45 per benefit at this time).

Unfortunately her downward movement can be noted not only in her change in roles but

also in the difference between the money she made, or lost, for the two benefits for which

we have figures— on April 14th 1716 she received £44 8s 6d, which meant she would

have had to pay the management the deficit of 11s 6d.

Although we have no extant personal details of Mrs. Hunt, she does feature in a

surviving theatrical anecdote, concerning a performance of John Gay’s farce Three Hours

After Marriage (1716) at Drury Lane on January 19th 1717. This incident is recorded in a

letter which is described as “giving an Account of the Origin of the Quarrel between

95

Cibber, Pope, and Gay.”76 According to the comments addressed to the publisher which

preface the letter itself

It is wrote by a person who is still alive, and tho’ a woman,

intimate with the poets of this century, and consequently

with most of the theatrical persons worthy notice; therefore I

have sent you a careful copy from the original, by the gentleman’s

consent it was wote to.

The circuitous route by which this letter reached print—written by a woman to a

gentleman who allowed a third party to copy it, who now presents it to the publisher—is

enough to make one wonder how much faith can be placed in the reliability of its

contents. Also the time gap involved need to be considered—the volume in which the

letter appears was published in 1757; the fourth night’s performance of Three Hours

After Marriage which is referenced took place in 1717, forty years earlier; there is no

mention of exactly when the letter was written though as the author does refer to a letter

written by Cibber to Pope in 1742 this places the date somewhere between 1742 and

1757. In the first paragraph the author refers to her theatrical “credentials”

I have often informed you, my intimacy with Mrs. Oldfield brought me

the freedom of the theatre, as well at rehearsals in the morning, as the

use of her box at night. I accompany’d her almost every morning to the

Three Hours After Marriage. This comedy was the source of that

76 Published in A Supplement to the Works of Alexander Pope, Esq; Containing, Such Papers, Letters, etc. as are omitted in the Edition published by the Reverend Doctor Warburton: With a Key to the Letters. To which is added (Not in the London edition) a Key to the Three Hours After Marriage. (Dublin: W. Whitestone, 1757) p. 216- 222. In this edition the play is followed by the key and then the letter.

96

bitterness and keen-cutting satire that Pope expresses against Cibber in all his

writings.77

If true, this intimate knowledge of the rehearsals, as well as the performances, gives

considerable weight to the author’s account of events. In the case of the incident

involving Mrs. Hunt, its spectacular nature obviously made such an impression that the

length of time between the observation and the telling should not necessarily impact on

the details.

In the production referred to, the fourth night of Three Hours After Marriage,

Mrs. Hunt played the serving maid, Sarsnet, who is on stage with the rival lovers Plotwell

(Colley Cibber) and Underplot (William Pinkethman) when the former is dressed as a

mummy and the latter as a crocodile

Cibber, was the mummy, curiously wrapt and folded with proper

bandages, painted with false Egyptian Hieroglyphics, but however

false the heraldry, his arms were at liberty. The droll facetious

Penkethman, was that ambitious devourer, the crocodile, where the

painter, the tailor, with other artificers had us’d their utmost skill.

The monster’s two foremost legs, were fitted to his arms, and Penky’s

legs serv’d for those of the monster. He made a formidable figure as

he crawled in, with his great head, and long tail; for, tho’ he was

ordered to be carry’d as a stuff’d monster, he would creep, as crocodiles

should do on dry land: When he stood upright, his face peep’d from

the belly of the monster; form’d monstrously to charm indeed! The

case that brought in the mummy-lover, was plac’d in the center of 77 Ibid p. 216.

97

the stage behind, and the door, or, open part, stood facing the audience

upright—While they were employ’d in their courtship, displaying

their charms as lovers; Penkethman, the crocodile, boasting much in

the beauty of his tail, and, traversing the stage, unfortunately made

such a parade with it, that he threw down Sarsnet (the attendant and

confidant of Mrs. Townley) flat upon her back, where she discovered

more linnen than other habitiments, and, more skin and flesh than

linnen, this began the first uproar in the audience. The persons of

the drama upon the stage strove to screen the accident as much as

they could, and the crocodile, Penkethman, (whose face was a farce)

rising from giving his assistance to the fallen maid; unluckily, his

back encountered the case for the mummy, which stood upright,

openmouth’d, to receive him, that case and crocodile fell backward

with such violent noise, that the body of the crocodile lay intirely

inhum’d in the case of the mummy, all absorb’d but the head and

the tail of the monster; and the rapidity of the fall, had so forcibly

jamm’d all that appertain’d to Pinky’s fair form, that all the strength

and skill of twenty people running to the assistance of the monster,

could not disengage him, till Pallas in the likeness of hammers,

saws, chissels, and other implements in the hands of those that knew

their use, releas’d him. This scene took more than half an hour in

the action: with what roar of applause the reader must form in his

own Imagination. Many of the audience the next night, made an

98

interruption of some minutes, to have the scene repeated, which so

much allarmed poor Sarsnet, that she run off the stage extremely

frighted, which provok’d a peal of laughter from the spectators.78

Although Mrs. Hunt is not referred to by name, she was the actress who played the role

of Sarsnet on this occasion. The audience obviously loved the debacle and apparently

Mrs. Hunt dealt with this occurrence with a reasonable amount of sang froid—at least

there is no mention of her being unable to continue her performance, at least not that

night.

The pattern of Mrs. Hunt’s career—a string of minor roles, some improvement,

then return to less significant parts—does not seem to have been unusual. Her career is

interwoven with others of the same rank, particularly with that of Mrs. Richard Willis,

who played many of the same roles, often in the opposing company and at times took

over Mrs. Hunt’s roles when she left if they had been in the same company. The two

actresses seem to have been regarded as virtually interchangeable by the Drury Lane

management in the years 1717-1719. Mrs. Hunt played the role of the Nurse in Love for

Love in April 1717 and Mrs. Willis took the part in October; Mrs. Hunt was Chat in The

Committee in Jan 1719, Mrs. Willis had played that role in August and December 1718;

Mrs Hunt’s final role, Abigail, in The Scornful Lady was taken by Mrs. Willis when the

play was performed in January 1720. There were occasions when both women appeared

together—for example, in August 1718 when Drury Lane put on Wycherley’s Love in a

Wood Mrs. Hunt played Mrs. Joyner and Mrs. Willis, Mrs. Crossbite—but usually if one

is in the cast, the other is not. When Mrs. Hunt departed from the stage permanently in

1719, Mrs. Willis appears to have taken over these roles on a more permanent basis. 78 Ibid p. 221-222.

99

Although Mrs. Hunt’s last recorded performance was on November 14th 1719, the

final mention of her occurs in a note from the Drury Lane management to the treasurer

which also makes reference to Mrs. Willis.

Let Mrs. Willis be enter’d at forty shillings per week from Saturday

28th November 1719: and let Mrs. Hunt be reduced to forty shillings

per week only, from ye same day.79

This seems to imply that the management, though not considering Mrs. Hunt to be of

much value, thought that she was still part of their company; perhaps this reduction in

salary helped her decide finally to abandon a career on the stage.

Mrs. Willis’s career, however, lasted longer than that of Mrs. Hunt—it spanned

forty-four years, 1694-1738, though from 1718 onwards her appearances were primarily

at the Richmond summer theatre and Bartholomew Fair. As well as being an actress,

Mrs. Willis was a singer and dancer and perhaps this versatility may have helped keep

her in employment longer than Mrs. Hunt. We do not know what happened to Mrs. Hunt

when she left the stage; Davies says of Mrs. Willis that “She lived to a great age with its

worst companion, poverty.”80

Hester Santlow (Mrs. Barton Booth) (c. 1690-1773)

As the third actress in the case study for sample two, Hester Santlow belongs to

the category of actresses who had “a long career where information on both professional

and personal lives is available, but the actress in question remained relatively minor.”

79 Signed by Cibber, Wilks and Booth. Document Register 2: 617 Item 2946 80 Thomas Davies Dramatic Miscellanies: Consisting of critical observations on several plays of Shakespeare: a review of his principal characters, and those of various eminent writers, as represented by Mr. Garrick, and other celebrated comedians 3 vols. (London: Printed for the author, 1783-1784) 1: 423.

100

The definition of “relatively minor” is obviously subjective and does not have precise

parameters; in the case of Mrs. Booth, this means that while she was both successful and

popular with audiences she had a rather limited range and only occasionally played what

could be considered as first rank roles81

The extant information about Hester Santlow comes only through her theatrical

life; we do not know where, or even exactly when, she was born and when her connection

with the theatre ended in 1733 nothing further of her life is known except for the will she

made in 1769, four years before her death. Her year of birth is estimated by the

Biographical Dictionary as 1690 from the fact that when she made her first appearance

on stage, in 1706, she was described as “Miss Santlow” which changes to “Mrs. Santlow”

around 1711 indicating “that she had just reached her majority.”82 However, since

actresses were often referred to as “Mrs.” once they reached sixteen or seventeen years of

age she may have been slightly younger than the estimate.83 Also, although she is referred

to primarily as “Miss” in her early appearances, she is listed as “Mrs.” for performances

March 9th and April 13th 1706, perhaps indicating that she was old enough for there to be

some confusion over her title.

Miss Hester Santlow began her stage career as a dancer. Her first performance

was on Thursday, February 28 1706 at Drury Lane where she performed in the dancing

after a production of The Old Batchelour (Act IV only) and Arsinoe, Queen of Cyprus.

Her appearance was listed as

81 Hester Santlow specialized in playing the innocent young girl; for example she played Celia in Volpone not the stronger role of Lady Would-Be and Alithea in The Country Wife but never the saucy Margery Pinchwife. 82 Biographical Dictionary 2: 222. 83 Susanna Mountfort, daughter of William and Susanna Percival Mountfort, who was a contemporary and friend of Miss Santlow was referred to as “Mrs. Mountfort” in productions in 1704 even though she was only fourteen at the time.

101

DANCING. [New Dances] compos’d by Cherrier, and perform’d

by him and Miss Santlow, his Schollar, being the first time of her

Appearance on the Stage.84

Between her debut and her first benefit, on April 16th 1706, she is mentioned in eight cast

lists but probably appeared more frequently. The performance for her benefit is listed as

VALENTINIAN: With The Rape of Lucina. Valentinian – Wilks;

Lucina – Mrs. Oldfield.

SINGING. By Hughs, Newberry, and the Boy.

DANCING. By Cherrier and Miss Santlow.

COMMENT. Benefit Miss Santlow. Not acted these 12 Years.85

This benefit is worth noting as it indicates her rapid rise in status with the company and

presumably also her popularity with the audiences. Most younger, and lower rank,

players had shared benefits; so for Miss Santlow to receive a solo benefit only two

months after her first appearance was unusual, as was the fact that the cast was led by two

of the leading performers, Robert Wilks and Anne Oldfield.

Hester Santlow continued dancing at Drury Lane until January 1708 when a genre

split forced a union of the two existing acting companies in London—plays were to be

performed at Drury Lane under Christopher Rich and opera at the Queen’s Theatre in the

Haymarket, under John Vanbrugh. With this division, all the dancers moved to the

Queen’s Theatre; however the genre split did not last long and by November 1709 a

combination of plays and music were once again being offered at both theatres. Miss

Santlow stayed with the Queen’s theatre until the summer of 1709 and then moved back

84 The London Stage 2: 118. 85 Ibid p. 123.

102

to Drury Lane—which was by that time had changed management, was being run by

Collier, and had become a second-class company—for the 1709-10 season, where she

remained for the rest of her career. This move back to Drury Lane was the point where

she began her acting career, with her first role being Miss Prue in Congreve’s Love for

Love (1695) on December 3rd 1709. This was a somewhat ironic choice of role as

Dramatis Personæ describes Miss Prue as “a silly, awkward, Country Girl”; as this was

very far removed from the dancer noted for her grace, perhaps the management were

trying for novelty by playing Hester Santlow against the audience expectations or may

perhaps have been just trying her acting skills in a minor part whose principal

requirement was youth.

Whether she moved to Drury Lane because she wanted an opportunity to act

rather than dance—and as most of the senior actors went to the Queen’s she felt that this

would be her chance—or because she had no choice, we do not know. We also cannot be

sure that Miss Santlow’s first advertised role was her first attempt at acting; she may have

played small one or two-line parts that were not mentioned on cast lists prior to this date.

Whatever the reason, once she returned to Drury Lane Miss Santlow still danced but

added acting to her repertoire; although from the 1709-10 season onwards she is listed as

an actress, not a dancer, by The London Stage she did in fact maintain her dancing roles

and for some performances acted in the play and also performed in the dance afterwards.

This change in stage career was unusual—a number of actresses also sang and danced but

for a performer to begin as a dancer, rise quickly in status and popularity and then

become an actress was not the usual route. Miss Santlow’s first more challenging part

was Ophelia on February 14th 1710 and her first, and one of her few, leading roles came

103

on February 25th 1710 when she played Dorcas in Charles Shadwell’s The Fair Quaker of

Deal (1710). Cibber commented favorably on this performance, saying that she was one

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 compos’d 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.86

This qualified praise of Hester Santlow’s abilities as an actress may also have been rather

ironic in tone as at this time in her career she could not have been described as innocent ,

modest or reserved. In fact she was known for her lack of these qualities and her absence

from the stage for the 1712-13 season was probably because she gave birth to a daughter,

Harriet, by her lover, the upcoming politician James Craggs. Cibber’s comments on the

excellence of her dancing and her gracefulness but limitations as an actress are echoed by

Davies in his description of Hester Santlow’s later performances, when she was Mrs.

Booth, firstly

His [Booth’s] Cordelia was Mrs. Booth; she was well suited, by the

agreeableness of her person, her voice, and manner of speaking, to

several of the soft and gentler females, such as Ophelia in Hamlet,

86 Robert W. Lowe, ed., An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber. Written by himself. (London: John C. Nimmo, 1889) 2 vols. II: 95-96.

104

and Selima in Tamerlane: however, I think she was a cold actress

in tragedy; in comedy she displayed a pleasing vivacity and elegant

deportment, that charmed the public long; in the Harriet of Etherege’s

Sir Fopling Flutter she sang some of the London cries very agreeably;

but her chief excellence consisted in a graceful manner of dancing.87

then in a description of her performance as Ophelia

Mrs. Booth’s figure, voice, and deportment, in this part, raised, in

the minds of the spectators, an amiable picture of an innocent,

unhappy, maid: but she went no farther.88

Although Davies was writing forty years after Hester Santlow’s stage career ended, her

dancing, not her acting was what obviously stuck in the audience’s mind.89 The most

fulsome praise for her dancing talent comes from John Essex’s preface to his translation

of Rameau’s The Dancing Master (1728)

We have had a great many Women attempt to be Theatrical Dancers,

but none ever arrived to that Height and Pitch of Applause as the

incomparable Mrs. Booth, in whom Art and Nature are so beautifully

wove together, that the whole Web is of a Piece so exquisitely formed

to Length and Breadth, that the Produce of the many different Characters

87 Thomas Davies Dramatic Micellanies[sic]: consisting of critical observations on several plays of Shakespeare: with a review of his principal characters, and those of various eminent writers, as represented by Mr. Garrick, and other celebrated comedians. 3 volumes (London: 1783-84). 2: 275-276. 88 Ibid 3: 126-127. 89 Thomas Davies (c.1712-1785) was a bookseller and minor actor as well as an author. He attended Edinburgh University from 1728-1729 but the date of his arrival in London is not known. The first record of Davies presence in London is a performance with Fielding’s company at the Haymarket on May 27th 1736 but he was probably in London for some time before this. Hester Santlow’s last recorded performance was on February 6th 1733 so Davies may have seen her perform in person. However, in the last few years of her career her performances were not regular due to the illness of her husband and also cannot have been her best given her domestic worries—therefore Davies comments are most likely to be based on information from other actors and spectators rather than personal observations.

105

she represents is the Wonder and Admiration of the present Age, and

will scarce be credited by the Succeeding. I shall beg leave to mention

the Chaconne, Saraband, Menuet, in all which she appears with that

Grace, Softness, and Address none can look on but with Attention,

Pleasure, and Surprise. She far excels all that went before her, and

must be the just Subject of Imitation to all that dare attempt to copy

after her . . . All which shew how many extensive as well as extraordinary

Qualifications must concentre in one Person to form so bright a Genius:

A Subject becoming the most elevated Wit to describe, and the politest

Taste to contemplate.90

Given that all contemporary sources praise Hester Santlow’s dancing above all else, her

determination to pursue an acting career as well seems to indicate a young woman who

had very definite ideas of her own from which she would not be swayed by public

opinion.

In spite of her earlier loose reputation, on August 3rd 1719 Hester Santlow married

one of the leading actors, also one of the managers, of Drury Lane, Barton Booth (1679?-

1733). She was his second wife—Booth’s first marriage took place sometime in 1704

and ended in 1710 with his wife’s death91—and according to the Biographical Dictionary

he was warned against her by friends, but in spite of this they appear to have had a very

happy and faithful marriage.92 Miss Santlow’s marriage to Booth does not appear to have

influenced the type or number of roles she performed; as the Biographical Dictionary

90 Pierre Rameau The Dancing Master. or, The whole art and mystery of dancing explained…In two parts. Done from the French of Monsieur Rameau, by J. Essex. 2nd edition. (London: 1731). Preface pp. xiii-xiv. 91 Barton Booth’s first wife was Frances Barkham, daughter of Sir William Barkham of Norfolk, nothing is known either about her or their relationship. 92 Biographical Dictionary 2: 216.

106

points out, although the couple were financially secure enough to cease performing if

they wished, they both continued as before. The table below gives a “snapshot” of Hester

Santlow’s appearances, at least all those we have on record, for the seasons of 1717-1718

through 1719-1720 and shows an actress whose performances were divided between

dancing and acting—she specialized in young innocent girls, occasionally she performed

major roles such as Cordelia in King Lear, but mainly played the second or third female

part.

Table 2. All recorded performances for Hester Santlow (Mrs. Booth) Fall 1717-Spring 1720. Note 1: These listings are taken from The London Stage Vol.2 Pt 2 but there are a number of plays and dance performances for which there are no extant casts, therefore gaps in this list do not necessarily indicate that she did not perform at the time. Note 2: I have retained The London Stage listings for role names therefore with regard to performances of (a) The Fair Quaker of Deal Miss Santlow is sometimes advertised as playing “The Fair Quaker” and at others as playing “Dorcas,” these are in fact the same part, and (b) King Henry IVth she is advertised both as “Hotspur’s Wife” and “Lady Percy,” again these are the same. Key ►after a play title indicates that this was an afterpiece where Miss Santlow probably both danced and acted. Dance - This indicates that Miss Santlow was advertised for dancing only, not listed for an acting part. Dance* - This indicates that while Miss Santlow is advertised as dancing, no cast list is provided for acting parts, therefore she possibly performed both. ♥ after a role indicates that this performance was a benefit for Miss Santlow. + after a role indicates that Miss Santlow is advertised not only for this part but also for dancing. Season Date Play Role 1717-1718 28-Sep Hamlet Ophelia

9-Oct Love makes a man Angelina 10-Oct The Country Wife Alithea 12-Oct The Loves of Mars and Venus

(dance)► Venus

16-Oct The Funeral Harriet

107

24-Oct The Chances 2nd Constantia 30-Oct Danced* 1-Nov Danced* 13-Nov She wou'd if she cou'd Gatty 22-Nov Danced* 25-Nov Love for Love Prue 27-Nov The Double Gallant Silvia 7-Jan Danced 14-Jan Danced* 21-Jan The Fair Quaker of Deal The Fair Quaker 28-Jan Danced* 29-Jan Tamerlane Selima 3-Feb Danced* 10-Feb Danced 14-Feb Danced 1-Mar King Lear Cordelia 4-Mar Danced 18-Mar Danced* 25-Mar Danced* 25-Apr Danced 2-May Danced 6-May Danced 8-May Danced 13-May Danced 16-May King Henry the IVth Hotspur's Wife 22-May Danced 6-Jun Danced

1718-1719 20-Sep Hamlet Ophelia 25-Sep King Lear Cordelia 27-Sep King Henry IV Hotspur's wife 2-Oct Danced 7-Oct Danced 10-Oct The Constant Couple Angelica 15-Oct Danced 17-Oct Volpone Celia 18-Oct Danced* 22-Oct Danced 24-Oct Danced 28-Oct Danced

108

29-Oct Danced 4-Nov Tamerlane Selima 12-Nov The Jovial Crew Meriel 14-Nov Danced* 17-Nov Danced* 20-Nov King Lear Cordelia 25-Nov Othello Desdemona 10-Dec Danced 11-Dec The Tempest Dorinda 13-Dec The Man of Mode Harriet 15-Dec The Fair Quaker of Deal Dorcas 18-Dec Danced 19-Dec Danced 20-Dec Hamlet Ophelia 22-Dec Love for Love Prue 29-Dec Danced 10-Jan King Henry IV Hotspur's wife 26-Jan Danced 29-Jan Danced 4-Feb The Constant Couple Angelica 6-Feb The Man of Mode Harriet 7-Feb Danced 12-Feb The Dumb Farce► Angelique 12-Feb Tamerlane Selima 16-Feb Danced* 19-Feb Danced* 30-Mar The Tempest & The Dumb Farce No cast list♥ 9-Apr Danced 11-Apr Danced* 14-Apr Danced 16-Apr Danced 17-Apr Danced* 18-Apr Danced* 20-Apr Danced* 21-Apr Danced* 22-Apr Danced* 23-Apr Danced* 27-Apr Danced* 30-Apr Danced* 2-May Danced*

109

4-May Tamerlane Selima 5-May Danced* 6-May Othello Desdemona 7-May King Henry IV Hotspur's wife 8-May Danced 9-May Danced* 11-May Danced 12-May Danced* 13-May Danced 14-May The Constant Couple Angelica 19-May Danced 21-May Danced 30-May Danced*

1719-1720 12-Sep Hamlet Ophelia 17-Sep Danced 24-Sep The Constant Couple Angelica 29-Sep Danced 10-Oct Othello No role 15-Oct Danced 22-Oct King Henry IV Lady Percy 23-Oct The Double Gallant No roles named 26-Oct Danced* 27-Oct Love makes a man Angelina 29-Oct Danced* 3-Nov Danced 6-Nov The Jovial Crew Meriel+ 16-Nov The Busy Body Miranda+ 18-Nov She wou'd if she cou'd Gatty+ 19-Nov King Lear Cordelia 25-Nov Danced* 1-Dec The Constant Couple Angelica 2-Dec The Double Gallant Silvia 4-Dec A Duke and no Duke► Duchess 7-Dec A Duke and no Duke► Duchess 1-Jan The Rover Hellena 2-Jan Hamlet Ophelia 7-Jan The Rover Hellena 9-Jan King Lear Cordelia 12-Jan Danced

110

14-Jan Danced 18-Jan The Rover Hellena 19-Jan The Constant Couple Angelica 1-Feb Danced 3-Feb Danced 5-Feb She wou'd and she wou'd not Rosara 10-Feb Danced 12-Feb The Double Gallant Silvia 29-Feb Danced* 1-Mar Love makes a man Angelina 14-Mar Hamlet Ophelia 15-Mar Danced 19-Mar Volpone Celia 22-Mar Volpone Celia 24-Mar The Rover Hellena♥ 28-Mar Danced* 31-Mar Danced 2-Apr Tamerlane Selima 4-Apr Danced 5-Apr Danced 7-Apr King Lear Cordelia 18-Apr Danced* 19-Apr Danced* 21-Apr Danced 25-Apr Danced 26-Apr Danced 30-Apr Hamlet Ophelia 2-May The Double Gallant Silvia 4-May The Rover Hellena 5-May Danced 6-May Danced 9-May Danced 10-May Danced 11-May Danced 12-May Danced 16-May She wou'd and she wou'd not Rosara+ 17-May Danced 18-May Danced* 21-May Danced 23-May Danced

111

24-May Danced 25-May Danced

The pattern of appearances which emerges from these three seasons is as follows: Table 3. Total appearances

165

Acting Dancing Both 66 (21 roles) 95 4

No cast list

37 Given that there are only four documented instances where Hester Santlow performed

both as an actress and a dancer, the likelihood is that for the thirty-seven appearances for

which we have no cast list her participation was probably limited to dancing. The acting

roles which Hester Santlow performed during these three seasons are quite limited in

both number and range. Taking on only twenty-one different roles over the course of

three seasons is not a heavy load by itself; however, since 58% of her appearances were

in dance, and we have no way of knowing how many of these were new dances, this

alters the perception of her workload considerably.

Of the acting roles which Hester Santlow performed between the beginning of

Autumn 1717 and the end of Spring 1720 there is not much variation in the type of

character which she portrayed. The Shakespearean plays in which she appeared—Hamlet,

King Lear, Henry IV, The Tempest—are all ones which do not have particularly strong

female characters; the male characters dominate both plot and emotion with the females

acting primarily as foils with little or no independent function. For example, Ophelia is

112

young, innocent and generally biddable; though she supposedly loves Hamlet she trusts

her father’s judgment of their relationship more than her own. Throughout Hamlet

Ophelia is seen in terms of her relationships with the men who surround her—brother

Laertes, father Polonius, and Hamlet himself—she has none of the passion and spirit of

Beatrice or Juliet. The range of emotion which Ophelia is required to display is also

limited— girlish love, filial obedience, pathetic madness—nothing which any reasonably

competent young actress should find too difficult.

Miss Santlow’s role of Hellena in The Rover does require more complexity than

than did her Shakespearean parts but again, one of the chief requirements for the role is

youth. For Hellena she would have needed exuberance rather than pathos—she is the

willful young woman who finally captures the heart of Willmore, “the Rover” of the

title—and although she is one of three principal female characters, she is perhaps the

most straightforward of the group. Hellena acts on impulse and displays none of the

thoughtful planning and consideration of her older sister, Florinda, nor does she have the

depth of passion and anguish of the courtesan, Angellica Bianca. It is the latter role

which is by far the most demanding female part in The Rover, the actress who plays

Angellica needs to be able to convey, among other things, a dignity and gravitas which

outweighs her social position and commands both the respect and eventual pity of the

audience.

In the first production of The Rover in which Mrs. Booth appeared (January 1st

1720), the cast was as follows

Willmore – Wilks Hellena – Mrs. Booth Belvil – Mills Angellica Bianca – Mrs. Porter Blunt – Johnson Florinda – Mrs. Garnet

113

Sancho – Norris Valeria – Mrs. Younger Moretta – Mrs. Saunders

The last performance before this, at Drury Lane, was in 1717 at which time the role of

Hellena had been performed by Susanna Mountfort; the rest of the cast was the same

except that Florinda had been performed by Mrs Horton and the character of Valeria

omitted.

By studying Hester Santlow’s performance record over these three seasons—

during which time she married Barton Booth, one of the actor-managers—one can make

a number of deductions. She must have enjoyed performing since she did not need to

continue on the stage either for financial reasons or in an attempt to attract a potential

husband/protector. She seems to have known her own limitations; once she married

Booth, in August 1719, she would have had the opportunity to lobby for a greater variety

of roles had she wished to do so. While being married to one of the managers was no

guarantee of success once on the stage, her position would most likely have given Hester

Booth a least a trial in more demanding roles if that was what she wanted. As we have no

such roles advertised for Mrs. Booth we can reasonably assume that she was happy to

continue as before.

While Mrs. Booth’s early career clearly favored dance, the usual expectation

would be that this would change as she got older—although the dances performed at the

time would not have been as intensely physical as modern ballet for example—dancing

was an occupation primarily for the young. Not only would physicality have been an

issue, but also audience expectation—young dancers are more attractive than older ones,

especially the women. This move away from dance does not seem to have occurred in

114

Mrs. Booth’s case; a count of her roles as actress and/or dancer for the 1726-1727 season

gives a total of eighty-one appearances, fifty-three of which were in dance.

Table 4. Hester Booth’s appearances at Drury Lane, September 1726-May 1727. * indicates a month for which the majority of plays listed have no casts.

Acting appearances Dancing appearances September 4 0 October 3 1 November 6 3 December 6 8 January 0* 12 February 1 8 March 1 12 April 1 7 May Total

6

28

2

53

If the Biographical Dictionary is correct in the assumption that Hester

Santlow/Booth was born in 1690, then she would have been thirty-six years old in

1726—if my estimate of her age is correct then she may have been as old as forty-two at

this time. Although she is still dancing more than acting by 1726, there are some

differences between this season and those previously analyzed. The principal difference

is in the type of dance she was performing; in the 1717-1718 through 1719-1720 seasons

most of her performances were simply listed as “Dancing” with a few roles in

Afterpieces, by the 1726-1727 season this situation has been reversed. Only fourteen of

her fifty-three dance performances for 1726-1726 are simply “Dancing,” the other thirty-

nine appearances are recurring roles in four Afterpieces: Apollo and Daphne, Harlequin

Dr. Faustus, The Miser, and Harlequin’s Triumph. These all involve large casts of

115

performers who either work solely as dancers or who are minor actors who also dance—

Mrs Booth appears to have had major roles in all four Afterpieces.

The other difference between this season and the earlier ones is the influence of

her marriage. As can be seen from the role count, Mrs. Booth had very few performances,

either as actress or dancer, in September and October 1726. This can perhaps be

accounted for by her husband’s illness—the Daily Journal of September 30th 1726 noted

that

Mr Booth, the excellent Tragedian, continues so much indisposed,

that he keeps his Chamber.

Since the Booths appear to have had a happy marriage, Mrs. Booth is not likely to have

been concentrating on her stage career during this and other bouts of her husband’s

severe illness. Mrs. Booth’s last performances on the London stage were in the Spring of

1733, before her husband’s death; her appearances were still divided between acting and

dancing (Table 4) even though she would have been somewhere between forty-three and

forty-nine years of age at the time. This unusually long dancing career seems to indicate

that she was both an excellent exponent of the art and a very popular performer with the

audience.

Table 5. Hester Booth’s appearances at Drury Lane, September 1732 to May 1733. Note: Numbers in brackets indicate possible further performances for which there are no extant cast lists but in which Mrs. Booth is likely to have performed.

Acting appearances Dancing appearances September 1 2 October 3 2 November 10 14

116

December 1(+1?) 5(+6?) January 3(+2?) 3(+9?) February 2? 5(+3?) March 4 4(+1?) April 2(+3?) 2(+10?) May Total

1?

24(+9?)

1?

37(+30?)

As can be see from these figures, there are thirty-nine uncertain roles for Mrs.

Booth during this season. One reason for this level of uncertainty is that The Daily Post,

the newspaper on which many of the listings of The London Stage are based for this

period, is unavailable for a number dates during the 1732-1733 season. I have put a

question mark for performances of plays such as Hamlet on January 5th 1733, where there

is no cast advertised but we know that Mrs. Booth invariably played Ophelia in Drury

Lane productions. One role which Hester Booth does seem to have given up is that of

Harriet in The Man of Mode—this had been one of her early major acting roles, her first

performance being in February 1711, but when Drury Lane performed the work on

January 21st 1733 she was not on the advertised cast nor does she seem to have resumed

the role afterwards. This could be explained by the fact that the part of Harriet is that of a

young girl and therefore Mrs. Booth, or the managers, decided that thirty-two years in the

role was enough. However logical this might seem to a modern audience, Hester Booth’s

other roles at the time need to be taken into consideration—the last known role we have

for her is Cordelia in King Lear (April 30th 1733) another “young girl” and one whom

Mrs. Booth had been portraying equally long. Why surrender one role and not another?

There is no definitive answer that can be provided, only the suggestion that Mrs. Booth

117

was cutting back on her roles and, due to the position both she and her husband held in

the company, she was able to choose her favorites.

The highest level of uncertainty is regarding Mrs. Booth’s dancing

performances—we have thirty-seven definite performances and the possibility of another

thirty, a significant increase as this would almost double the number of her appearances

in dancing roles. Her dance appearances for this season are virtually all in elaborate

Ent’ractes or Afterpieces, such as The Country Revels, Cephalus & Procris, and The

Judgment of Paris all of which have large casts and which were successful enough to

enjoy long runs. These last two factors may help explain why we are lacking definitive

cast lists—if the same piece was to be performed night after night then it would not be

worth the expense of printing the cast over and over again unless significant changes had

been made. In the case of Mrs. Booth, the question marks remain for this season in

particular as she may have had to pull out of a performance at short notice due to her

husband’s ongoing illness; this would not necessarily have been noted in the

advertisements.

Barton Booth died, after many years ill health, on May 10th 1733. The

Biographical Dictionary says of Hester Booth around this time

On 6 February 1733 she played Helen in The Judgment of Paris,

her last recorded role at Drury Lane.93

…………………………………………………………………..

Booth had sold half of his share in Drury Lane in July 1732, and after

93 The Biographical Dictionary fails to mention that this was a dancing role, not an acting one. Indeed, the entry for Hester Booth gives the impression that she was a dancer turned actress who retained some of her “dancing chores” (2: 224). A detailed examination of Mrs. Booth’s appearances throughout her career shows the opposite—that she was a dancer of considerable importance who also acted.

118

his death Mrs. Booth sold the other half to Henry Giffard of the

Goodman’s Fields Theatre, apparently with the odd stipulation

that it not be resold to the actors.94

The first of these statements is incorrect—The London Stage shows performances for

Hester Booth through March and April in both acting and dancing roles, with her last

definite acting role on April 30th 1733, Cordelia in King Lear. There are also two

possible roles for Mrs. Booth in May, one for three days before her husband’s death, the

other for two weeks after. The first of these is a dancing role, in The Country Revels,

performed on May 7th 1733; however, the Daily Post for that day is missing and the

advertisement used by The London Stage is from an advance notice printed in The Daily

Advertiser on May 5th. Mrs. Booth may have danced the role—her husband had been ill

for a long time and they may not have realized how close to the end he was—or she may

have intended to perform and then withdrawn once the seriousness of her husband’s

condition became obvious. There is no way of knowing exactly what happened but

Hester Booth was involved in performance at Drury Lane right up to the time of her

husband’s death.

The second, and more significant, role advertised for Mrs. Booth in May 1733

was that of Miranda in The Busy Body. Again, this comes not from the day of the

performance, May 24th, as that issue of the Daily Post is also missing, but from an

advance notice in The Daily Advertiser of May 17th. Miranda was a role Hester Booth

had played many times before and, unless an error was made with the advertisement and

an earlier cast list sent to the newspaper, her inclusion on this cast list is an indication that

she intended to continue her career on the stage, even after her husband had died. 94 2: 226.

119

Whether or not she performed on May 24th, she does not appear in any casts advertised

after this—why did she change her mind?

One possible answer lies with the authors of Biographical Dictionary’s assertion

that Mrs. Booth’s stipulation regarding the re-selling of her share in Drury Lane was

“odd.” When one looks at the changes in company management and the actors’ rebellion

which occurred around this time, then neither her retirement nor her conditions of sale

seem quite so inexplicable.

The triumvirate of actor/managers—Cibber, Wilks and Booth—who had run

Drury Lane for twenty years were, by the end of May 1733, either retired or deceased.95

Cibber had passed the management of Drury Lane to his son, Theophilus, but not his

share which he sold to John Highmore. On May 29th 1733, the Daily Post reported that

We are assur’d that there will be no more Plays acted this Season

at the Theatre-Royal in Drury Lane. And we hear that there was

Yesterday no Play acted . . . as had been advertiz’d for that Day; the

Occasion we are inform’d was, that at Midnight on Saturday last

several Persons arm’d took Possession of the same, by direction of

some of the Patentees, and lock’d up and barricad’d all the Doors

and Entrances thereunto. 96

This rebellion was led by T. Cibber and supported by a number of the players—the

patentees at this time were: Mary Wilks (widow of Robert Wilks), Hester Booth, John

95 Booth had been admitted to the management under the new license issued for Drury Lane on November 11th 1713. He had convinced the Lord Chamberlain that he should be part of the management—Cibber and Wilks eventually agreed but Doggett, the third member of the actor/manager triumvirate, refused. There followed a complicated series of negotiations which dragged on for several years. The end result was that Doggett agreed to sell his share and retire and Drury Lane began a period of stable management under Cibber, Wilks and Booth. 96 The Document Register 2: Item 3709.

120

Highmore, and John Ellys. The patentees denied any mistreatment of the actors and

denounced the actors actions in a letter signed by them all and reported by the Daily Post

on June 4th 1733. Given these highly unpleasant circumstances, combined with the recent

death of her husband, Hester Booth’s decision to retire from the stage and her stipulation

that her share in Drury Lane not be resold to the actors no longer seems even slightly

“odd.” 97

Most of what we know about the Booths has to do with the business of the theatre

and unfortunately we have few actual facts about their personal lives. One extant piece

of anecdotal evidence refers to the start of their relationship and is mentioned by the

actress George Anne Bellamy (1731-1788) in her autobiographical Apology.98 In volume

one of this work she mentions the transfer of Barton Booth’s affections from Mrs.

Mountfort, another actress, to Hester Santlow and the disastrous effect this had on Mrs.

Mountfort. According to Mrs. Bellamy, Booth was the acknowledged lover of Mrs.

Mountfort—they had not married because if they did she would lose a ₤300 per annum

allowance left her by a former lover on condition that she remained single. Mrs.

Mountfort introduced Booth to her friend Miss Santlow, they fell in love and planned to

marry, then Mrs. Mountfort proceeded to lose her senses and had to be confined to her

house, but

One day, during a lucid interval, she asked her attendant what play was

to be performed that evening? and was told, that it was Hamlet. In this

piece, whilst she had been on the stage, she had always met with great

97 Mrs. Booth’s sale of her share to Henry Giffard of Goodman’s Field’s was reported in the London Evening Post of September 18-20 1733 (The Document Register 2: Item 3744). 98 George Anne Bellamy An Apology for the Life of George Anne Bellamy, late of Covent-Garden Theatre. Written by herself. To which is annexed, her original letter to John Calcraft. 5 vols (London: 1785) 3rd edition.

121

applause in the character of Ophelia. The recollection struck her; and with

that cunning which is usually allied to insanity, she found means to elude

the care of her servants, and got to the theatre; where concealing herself

till the scene in which Ophelia was to make her appearance in her insane

state, she pushed on the stage before her rival, who played the character

that night, and exhibited a far more perfect representation of madness than

the utmost exertions of mimic art could do. She was, in truth, Ophelia herself,

to the amazement of the performers, as well as of the audience. Nature having

made this last effort, her vital powers failed her. On her going off, she

prophetically exclaimed, “It is all over!”—And, indeed that was soon the case,

for as she was conveying home (to make use of the concluding lines of

another sweet ballad of Gay’s wherein her fate is so truly described)

“She like a lily drooping, then bowed her head and died.”99

This is a wonderfully theatrical anecdote and given some of the occurrences in the

theatres, such as the duel fought in Elizabeth Barry’s dressing room, not perhaps beyond

the bounds of possibility. However, there are a number of problems with this story, the

first of which is the time gap between the described events (c. 1718)—some thirteen

years before the author’s birth— and the writing of this account (1785), a distance of over

sixty years. The next problem is with the details which Mrs. Bellamy provides—for

example she refers to Mrs. Mountfort as the wife of the “promising actor of that name,

who was unfortunately murdered as he was escorting the celebrated Mrs. Bracegirdle

home from the theatre.”100 This is very true except that Mrs. Bellamy is conflating two

99 Ibid Vol 1 pp. 187-188. 100 Ibid p. 186.

122

separate people, mother and daughter, the former was the wife of the murdered actor and

the latter the friend of Miss Santlow—and this is not the only inaccuracy in the account.

Mrs. Bellamy refers to a house at Cowley owned by John Rich and formerly the property

of “Mrs. Montford, now Mrs. Vanbruggen” but there is no record of either mother or

daughter owning such property whereas Barton Booth did have a country house there —

he was buried at Cowley Church on May 17, 1733. Finally, the fact that this anecdote

does not appear anywhere else arouses further suspicion. Mrs. Bellamy says that she was

told of these events by Colley Cibber but seems to have been conscious of the lack of

evidence and adds a note of explanation

The reason that Colley Cibber has taken no notice of so remarkable

a circumstance in his “Apology,” must be owing to his friendship

for Mrs. Booth, who was alive when he wrote it.101

Since Cibber was supposed to have told this story at a house party given by “Lord

Tyrawley” then surely some other account would have crept into print. Taking this in

conjunction with Mrs. Bellamy’s factual errors the likelihood of this story being true

seems exceedingly slight.

The most likely source for Mrs. Bellamy’s account of the Booth/Santlow

relationship and Susanna Mountfort’s subsequent descent into madness is probably some

gossip mentioned by her mother, also an actress, who was contemporary of theirs. Mrs.

Bellamy senior began her career as Miss/Mrs. Seal, was acting with the Drury Lane

company from 1718 to 1730, and would therefore have been aware of the interpersonal

relationships within the company. She died in 1771, fourteen years before the

publication of her daughter’s Apology, so some mention she once made of the transfer of 101 Ibid p. 188.

123

Booth’s affections from Mrs. Mountfort to Miss Santlow could have been expanded into

the dramatic anecdote recounted by George Anne Bellamy. A further family connection

lies in the location where Mrs, Bellamy asserts she heard Cibber tell the story—at Lord

Tyrawley’s. This gentleman was her mother’s lover and is generally accepted to be

George Anne’s father, though her mother was married to a Captain Bellamy at the time of

her birth.102

The only reliable contemporary testimony to Hester Booth’s character comes

from two wills—Mrs. Booth’s own, made in 1769, and that of her husband, made in

1730. These documents are of interest because of the amount of detail given in each and

also the indirect information they provide on their authors. Barton Booth’s will gives

instructions for his burial at Cowley, leaves a bequest of ₤5 to one of his father’s old

servants, and everything else to his “beloved wife, Hester Booth.”103 However, he felt the

exclusion of his brother and sister from this document necessitated some explanation

As I have been a man much known and talked of my not leaving

legayces to my Relations may give occasion to censorious people

to reflect upon my Conduct in this latter Act of my life.

Therefore I think it necessary to assert that I have considered

my Circumstances and finding upon a strict Examination,

that all I am now possessed of, does not amount to two thirds

of the fortune my said Wife brought me on the Day of our Marriage,

together with the yearly Additions and Advantages since arising

102 The Biographical Dictionary states that “. . . she gave birth to a daughter, George Anne Bellamy, whose paternity was acknowledged by Tyrawley, and Captain Bellamy disappeared, apparently forever.” (2:4). Unfortunately no sources are given to support this statement. 103 The Last Will and Testament of Barton Booth, Public Record Office of The National Archives, PROB 11/659.

124

from her Laborious Employment upon the Stage during twelve

years past; I thought myself bound by Honesty, Honour, and

Gratitude due to her constant affection not to give away any

Part of the remainder of her Fortune at my death, having already

bestowed in free Gifts upon my Sister Barbara Rogers upwards

of £1300 out of my Wife’s Substance and full £400 of her money

upon my undeserving Brother George Booth (besides the Gifts

they received before my Marriage) and all these Benefits were

conferred on my said Brother and Sister from time to time at the

Earnest Solicitation of my Wife who was perpetually intreating

me to continue the Allowances I gave my Relations before my

Marriage. The Inhuman return that has been made my wife for

these Obligations by my sister I forbear to mention.104

Although this is a legal document using legal terminology, Barton Booth’s personality

does make itself felt; his love and respect for Hester are clear, as is his appreciation and

recognition of her “laborious Employment on the Stage.” He is obviously aware of the

public nature of their profession and thus even their “private” lives and so seems to be

taking steps to guard her reputation and in the process does not hesitate to castigate his

own brother and sister for their behavior. From Barton Booth’s description of his sister’s

continued enmity towards Hester, despite the Booths’ financial generosity, apparently the

years of happy and stable marriage were not enough to outweigh her past. Unfortunately

we know nothing of Mrs. Barbara Rogers, or her situation in life, other than this mention

of the fact that her dislike of her brother’s wife, and possible disdain for Mrs. Booth’s 104 Ibid.

125

profession, did not prevent her from accepting money from such a tainted source.

Hester Booth’s own will, written thirty-six years after her husband’s death, is a

much longer and more detailed document which bequeaths an assortment of personal

items, as well as money, to family and friends. She gives her address as “Great Russell

Street in the parish of St. George Bloomsbury” but asks to be buried with her late

husband, and mother, at Cowley.105 Although she appears to have severed all connections

with the theatre after 1733, Mrs. Booth seems to have chosen to remain living in

London—it is not clear whether or not she sold the house at Cowley prior to her death—

and mentions some of the house contents in her will. To her grandson, Edward Eliot of

Port Eliot, Cornwall she left

all of my pictures except the oval portrait of myself and the portrait

of my said late husband both of which hang in the back parlour of

my house in Great Russell Street and which said portrait pictures I

give to Charles Cooke Esquire who married Elizabeth the daughter of

the Honourable Harriet Hamilton late of Wigmore Street, Cavendish

Square, widow.106

Harriet was Hester Booth’s only child, fathered by James Craggs some seven years

before her mother’s marriage to Barton Booth, who married firstly Richard Eliot and after

his death, John Hamilton. She bore eleven children—seven of whom were alive in 1769

and are mentioned in their grandmother’s will—and died some four years before her

mother, Hester.

105 The Last Will and Testament of Hester Booth, Public Record Office at The National Archive, PROB 11/985. 106 Ibid.

126

The will leaves ten guineas to be divided among the poor widows of Cowley

parish and a number of bequests to servants and friends, such as a diamond ring to the

widow of the dancer Michael Lally, and ₤50 to her servant Ann Evans, for example.

However the bulk of the estate is divided among Mrs. Booth’s grandchildren, though not

in equal shares and she explains why:

and though I have given less to the said Edward Eliot and Mrs.

Cooke than to their said brother and sisters I hope and desire they will

not mistake it to any difference in my affections towards them

since I have an equal regard for all but to their different situations

in life . . . 107

This attention to detail, and concern for the feelings of her beneficiaries, seems to

confirm the impression of Hester Booth that can be gleaned from her years on the stage.

She was, or became, a careful woman who paid attention to detail, lived comfortably but

not extravagantly, enjoyed her work and her retirement. The depth of detail regarding her

grandchildren shows that she had been involved in their lives and was fully aware of the

familial and financial circumstances of each one.

Hester Santlow-Booth provides an interesting case for study, not only for the

details of her life and career, but for the manner in which these have been described in

such works as The London Stage and the Biographical Dictionary. The former

categorizes her as a dancer until she begins to act also, then she is listed as an actress and

finally as a dancer once again for the final season of her career, 1732-1733. Thus they

ignore what the extant records prove: throughout her career, Hester Booth was a dancer

who also maintained a number of straight acting roles. The authors of Biographical 107 Ibid.

127

Dictionary make the same mistake and seem not to realize just how important Mrs. Booth

was, as a dancer, to the success of the Drury Lane company.

Anne Oldfield

Mrs. Anne Oldfield, born c.1683, joined the Drury Lane company in 1699 and

maintained a career on the stage for thirty years—her final performance was on 28 April

1730. During her long career she played at least 102 roles, 68 of which were originals

that she “created,” in tragedy as well as comedy, though she was primarily a comedic

actress.108 Unlike the careers of the other actresses discussed in this study so far, there is

a significant amount of information extant on Mrs. Oldfield’s life and career; she is the

subject of four biographies, two contemporary—published in 1730 and 1731, shortly

after her death—and two from the twentieth-century, published in 1957 and 1989.109

Although such works are useful in providing insight into her life and work, each comes

with its own particular agenda and therefore should not necessarily be taken at face value.

108 Mrs. Oldfield probably performed a number of other roles but due to the lack of complete cast lists, particularly for the 1703-1704 season, a definitive list cannot be given. 109 The contemporary biographies are (1) Authentick Memoirs of the Life of that Celebrated Actress, Mrs. Ann Oldfield, Containing a Genuine Account of Her Transactions from Her Infancy to the Time of Her Decease (London: no publisher, 1730); (2) William Egerton’s Faithful Memoirs of the Life, Amours and Performances of that justly Celebrated, and most Eminent Actress of her Time, Mrs. Anne Oldfield. Interspersed with Several Other Dramatical Memoirs. (London: no publisher, 1731); and the modern (1) Robert Gore-Browne Gay was the pit: The Life and Times of Anne Oldfield, Actress (1683-1730) (London: Max Reinhardt, 1957); (2) Joanne Lafler The Celebrated Mrs. Oldfield: The Life and Art of an Augustan Actress (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989).

128

Contemporary accounts of Anne Oldfield

The first published account of Anne Oldfield, the Authentick Memoirs, was

rushed into print a few days after her funeral, which took place on 27 October 1730. She

had been seriously ill some months before her death and had finished what was to be her

last season at Drury Lane in April, a month earlier than usual. Her illness was common

knowledge and presumably the author/publisher had prepared this account in the event of

her demise. It is a short work, only forty-five pages compared to the two-hundred and

twelve of the Faithful Memoirs, but was immensely popular and reached six editions by

the end of 1730.110 The Authentick Memoirs begins with a letter to Robert Wilks, one of

the actor/manager triumvirate at Drury Lane and a frequent on-stage partner of Mrs.

Oldfield, in which both he and she are lavished with exceedingly fulsome praise

As no One, Sir, is a better Judge than Yourself of Mrs. Oldfield’s

Excellencies; so, I believe, no One will set a greater Value upon

her Memory , or be more sensible of her loss; since in her You

have lost the only Counterpart who was fit to tread the Stage with

Mr. Wilks. (p.v)

…………………………………………………………………….

How I have seen the crowded Audience hang with Attention upon

her Tongue, and devour her with their Eyes, whenever She appear’d!

How significant was her every Motion and Gesture! How musical

and inchanting her Delivery! Insomuch that I have been inform’d

that several Poets have found new Graces in their own Works, when

pronounc’d by her; and have own’d, that in her Action She surpass’d 110 The fourth edition is the one quoted in this study.

129

all the Instructions they could have given her. (p. vi)

While this seems exaggerated, Mrs. Oldfield’s pairing with Wilks was highly successful

and they were both very popular with audiences. The use of Robert Wilks as

dedicatee is therefore a logical choice but his selection may also have to do with the

author’s wish to establish his work as “authentick,” in which case the references to Wilks

provide an extra connection to theatre. The author seems eager to reassure his audience

that he is not only a frequent theatre-goer but also has a link to the world of the

performers which they lack.

He opens the memoirs proper with a summary of Anne Oldfield’s perfections,

both public and private—her talent for tragedy as well as comedy, her graceful person

and enchanting manners, her generosity and kindness to those in need. However, before

beginning any details of her life and career, the author takes the trouble to warn his

readers against an upcoming rival publication

Just as I prophsey’d, I have now seen and Advertisement, desiring Hints

to be sent to Hurt’s Coffee-house in the Strand to one William Egerton,

who no doubt will pack together a gross Collection of Absurdities, and

Palm them upon the Town for Hints sent by Persons of Credit and

Reputation. This same William Egerton being only a fictious Name,

to cover some wretched blind Author, who is afraid to let his real one,

for fear his Character should damn his Performance.

To shew I am not mistaken in what the Town is to expect from

Mr. Egerton, and to give a Specimen of his Performance, even in his

Advertisement, he has not been able so much as to spell her Name right;

130

. . . She always wrote it Ann without an E, whereof he might have informed

himself, had he but Interest enough to procure the Sight of any one Letter

or Receipt under her Hand. (p. 13)111

This safeguarding of the author’s territory indicates that Mrs. Oldfield was a very

marketable property and one which he did not wish to share. However, since modern

scholars agree that Egerton’s Faithful Memoirs of 1731 are in fact the work of the hack

publisher Edmund Curll, there is another possible motivation for this declaration. The

Authentick Memoirs are anonymous and may therefore also have been written by one of

Curll’s writers, in which case this seeming outrage is merely a form of advance publicity

for the Faithful Memoirs which appeared in print a few months later. Whichever is true,

what cannot be disputed is the public’s interest in Anne Oldfield, on stage and off.

The question of who published both these biographies deserves some

consideration since these memoirs are the only contemporary accounts we have of Anne

Oldfield’s life and thus are the source for many accepted “facts’ about her. The only

detailed study of Curll is Ralph Strauss, The Unspeakable Curll: Being some account of

Edmund Curll, bookseller, to which is added a full list of his books (London: Chapman

& Hall, 1927) which traces his career from his arrival on the London publishing scene in

1706 to his death in 1747. Of the Authentick Memoirs Strauss makes no mention; of the

Faithful Memoirs he says:

During that time [1731] he invented yet another biographer, by name

William Egerton, who produced the Faithful Memoirs of the celebrated

and deservedly popular Anne Oldfield, and I see no reason to doubt that

111 Whatever the basis of the claims this author had for the correct spelling of her name, in her will (PROB 11/641) Mrs. Oldfield writes her name as “Anne” and so this is the form of her name used in this study.

131

Mr. Egerton and Mr. Curll were one and the same. So much, indeed,

was clearly implied by the writer who fourteen years later was attacking

Curll’s Memoirs of Pope. (p. 145)

Unfortunately, Strauss does not explain why he sees no reason to doubt this attribution.

Not only is this acceptance repeated by modern scholars, but in the electronic database

Eighteenth Century Collections Online an author search for William Egerton produces no

results—the Faithful Memoirs are catalogued with Curll as the sole author. As can be

seen from the copy of the original title page, there is no mention of Edmund Curll, though

no other publisher is listed either.112 The case for Curll as publisher seems to be (1) no

trace of William Egerton appears to have been found; (2) this is the only work which

bears his name; (3) this is the style of Life in which Curll specialized; (4) no publisher is

given on the work. Against this judgment are the facts that (1) there are many people,

including authors, for whom no details have survived; (2) Egerton may have written just

this one memoir or he may the pseudonym of another author; (3) Curll was not the only

Grub Street publisher; (4) Curll usually did put his name on the title page even when the

author he was claiming had not written the work—i.e. his 1741 publication of The

History of the English Stage by Thomas Betterton. The only exception to this seems to

be The Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Alexander Pope, published 1745. Two other

theatrical memoirs, those of Robert Wilks and John Gay, both published in 1733, do bear

the name of Curll as publisher. Considering the evidence for and against Curll in this

instance there is not enough proof to make a decision one way or another.

112 This title page is from the only edition of the Memoirs and is copied from the Eighteenth Century Collections Online database.

132

133

Could Curll have written, or commissioned one of his authors to write, the Faithful

Memoirs? Yes. Did he? We don’t know.

The Authentick Memoirs gives a relatively detailed account of Mrs. Oldfield’s

antecedents. According to the author, her paternal grandfather was the owner of the

George Tavern in Pall Mall and such an astute businessman that, on his death, he left

three houses to his youngest son, Mrs. Oldfield’s father, who was not so successful and

sold the property to his elder brother. Mr. Oldfield then joined the Horse-Guards and

died leaving a young family in straightened circumstances. Mrs. Oldfield’s uncle took

pity on his brother’s widow and family, supported them and also sent Anne to school but

soon

she discovered such an invincible Inclination to become an Actress

upon the Stage, that no Persuasions, Admonitions, or even Threatnings

of her Mother and friends (who were all to the last Degree averse to

her engaging in such a Profession) cou’d deter her from it. (p. 16)

Unfortunately we have no extant evidence either to support or deny any of these claims,

though the author’s account of Mrs. Oldfield’s sudden discovery of an overpowering, and

completely unexplained, desire to become an actress does seem rather too tidy and

convenient.

Table 6 lists the contents of both of the contemporary memoirs and shows the

difference between a publication rushed out immediately after the subject’s death, and

one where the author has had time to gather material for a more complete account.

134

Table 6.

The contents of the Authentick Memoirs and the Faithful Memoirs Authentick Memoirs • To the reader p. i-ii

• Dedication to Mr. Robert Wilks p.iii-viii

• Drawing of Mrs. Oldfield "In the character of Rosamond"

• The Memoirs p. 9-38 • The letter from T.H. "just arrived p.39-

40 • A poem to the Memory of Mrs.

Oldfield p. 41-46 Faithful Memoirs

• Dedication to Mrs. Saunders • The preface p. i-iv • The Contents p. i-v • The Memoirs p.1-154

• Ophelia or The Lover's Day p.155-165 • An Hymn to sleep p.166-167

• A collection of epilogues spoken by Mrs. Oldfield p.168-184 • Dr. Reynardson's The Stage p.183-204

• List of plays in which Mrs. Oldfield appeared, provided by "Mr. Pervil, Property-Man, of the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane." p. 205-208 • An "inventory of some of her nicest Curiosities" p.209-212

• Appendix I - the Will of Arthur Mainwaring • Appendix II - the Will of Anne Oldfield • Appendix III - a codicil to that Will

• Appendix IV - an "Epistle to Mrs. Oldfield By Mr. Savage" on her performance as Cleopatra in All for Love.

• Appendix V- Verses on Mrs. Oldfield's death

Although the contents of both these memoirs are suspect due the anonymity of

one and the controversy surrounding the publication of the other, the manner in which

135

they deal with their subject is worth consideration. Unlike many other extant works

concerning the early eighteenth-century theatre, both memoirs were published within a

year of Mrs. Oldfield’s death. Therefore, events surrounding her life and career would

have been relatively fresh in the minds of colleagues, friends and family, making any

large amount of fabrication less likely than if the memoirs had been published years or

decades later. Table 7 shows a side-by-side comparison of the two memoirs but some

further explanation of the detail included is necessary.

Table 7. Comparison of the contents of the Authentick Memoirs and the Faithful Memoirs. Notes: A blank row on the column for the Faithful Memoirs indicates that there is no corresponding information in this account. The names and terms used are those of the original texts, therefore certain anomalies are present e.g. Sir John Vanbrugh had not yet been knighted in 1697 when he introduced Anne Oldfield to Drury Lane, but this is how he is referred to by the author. The Known Dates column I have added, as neither memoir tends to include the dates for the events described. ♦ Indicates a comment on this piece of information at end of this table.

Authentick Memoirs Known Dates Faithful Memoirs

Grandfather owned and ran the George tavern

Her grandfather was a Vintner but on her mother's side she was well-descended

Left 3 houses, worth £60-£70 p.a., to youngest son

Mr. Oldfield Jnr did not do well, sold the property to his brother

That property now in the possession of Mrs. Oldfield's cousin—Mr. George Oldfield of St James Street

Her father bought into the Horse-Guards and died soon after Same

Mrs. Oldfield's uncle paid for her schooling

She wanted to leave and go on the stage; her mother and family were

136

against this

Mrs. Oldfield then went to work in her uncle's tavern

Mrs. Oldfield apprenticed to Mrs. Wotton, a "semptress", in King St, Westminster

Here she met a "Gentleman" and went to live with him

Ann Oldfield's mother earned her living as a Mantua-maker

Anne's mother lived for a time with her sister, Mrs. Voss who kept the Mitre Tavern in St James Market, and then married again,

When Ann went began acting, her mother was her dresser

1699-1700 season

As soon as Ann's fortune improved her mother was able to retire on the allowance her daughter provided

Mrs. Oldfield's mother now living in Cambridge St. near Broad St. Golden Square, with her sister

Ann Oldfield's first appeared on the Drury Lane stage in 1697 ♦ Same

Her first role was Candiope in The Maiden Queen, performed for Mrs. Kent's benefit

Same role given, mention that it had belonged to Mrs. Cross

She was introduced into the company by Sir John Vanbrugh Same

Mrs. Oldfield improved her acting by copying Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle

Some years after her debut a "great difference happen'd" between Rich and Swiney

1706

Mrs. Oldfield persuaded to go with Swiney 1706

As her acting abilities, and popularity, continued to grow, there began the dispute with Mrs. Bracegirdle. A contest between the two was agreed upon—on two consecutive nights the company would perform The Amorous Widow with Mrs. Bracegirdle in the title role first, then Mrs. Oldfield the next night. Each actress had her champions in the audience; Mrs. Oldfield was "universally adjudged"

1707

137

the winner; Mrs. Bracegirdle quit the theatre.

Mr. Rich persuaded Mrs. Oldfield to return to Drury Lane 1708

Roles commented on: Much greater detail on roles with excerpts from some plays included

Letitia in The Old Batchelour Constantia in The Chances Angelica in Love for Love Lady Brute in The Provok'd Wife

Lady Lurewell in The Constant Couple Explains that Mrs. Oldfield suceeded to this role on the death of Mrs. Verbruggen

Andromache Jane Shore Calsita in The Fair Penitent Some years after Mrs. Oldfield began her stage career she became the "Bosom Companion" of Mr. Mainwaring

1703 Much more detail, both on Mainwaring and on their relationship

They had a son together c.1709

On his death, Mr. Mainwaring made Mrs. Oldfield the sole executrix of his will

1712

Several pages on Mainwaring's last illness, including the false rumour that he died of venereal disease. To disprove this, Mrs. Oldfield had an autopsy performed

His estate was left to her in trust for their son

Same but more detail on Mainwaring's financial circumstances

In her will, Mrs. Oldfield has left her son the interest of £5000 to revert to his younger brother when he dies

1730 No mention

Several years after Mainwaring's death, Mrs. Oldfield captivated a "General Officer in the Army" ♦♦

1712/13 Churchill only mentioned in passing

By this gentleman Mrs. Oldfield also had a son, at the time of her death he was about nine years old

b. 1720

138

Details of her will

An appendix with a transcript of the will is included, but it is not discussed in the text.

Account of an incident which reflects no credit on Mrs. Oldfield: That she encouraged the attentions of a Mr. F---, who had a "very considerable Place in his Majesty's Customs." He left his wife and children for Mrs. Oldfield who, after a short while, left him for Mr. Mainwaring. To her credit she did encourage Mr. F--- to go back to his family.

Some months after Mainwaring's death, Mrs. Oldfield spoke the epilogue to The Distress'd Mother, and referred with two lines to her son who was on stage with her

When Sir Richard Steele died, the King gave his patent rights to Mrs. Oldfield ♦♦♦

Steele died 1729.

Mrs. Oldfield's salary: £150 p.a. when she was first at Drury Lane. Increased to £500 p.a. some years before her death, "never before given to any one." In addition, her articles stated that she never had to act after April 30th unless she wanted to. Also, on her benefit nights she did not have to pay the house charges (around £50) that the other actors incurred.

Mrs. Oldfield's last benefit was on Thursday March 19th, 1729-30; she played Calista in The Fair Penitent

Her last performance was Lady Brute in Vanbrugh's The Provok'd Wife on April 28th

Same

Not long after this she became ill; on doctor's advice she moved to Hampstead for the air

Her condition worsened so she moved back to her house in Grosvenor Square

Mrs. Oldfield knew she was dying and so put her affairs in order

139

She died on Friday October 23rd 1730, at about 2 am, aged 47 Same

On Monday the 26th her corpse was removed from her house to the Jerusalem Chamber in Westminster Abbey

Same

♦ Comments: ♦ The surviving records of performances and casts for the late 1690s are far from complete; Dryden’s Secret Love or, The Maiden Queen (1667) seems to have been revived in the early autumn of both 1697 and 1699. However, there is no record of Mrs. Oldfield until February 19 1700, when she played Sylvia in John Oldmixon’s The Grove, and while a new performer would very likely have only played bit parts, not worthy of mentioning on the advertisement, for the first few months, that this situation would have continued for two years is highly unlikely. Therefore, the season of 1699-1700 appears to be the most logical starting point for Mrs. Oldfield’s career. ♦♦ Mr. Arthur Mainwaring died on November 13th, 1712 and the date when Anne Oldfield’s relationship with Charles Churchill began is not clear. Both men moved in Whig circles and Colonel Churchill appears to have moved permanently to London sometime in 1713. ♦♦♦ Where the idea that Anne Oldfield inherited a share in Drury Lane from Sir Richard Steele came from is not clear and there are no extant records to support such a claim. Steele became involved in the Drury Lane management in 1714 and on his death on September 1st 1729, his two surviving daughters inherited his rights in the theatre. One daughter died a few months later, so her share passed to her sister and the managers of Drury Lane fulfilled the terms of an agreement drawn up in 1721, and paid Steele’s surviving heir £1,200 for the rights in the property.113

The Faithful Memoirs appears to be by far the longer work—and indeed it covers

two-hundred and twelve pages, with the Authentick Memoirs occupying only forty-six—

but much of this is taken up by the inclusion of scenes from plays, epilogues and

prologues quoted in full, and digressions such as the section on William Wycherley, so

that the actual information provided on its subject is not that much greater than its

predecessor. Of the content which actually deals with Anne Oldfield, there are a number

of differences from the Authentick Memoirs but the author makes no reference to the

previous work. This seems rather odd—the author of the Authentick Memoirs scathingly 113 For further details of the arrangement see John Loftis Steele at Drury Lane (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952) pp. 229-230.

140

mentions the efforts of “one William Egerton” to gather information on Mrs. Oldfield, so

surely “Egerton” would have read the earlier publication, but there is no attempt to refute

the information provided in the first work. The Faithful Memoirs is written as though

there was no other account in existence.

The Authentick Memoirs goes into more detail on Anne Oldfield’s antecedents

than the Faithful Memoirs but the first major divergence between the two occurs with the

account of how she came to be on the stage. The former says only that she developed a

desire to perform on the stage, much to the dismay of her mother and relatives, and that

she was introduced to the Drury Lane company by Vanbrugh, with no indication of how

she made his acquaintance. The latter, however, recounts in detail a meeting between

Mrs. Oldfield and the playwright George Farquhar—whilst at her aunt’s tavern he

overhears her reading a play “with so proper an emphasis” that he recommends her to

Vanbrugh (p. 76). While such an encounter is possible, the result claimed does not seem

particularly likely. Unfortunately we do not have exact dates for either Anne Oldfield’s

first performance, or George Farquhar’s arrival in London but her first performance at

Drury Lane seems to have been Candiope in Dryden’s The Maiden Queen, in the season

of 1699-1700 and that Farquhar arrived in the capital some time in 1698.114 He was

introduced to the London theatre scene by his friend Robert Wilks, with whom he had

worked at Smock Alley in Dublin. George Farquhar may have overheard Anne Oldfield

reading aloud at her uncle’s tavern but is unlikely to have been sufficiently well

established at Drury Lane to have gone directly to Vanbrugh and persuaded him employ

her. If Farquhar had been overwhelmed by Anne Oldfield’s reading, the more likely route

114 This role had belonged to Letitia Cross but she ran off to France in the spring of 1698 leaving a gap that Anne Oldfield filled.

141

would have been for him to go to Wilks, who would then have approached Vanbrugh—

but this does make her start on the stage seem rather more prosaic and considerably less

romantic than the young playwright dashing off to insist that she be given a chance with

the company.

The differing accounts of how Anne Oldfield got her start on the London stage are

not particularly significant, but what is of greater interest is the different approach that

the two authors take, and how this is reflected in the structure of their works. The

Authentick Memoirs is told more or less in chronological order and uses a basic narrative

structure—the author tells us the story of Mrs. Oldfield’s life and career along with his

judgments and opinions—with the inclusion of one letter at the end of the account that

coming too late to be inserted in its proper Place, we hope

it will not be unacceptable to entertain our Readers with at the

latter end of these Memoirs. (p. 39)

This is the only such letter in these memoirs and tells a story of Mrs. Oldfield’s career

when she was at The Haymarket for the 1706-07 season, and concerns “a certain late

Noble Duke [who] took a great fancy to her.” (p. 39) This episode is not one which

reflects particularly well on Anne Oldfield, and the tone does not fit with the rest of the

work, which is very reverential towards her—perhaps this is why it is included in the

form of the letter which “just” arrived. Such a format allows the author to include some

juicy scandal while at the same time not detracting from, or spoiling, the overall effect of

the account.

The Faithful Memoirs are designed in a completely different fashion; the author

uses copious quotations from plays, includes the full text of letters he has received, and

142

though he begins his account in a chronological manner, this is not maintained. On page

two, Mrs. Oldfield’s introduction to the stage is given only a single sentence—as with the

Authentick Memoirs she is introduced to Drury Lane by Vanbrugh—but when the reader

reaches page seventy-six, the author provides a letter describing the encounter with

Farquhar which comes from “Mr. Taylor, formerly a Servant to Mr. Rich.” 115This is

placed after a transcription of the epilogue to The Tragedy of Jane Shore and before a

series of letters written to Mrs. Oldfield

written a few Years ago, when she lived in the Hay-Market,

relating to the History of the Stage, etc. (p.77)

Each one is signed “William Egerton” and all are discourses on drama and the arts of the

stage, very similar to the Betterton/Curll History of the English Stage. Perhaps this is one

of the reasons why many scholars have assumed that the Faithful Memoirs were the

product of Curll, though the comments are of such a general nature that they could belong

to any stock theatre history of the time.

The way in which the two memoirs deal with Mrs. Oldfield’s personal

relationships is also of interest. Although she had two long-term relationships, and bore

one son from each, she never married; both accounts deal with these relationships and

hint at other affairs, but neither condemns her for this behavior. Anne Oldfield’s first

public relationship was with Arthur Mainwaring—a Commissioner of Customs who was

a well-known figure in politics and society—they began living together in 1703, their son

115 The Biographical Dictionary (14:372) has an entry on “Mr. Taylor fl.1728-1743, gallery keeper, boxkeeper” who worked at Drury Lane—but these dates give only a two year overlap with Anne Oldfield’s career, and Drury Lane was not Rich’s company at this point. However, since there is little extant information on this Mr. Taylor, he may have been working at Drury Lane earlier than the dates given or, since backstage work often ran in families, the reference could be to an older relative about whom we know nothing.

143

was born in 1709, and they remained together until Mainwaring’s death in 1712. Both

memoirs mention Mainwaring’s name in full and discuss his career, and contribution to

public life, in some detail. This is not the case with her second long-term relationship

which was with Brigadier General Charles Churchill, the illegitimate son of General

Charles Churchill and more important, the nephew of the Duke of Marlborough—one of

the most powerful, and well connected, families in the country. In the Authentick

Memoirs he is not mentioned by name, but described as

a General Officer in the Army, nearly ally’d to one of the

most Illustrious Families in Europe, and universally allowed

to be a Person of as great Accomplishments as any of his Rank. (p. 28)

The Faithful Memoirs mentions him directly in the contents—“Her regard for Brigadier

Churchill, p.121” (p. iv)—but in the text, when one turns to the page, it says

But to point out the Persons who shared the esteem of her

private Friendship, is not the intent of these Papers as I have

publickly declared. The Gentleman who has Lived with her since

the Death of Mr. Maynwaring made it his sole Business and Delight

to place her in the same rank of Reputation, (to which her own natural

Deportment greatly contributed,) with Persons of the best Condition,

and the mention she has made of him, in her Will, sufficiently confirms

her just Value for him. (pp.120-121)

This contradiction between the directness of the table of contents and the coyness of the

text is most likely explained by some interference before the work went to the press. The

original intention may have been to mention Charles Churchill by name and to discuss

144

the relationship between him and Mrs. Oldfield, in same way as her earlier relationship

with Arthur Mainwaring was covered, but the publisher may have been wary of

displeasing the Marlboroughs, and so removed the material. If this were the case then

either the table of contents had already been printed and the publisher did not want to

incur the extra cost of re-printing, or, it was simply overlooked.

Given the questions which arise over the authorship of both sets of memoirs, and

therefore also the validity of the material they present, perhaps the most reliable

contemporary description of Anne Oldfield comes from Colley Cibber in his Apology.

Although Cibber cannot be described as an unbiased source for the theatrical goings-on

of the eighteenth-century, his biases are usually based on self-interest; since he was

writing ten years after Mrs. Oldfield’s death, he had nothing to gain by slanting his

opinion of her one way or another.116 Although Cibber mentions Anne Oldfield’s

background and beginnings at Drury Lane he only does so very briefly; naturally his

interest in her lay in her ability as a performer and what she could, and did, do for Drury

Lane. Cibber admits that he did no think much of Anne Oldfield when she began—she

was pretty but too diffident, and her voice was not strong. He states that she “seem’d to

come but slowly forward ‘till the Year 1703” (I, 306), but as the Biographical Dictionary

points out, Anne Oldfield was granted her first sole benefit on July 6th 1700 and spoke

her first prologue—to Susannah Centlivre’s The Perjur’d Husband— in October 1700.

Although having a benefit in the summer months was unlikely to have been very

profitable, most junior performers had to share benefit nights irrespective of when they

took place; therefore the indication is hardly that of a struggling actress at the bottom of

116 Cibber’s dating of earlier incidents is however not entirely trustworthy, which is not surprising given that he was writing of events that had occurred forty years previously.

145

the theatrical heap. Cibber attributes the change in Mrs. Oldfield’s fortunes, and his

opinion of her, to her inheritance of the role of Leonora in Sir Courtly Nice from Mrs.

Verbruggen.117

It was in this Part Mrs. Oldfield surpris’d into an Opinion of her having

all the innate Powers of a good Actress, though they were yet but in the

Bloom of what they promis’d. Before she had acted this Part I had so cold

an Expectation from her Abilities, that she could scarce prevail with me

to rehearse with her the Scenes she was chiefly concern’d in with Sir Courtly,

which I then acted. However, we ran them over with a mutual Inadvertency

of one another. I seem’d careless, as concluding that any Assistance I

could give her would be little or no purpose; and she muter’d out her

Words in a sort of mifty manner at my low opinion of her. But when the

Play came to be acted, she had a just Occasion to triumph over the Error

of my Judgment, by the (almost) Amazement that her unexpected

Performance awak’d me to; so forward and sudden a Step into Nature

I had never seen; and what made her performance more Valuable was,

that I knew it all proceeded from her own Understanding, untaught

and unassisted by any one more experience’d Actor. (I, 306-307)

This is a very generous account of Anne Oldfield’s impact in the role of Leonora and as

Lowe points out

Cibber is pleasantly candid in allowing that he had no share in

Mrs. Oldfield’s success. The temptation to assume some credit for

117 Mrs. Verbruggen was the company’s principal comedienne but was ill when they moved to Bath for the summer of 1703, and so remained behind in London. Cibber says that there was such a scramble for her parts that Mrs. Oldfield, due to her junior status, managed to get only one.

146

teaching her something must have been great. (I, 306 n. 2)

Had Cibber decided to give in to this temptation and claim that it was his rehearsal with,

and preparation of, Anne Oldfield that enabled her to triumph there would have been no

one to gainsay him by 1740, when this was published. The fact that he gives her the

credit seems to point to a genuine respect and admiration for Anne Oldfield’s acting

abilities. This impression is strengthened by his comments a few pages later, on Mrs.

Oldfield’s professional approach throughout her career

She had one Mark of good Sense, rarely known in any Actor of either

Sex but herself. I have observ’d several, with promising Dispositions,

very desirous of Instruction at their first setting out; but no sooner had

they found their least Account in it, than were as desirous of being

left to their own Capacity, which they then thought would be disgrac’d

by their seeming to want farther Assistance. But this was not Mrs. Oldfield’s

way of thinking; for, to the last Year of her Life, she never undertook

any Part she lik’d without being importunately desirous of having all

the Helps in it that another could possibly give her. By knowing so

much herself, she found how much more there was of Nature yet

needful to be known. Yet it was a hard matter to give her any Hint

that she was not able to take or improve. (I, 310)

The picture that Cibber paints here is one of an actress who was not only highly

competent, but who dealt very intelligently with her senior company members and

management.

147

Contemporary attacks on Anne Oldfield

The description of Anne Oldfield provided by The Authentick Memoirs, The

Faithful Memoirs, and Cibber’s Apology, is very flattering—she was a great actress, both

talented and hard working; she was generous to those less fortunate; and although she

never married, her two long term relationships were with distinguished gentlemen. All

this praise raises the question, was Anne Oldfield really as universally admired as these

works imply, or did others have a more negative view of the star actress of Drury Lane?

The short answer to this question is yes—there are three printed documents,

which are interrelated and date from 1711-1712, that offer a very different view of Mrs.

Oldfield from that previously described. The Letter to Sir John Stanley, A Justification of

the Letter to Sir John Stanley, relating to his Management of the Playhouse in Drury

Lane, and The Memorial of Jane Rogers, all cast a very unflattering light on Anne

Oldfield’s behavior during the first full season of the triumvirate’s management of Drury

Lane.118

The Letter to John Stanley, which Milhous and Hume have dated to the winter of

1711-1712, is an attack on the management of Drury Lane masquerading as a piece of

friendly advice from its author.119 Anne Oldfield is obviously not the primary target here,

but she is mentioned, in the course of the author’s diatribe against the mismanagement of

the theatre and the mistreatment of its personnel, as being proud, intemperate, and

infected with venereal disease.

118 The triumvirate of actors which managed Drury Lane was composed of Robert Wilks, Thomas Doggett and Colley Cibber—as has already been discussed, Booth was added and Doggett stormed out in 1713-1714—this was the beginning of a very stable period of management for Drury Lane, which lasted until 1732. Sir John Stanley was, and had been, secretary to a series of Lord Chamberlains from c.1697. 119 For the details surrounding the letter, and a full transcription, see Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, “A Letter to Sir John Stanley: A New Theatrical Document of 1712,” Theatre Notebook 43: 2 (1989): 71-80.

148

And now no Petitions or Complaints against them are regarded, tho’

of the most notorious Cheats and Impositions; of Articles under their own

Hands and Seals which they utterly refuse to keep; of Sallaries stopp’d,

and just Debts not paid; of People turned out of their Offices to starve

with their Families, for no other Misdemeanor than that of omitting the

Title of your Honour to any one of them, or of your Ladyship to Madam

O—field, who publickly declares they are indebted to her Interest from

being kept from starving, and indeed I think it very well for Sw—ey,

and the Rest of them, who I dare say are equally concerned, if they are

mot oblig’d to her for something else that will stick by them longer

than their License.120

Impugning the character of an actress by referring to her loose sexual behavior and

contamination with venereal disease was a common practice—as has been discussed in

the case study of Elizabeth Barry—therefore such a claim carries little weight. However,

the accusation that Mrs. Oldfield behaved with arrogant superiority towards her fellow

performers, while putting on a public face of generosity, seems more personal. At this

point in her career, she was the leading actress with the company and would have been

given an official role in management had not Doggett objected—if these allegations are

true, then either she could have been trying to impose her authority to compensate for

this, or, she felt secure enough in her position to let her “true” nature appear.121 The truth

of the matter cannot be determined from the evidence that survives.

120 Ibid p. 73. Since there is only one extant copy of this Letter, located at the Bodleian Library, all quotations are taken from the Milhous and Hume transcript. 121 The attempt to include Anne Oldfield in the management is discussed on pp. 177-78.

149

The disparagement of Anne Oldfield is continued, and expanded upon, in A

Justification of the Letter to Sir John Stanley which is a much more detailed and

theatrically aware document than that which it supports.122 The author describes how the

management of Drury Lane has mistreated Mrs. Cross, Mrs. Rogers, and Mrs. Bradshaw,

cheating them of both money and roles, and implicates Mrs. Oldfield in these decisions.

only to gratify the pride of Mrs. Oldfield, who cannot bear any one should

shine above her. Is he [Sir John], and equal sharer with the Three Managers

in her too, as he is in the play-house? (pp. 420-421)

He then proceeds to validate his claims about Anne Oldfield’s character by claiming a

past, and intimate relationship with her—since there is, unfortunately, no indication of

who the author of this letter might be, such a claim is impossible to prove or disprove.

The slanders which he levels at Anne Oldfield are personal rather than professional—she

is guilty of the indiscriminate dispensing of her favors and is unable to rid herself of

venereal disease. This vilification of Mrs. Oldfield takes up the second half of the letter,

and provides a sharp contrast with the first half which lists the theatrical grievances,

including financial details. He ends with a very nasty comment on her sale of tickets for

her upcoming benefit night

Now to prevent the trouble Mrs. Oldfield is at, in making and disposing of

her Tickets it would be much easier for her to require, of everyone she grants

the same favour to (at such of them as are able to pay a Crown) that they

would come to her benefit play, by which means, if the house were a deal

122 As with the Letter to John Stanley this document exists only in a unique copy (New York Public Library Drexel MS 1986 (Folio 106 and unnumbered folio following), therefore all quotations from and references to the Justification are taken from Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume’s “Theatrical Politics at Drury Lane: New Light on Letitia Cross, Jane Rogers, and Anne Oldfield,” Bulletin of Research in the Humanities (Winter 1982): 412-429.

150

larger than it is, she would always be sure of its being full: Nay I am apt

to think, tho’ she took the hint but from this time. she would engage a very

good Audience, by the latter end of the week.

……………………………………………………………………………..

P.S. I suppose Mrs. Oldfield will find sufficient hints in this paper,

to know the Author of it; but least she should be a stranger to his lodgings,

which by the bye, she does not use to be, when he had been twenty-four

hours in Town: He is to be spoke with, every-day from twelve to two, at

St. James’s Coffee-House, where advertisements relating to her, and the

rest of the Managers of the Play-house, are taken in Gratis.

This is a very specific attack on Anne Oldfield; not only saying that her lovers are

too numerous to count, but that many of them belong to a class that could not afford the

crown for the benefit ticket. The postscript seems to be both a taunt and a challenge—he

is daring her to dispute his claims while implying that she is the sort of woman who

happily comes to the all-male coffee-house, or openly pursues a lover at his lodgings.

Although the author would have his readers believe that he had had a long-standing

liaison with Mrs. Oldfield, the tone of the writing sounds more like the sour grapes of a

rejected would-be lover who failed to make the grade. Of course, this could all simply be

a device to blacken Anne Oldfield’s name and devalue her standing with public, written

by a supporter of one of the actresses who lost roles to her. However, if this were the

case, then a more detailed and theatrically orientated attack would seem more likely than

this general smear. Lafler suggests that this attack on Anne Oldfield was in fact an attack

on Arthur Mainwaring—if she were a diseased whore, then what would that make the

151

man with whom she lived?123 This is a plausible suggestion, especially considering the

autopsy that was carried out on Mainwaring. If it were indeed intended to prove that he

had not died of venereal disease, then this would suggest that such rumors and attacks

had been frequent and were viewed by Mrs. Oldfield as potentially damaging.124

Whoever the author was, and whatever his intentions were, we cannot now

determine. The Justification of the Letter to Sir John Stanley is an odd piece and its

publication is in itself a curiosity—the days of printing bawdy satires decrying actress’s

personal lives were long gone—unfortunately the circumstances surrounding the

publication of this “letter” remain as mysterious as the author.

The most public conflict of Anne Oldfield’s career occurred in February 1712

with a dispute between herself and Jane Rogers, over the role of Andromache in Ambrose

Philips new play The Distrest Mother.125 Mrs. Oldfield won the dispute, and the role, but

Mrs. Rogers—for whom this was the final blow in a long standing feud with the Drury

Lane management—published a two page statement of her side of the case, appealing to

the public for support. In The Memorial of Jane Rogers Humbly Submitted to the

Town126she describes how she has been mistreated by the management at Drury Lane

with regard to her salary and roles, laying most of the blame for the latter on Anne

Oldfield’s shoulders 123 Joanne Lafler The Celebrated Mrs. Oldfield: The Life and Art of an Augustan Actress (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989) pp. 95-96. 124 The autopsy is mentioned in the Faithful Memoirs (p. 39) and by Lafler p. 102. 125 As has already been mentioned, according to the Authentick Memoirs Anne Oldfield had bested Anne Bracegirdle in an acting “competition” in 1707. There is no evidence to suggest that such a contest ever took place and Mrs. Bracegirdle’s retirement would seem to be the graceful withdrawal of an experienced actress who realized she could not compete on equal terms with a younger rival, rather than the retreat of a beaten foe as the memoirs would have us believe. 126 The only extant copy of this document is in the Harvard Theatre Collection but it is transcribed in full in Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume’s “Theatrical Politics at Drury Lane: New Light on Letitia Cross, Jane Rogers, and Anne Oldfield,” Bulletin of Research in the Humanities (Winter 1982): 412-429. All references here are to the transcription provided in that article.

152

made it their Study to throw dayly Slights upon me, by taking from me

several of my principal Parts, still lessening me to gratify the Ambition of

Mrs. Oldfield, who when there were Two Houses had equal Salary with me,

but now for what publick or private Merit, they best know, has Two Hundred

Pounds, per Annum certain, and a Benefit Play without Charge.

A new Tragedy being lately brought to the House Mr. Wilks sent

for me to the first publick Reading of it, and the Author seeing me home

from the House, was pleas’d to compliment me, with telling me, he

design’d the Part of Andromache for me. About Three Days after, Mr. Wilks

with a great deal of seeming Civility came to me into the green Room, and

told me, that he and the Author were both asham’d to see me, for having

sent me to the Reading of the Play; for they design’d me the Part of

Andromache, which they though would become me, and was more in my

way than any Part I had played in a long time. But that as Mrs. Oldfield

had declared, she would not play unless she had that Part, they must oblige

her with it.

This, soon after, occasion’d a Dispute betwixt Mrs. Oldfield and

me, in which she told me, I shou’d be turned out of the House, for daring

to contend with her: Whereupon Mr. Wilks was pleas’d so violently to

espouse her side, as to tell me (binding it with Oaths) in these express Terms.

That had I ten times the Merit I fancy’d I had, I should never set foot on

that Stage again for affronting Mrs. Oldfield. For he would make it his

Business, to go to the morrow to my Lord Chamberlane to get me my

153

Discharge: And therefore advised me quietly to quit, as Mrs. Bracegirdle

did, for depend upon it, I should not receive one farthing more. (p. 416)

Mrs. Rogers continues to decry the management and thank her supporters, and finishes

with a postscript which refers again to Anne Bracegirdle. She says that she has less merit

that did Mrs. Bracegirdle, whom Swiney forced out to please Mrs. Oldfield, and unlike

Anne Bracegirdle she has not the financial wherewithal to retire.

There are no records to show that Wilks ever carried out his threat of getting the

Lord Chamberlain to dismiss Jane Rogers and while she does disappear from the

advertised casts for a few months, she re-appears in May 1712 and has a benefit

performance on the ninth of that month. The fact that Jane Rogers had this piece

published would seem to indicate that she took Wilks’ threat seriously; if she thought that

this situation would just blow over then she would hardly have mounted a public attack

on the management who controlled her career. Mrs. Rogers does, however, hedge her

bets to a certain extent by making Anne Oldfield the principal author of her problems

with the company. She points out that Wilks supported her for the role until Mrs.

Oldfield became involved, and the inclusion of the Anne Bracegirdle story also shifts

blame away from the triumvirate as they were not involved in the management of that

company. If Jane Rogers had entertained any hope of returning to the Drury Lane stage

after the publication of this complaint, then she clearly felt that she could cope with the

wrath of Anne Oldfield as the lesser of two evils.

Different accounts of this dispute are to be found in other contemporary writings.

In the Faithful Memoirs, Mrs. Oldfield’s side in this affair is naturally taken, and

“Egerton” tells us that while the part of Andromache was originally destined for Jane

154

Rogers, the author and the managers soon realized that Mrs. Oldfield would be far

superior in the role and so it was given to her. He then describes how Mrs. Rogers and

her supporters tried to start a riot on the opening night of The Distrest Mother but they

were removed from the theatre and the play went ahead to great acclaim. In his Apology

Cibber makes only one rather oblique reference to the whole business, though he differs

from “Egerton” in saying that the performance was prevented

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 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. (II: 166)

Although Cibber is writing about events that had occurred twenty-eight years previously,

the loss of the money is obviously what rankled with him—the dispute between the

actresses seems barely to have registered.

How Anne Oldfield herself viewed this dispute we do not know. By the winter of

1712, when The Distrest Mother premiered, she had been on the stage for thirteen years

and had coped with several changes in the company structure. Her specialty was comedy

and the tragic roles she did play were not similar to those usually performed by Jane

Rogers—who was a tragic actress in the mold of Elizabeth Barry, all fire and passion.

Mrs. Oldfield’s line in tragedy tended towards the stately and the noble, such as

Semandra in Lee’s Mithridates (1678)—a role originated by Elizabeth Boutell. While of

course possible, the likelihood of Anne Oldfield finding Jane Rogers enough of a threat

to try and have her removed from the company, does not seem very high. This incident

155

may well have begun as just the usual backstage bickering over a role, which the

management then used to try to edge out an older actress who had been giving them

trouble for some time—but the situation blew up in a fashion they did not anticipate.

Anne Oldfield’s roles

In the course of her thirty year career, Anne Oldfield created 68 roles in new plays but,

although she was a highly competent and successful actress, not all of these plays were a

success. As Table 3 demonstrates, 29 of these new roles were in plays which failed to

survive past the opening run of three, or in some cases only one, performance. While a

certain number of failures are to be expected—particularly early in a career when a

performer would have had no say in the plays in which he or she appeared—one would

not have expected quite so many in the latter stages of the career of a performer of Anne

Oldfield’s stature. In the second half of her career, from 1715 to 1730, she created 22

new roles and 9 of these were in plays that failed; of course these were only a portion of

her repertoire, she continued to perform both other roles she had created and parts in

revived works. However, this failure rate does demonstrate that the participation of

popular, and highly effective, performers was not enough alone to carry a new work with

the audience. This table also shows that only a small proportion of playwrights had works

which survived in the repertory—just 23 of the plays listed below lasted and seven of

those were by Cibber. His high success rate with plays starring Anne Oldfield could be

attributed to the fact that as an actor and manager, as well as a playwright, Cibber was

ideally situated to judge not only what type of role would suit her best but also what

would be most pleasing to the audience. As one of the three managers of Drury Lane,

156

from 1709 to 1733, Cibber naturally had a certain degree of control over the length of a

run; but he was also a businessman concerned with profit, who would not have kept a

play on the stage had it ceased to draw an audience, even if it were one of his own works.

Table 8. Roles created by Anne Oldfield. Note: ** denotes a season when she was performing but did not create any new roles. Play titles in bold denote works which lasted in the repertory more than ten years. Plays in the column Play (failed) are those which did not survive beyond the opening run. Season Play Play (failed) Playwright Role 1699-1700

The Grove John Oldmixon Silvia

The Pilgrim John Vanbrugh (Fletcher)

Alinda

1700-1701

The Perjur'd Husband Susannah Centlivre Aurelia

Love at a Loss Catherine Trotter Lucilia The Unhappy Penitent Catherine Trotter Ann of

Britanie The Humour of the Age Thomas Baker Miranda

The Virgin Prophetess Elkannah Settle Helen 1701-1702

The Funeral Richard Steele Lady Sharlot

The Generous Conqueror

Bevil Higgons Cimene

The Modish Husband Willaim Burnaby Camilla The False Friend John Vanbrugh Jacinta

1702-1703

The Old Mode and the New

Thomas Durfey Lucia

The Fair Example Richard Estcourt Lucia Love's Contrivance Susannah Centlivre Belliza

1703-1704

The Lying Lover Richard Steele Victoria

1704-1705

The Careless Husband

Colley Cibber Lady Betty Modish

Farewell Folly Peter Motteux Mariana

157

The Tender Husband Richard Steele Biddy Tipkin

1705-1706

Hampstead Heath Thomas Baker Arabella

The Basset Table Susannah Centlivre Lady Reveller

Perolla and Izadora Colley Cibber Izadora The Fashionable Lover Unknown Viletta

The Recruiting Officer

George Farquhar Silvia

1706-1707

The Platonick Lady Susannah Centlivre Isabella

The Beaux' Stratagem

George Farquhar Mrs. Sullen

Phaedra & Hippolytus

Edmund Smith Ismena

1707-1708

The Double Gallant Colley Cibber Lady Dainty

The Royal Convert Nicholas Rowe Ethelinda

The Lady's Last Stake

Colley Cibber Mrs. Conquest

1708-1709

The Fine Lady's Airs Thomas Baker Lady Rodomont

The Rival Fools Colley Cibber (Fletcher)

Lucinda

1709-1710

The Man's Bewitched Susannah Centlivre Belinda

Hob, or, The Country Wake

Colley Cibber Flora

1710-1711

Injur'd Love Unknown Ogle-Fidelia

1711-1712

The Wife's Relief Charles Johnson Arabella

The Perplex'd Lovers Susannah Centlivre Camilla The Distrest Mother Ambrose Philips Androm

ache 1712-1713

Ximena Colley Cibber Ximena

The Humours of the Army

Charles Shadwell Victoria

158

Cinna's Conspiracy Unknown Emilia Cato Joseph Addison Marcia

1713-1714

The Victim Charles Johnson Eriphile

The Tragedy of Jane Shore

Nicholas Rowe Jane Shore

The Wonder: A Woman Keeps a Secret

Susannah Centlivre Violante

1714-1715

The Tragedy of Lad y Jane Gray

Nicholas Rowe Jane Gray

1715-1716

The Drummer Joseph Addison Lady Trueman

1716-1717

The Cruel Gift Susannah Centlivre Leonora

Three Hours After Marriage

Gay, Pope, Arbuthnot

Mrs. Townley

The Sultaness Charles Johnson Atalinda

Lucius, The First Christian King of Britain

Delariviere Manley Rosalinda

1717-1718

The Non-Juror Colley Cibber Maria

1718-1719

The Masquerade Charles Johnson Sophronia

Chit Chat Thomas Killigrew Florinda Busiris, King of Egypt Edward Young Mandan

e 1719-1720

The Spartan Dame Thomas Southerne Celonia

1720-1721

The Refusal Colley Cibber Sophronia

1721-1722

**

1722-1723

The Artifice Susannah Centlivre Mrs. Watchit

The Conscious Lovers

Richard Steele Indiana

Humfrey, Duke of Gloster

Ambrose Philips Queen Margaret

159

1723-1724

King Henry V Aaron Hill Princess Catherine

The Captives John Gay Cylene 1724-1725

Caesar in Egypt Colley Cibber Cleopatra

1725-1726

**

1726-1727

The Rival Modes James Smythe Amoret

1727-1728

The Provok'd Husband

Cibber & Vanbrugh Lady Townley

Love in Several Masques

Henry Fielding Lady Matchless

1728-1729

**

1729-1730

The Humours of Oxford

James Miller Clarinda

Sophonisba James Thompson Sophonisba

As can be seen here, another playwright who wrote a considerable amount of material for

Anne Oldfield was Susannah Centlivre. There are nine of Centlivre’s plays in this list,

more than any other playwright except Cibber, but only three of these were a success.

Table 4 illustrates the success/failure rate of some of the major playwrights in whose

work Mrs. Oldfield appeared. While these authors wrote other plays which did not

include Anne Oldfield in their casts, this table does show that even successful authors

could, and did, have total failures. Also, few, if any, authors were prolific enough to

make a living from playwriting alone.

160

Table 9. Anne Oldfield’s major authors – success and failure. Note: Plays classed as mediocre are those which had a limited success beyond their opening run, but did not last in the repertory. PLAYWRIGHT SUCCESS FAILURE MEDIOCRE Addison 2 0 0 Centlivre 3 4 2 Cibber 7 2 2 Farquhar 2 0 0 Rowe 3 0 0 Steele 2 1 1 Vanbrugh Total

2 21

0 7

0 5

While Table 8 shows the roles created by Anne Oldfield during her thirty year

career, it does not give any indication of her workload on a yearly basis. Table 10 gives a

list of all her known performances for the 1711-1712 season—by this time she had been

on the London stage for twelve years and was well established as the leading actress of

the Drury Lane company, specializing in comic roles. I have chosen this season because

the records of performance are complete—although as is indicated, we do not have cast

lists for all the plays—also, this season shows Anne Oldfield mid-career at a time when

Drury Lane was under stable management, and her personal life was equally

untroubled.127 This table shows not only the number of roles a leading actress had to

perform on a monthly basis but also demonstrates the vast—at least by modern

standards—number of plays that were being performed by the Drury Lane company

week-in week-out.

127 Anne Oldfield had been living with Arthur Mainwaring for approximately eight years by this time, their son was about two years old, and although Mainwaring was ill and would be dead by the end of 1712, his illness was not serious enough to interfere with her stage appearances at this point.

161

Table 10. All known roles performed by Anne Oldfield at Drury Lane in the 1711-1712 season. Note: A blank in the role column indicates that Mrs. Oldfield was not listed for a part in this play performed at Drury Lane. A ? next to the number of nights in a run indicates that no play was listed for the

following night, but there is no indication that the theatre was closed so therefore the play in question probably ran for more than one night. * * * indicates a play for which there is no cast list. ‡ indicates a play in which Mrs. Oldfield usually had a role, but did not perform on this occasion.

DATE RUN PLAY ROLE September 1711

Sat 22 1? The Amorous Widow Wanton wife

Tues 25 2? The Recruiting Officer Silvia Thurs 27 2? Love for Love Angelica Sat 29 2 Madam Fickle October Tues 2 2? The Unhappy Favourite Thurs 4 2? Love Makes a Man Sat 6 1 The Chances Constantia Mon 8 1 Oroonoko Tues 9 1 The Spanish Fryar Elvira Wed. 10 1 The Strategm Mrs. Sullen Thurs 11 1 The Scornful Lady The Lady Fri. 12 1 The Lancashire Witches Sat. 13 2 Philaster Tues. 16 1 The Fair Quaker of Deal Wed. 17 1 The Rover Hellena Thurs. 18 1 The Albion Queens Queen Mary Fri. 19 1 The Busie Body Sat. 20 1 Mackbeth Mon 22 1 The Volunteers Tues. 23 1 The Careless Husband Lady Betty Wed. 24 1 The Old Batchelor Laetitia Thurs 25 1 Philaster Fri 26 1 The Rehearsal Sat 27 1 Hamlet

162

Mon 29 1 The Libertine Destroy'd Tues 30 1 Timon of Athens

Thurs 31 1 Rule a Wfie and Have a Wife Estifania

November

Thurs 1 1 The Silent Woman Silent Woman

Fri 2 1 The Relapse Berinthia Sat 3 1 The Indian Emperor Mon 5 1 The Pilgrim Tues 6 1 Henry IV Wed 7 1 The Confederacy Thurs 8 1 The Funeral Lady Harriet Fri 9 1 She wou'd if she cou'd Sat 10 1 King Lear Mon 12 7 The Wife's Relief Arabella Thurs 22 1 Philaster Fri 23 1 The Squire of Alsatia Teresa Sat 24 1 Aurengzebe Mon 26 1 Sir Courtly Nice Leonora Tues 27 1 Othello Thurs 29 1 The Man of Mode Mrs. Loveit Fri 30 1 Philaster December Sat 1 1 The Wife's Relief Arabella Mon 3 2 Vertue Betray'd Anna Bullen Thurs 6 1 Love for Love Angelica Fri 7 1 Aurengzebe Sat 8 1 The Alchymist Mon 10 1 The Committee Ruth

Tues 11 1 The Amorous Widow Wanton wife

Thurs 13 1 Mithridates Semandra Fri 14 1 The Wife's Relief Arabella Sat 15 1 Mithridates Semandra Mon 17 1 Love Makes a Man Tues 18 1 The Tender Husband Biddy Thurs 20 1 Mithridates Semandra Fri 21 1 The Feign'd Innocence

163

Sat 22 1 Mackbeth Thurs 27 1 Vertue Betray'd Anna Bullen Fri 28 1 The Libertine Destroy'd Sat 29 1 The Wife's Relief Arabella Mon 31 1 The Northern Lass January 1712 Tues 1 1 The Chances‡ Thurs 3 1 The Careless Husband Lady Betty Fri 4 1 The Scornful Lady The Lady

Sat 5 Rule a Wfie and Have a Wife Estifania

Mon 7 4 The Tempest * * * Sat 12 1 The Spanish Fryar Elvira Mon 14 1 The Funeral Lady Harriet Tues 15 2 The Tempest * * *

Fri 18 1 The Amorous Widow Wanton wife

Sat 19 3 The Perplex'd Lovers Camilla Thurs 24 1 The Tempest * * * Fri 25 1 The Royal Merchant * * * Sat 26 1 Philaster Mon 28 1 The Strategm Mrs. Sullen Tues 29 1 The Pilgrim Thurs 31 1 Love for Love Angelica February Fri 1 1 The Tempest * * * Sat 2 1 The Recruiting Officer Slivia Mon 4 1 The Wife's Relief Arabella Tues 5 1 The Fatal Marriage * * * Wed 6 1 The Taming of the Shrew * * * Thurs 7 1 The Unhappy Favourite Fri 8 1 Love's Last Shift * * * Sat 9 1 She wou'd if she cou'd Mon 11 2 The Humorous Lieutenant Caelia Thurs 14 1 Aesop * * * Fri 15 1 The Tempest * * * Sat 16 1 The Humorous Lieutenant Caelia Mon 18 1 Amphitryon * * * Tues 19 1 The Alchymist

164

Thurs 21 2 The Comical Revenge * * * Sat 23 1 Epsom Wells * * * Mon 25 1 The Rehearsal Tues 26 1 King Lear Thurs 28 1 The Humorous Lieutenant Caelia March Thurs 6 1 Mackbeth Sat 8 1 The Mourning Bride * * * Mon 10 1 The Fair Quaker of Deal Tues 11 1 The Libertine Destroy'd Thurs 13 2? The Orphan * * * Sat 15 1 The Tempest * * * Mon 17 9 The Distrest Mother Andromache Mon 31 1 Philaster April

Tues 1 1 The Silent Woman Silent Woman

Thurs 3 1 The Humorous Lieutenant Caelia Sat 5 1 Julius Caesar * * * Mon 7 1 Henry IV Tues 8 1 Julius Caesar * * * Thurs 10 2? The Spanish Fryar Elvira Sat 12 1 The Committee Ruth 14-19 Passion Week Mon 21 1 The Tempest * * * Tues 22 1 Love for Love Angelica Thurs 24 1 Julius Caesar * * * Fri 25 1 Hamlet

Sat 26 1 Rule a Wfie and Have a Wife Estifania

Mon 28 1 The Amorous Widow Wanton wife

Tues 29 1 Volpone May Thurs 1 1 The Rival Queens * * * Fri 2 1 The Strategm Mrs. Sullen Sat 3 1 The Rover‡ Mon 5 1 Love Makes a Man

165

Tues 6 1 The Constant Couple Lady Lurewell

Thurs 8 1 The Mourning Bride Fri 9 1 Venice Preserv'd Sat 10 1 The Tempest * * * Mon 12 1 Caius Marius Tues 13 1 The Old Batchelor‡ Thurs 15 1 The Spanish Fryar ‡

Anne Oldfield’s finances

Although unfortunately we do not have a record of Anne Oldfield’s salary throughout her

career, there are some documents which give an indication of her earnings at certain

points. A document from the Lord Chamberlain’s records entitled “An Establishment for

ye Company” (PRO LC 7/3) lists salaries for a company of performers. This is undated

and was initially thought by scholars to be from 1708—it includes actors from both

Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Drury Lane and therefore was assumed to refer to the union of

the companies—but Judith Milhous has proven from internal evidence that it is most

likely a projection of what a united company would cost dating from1703.128 In this

document, Anne Oldfield is ranked well below both Elizabeth Barry and Anne

Bracegirdle—her proposed salary is given as £80 per annum whereas they would receive

£150 per annum each. However, Mrs. Oldfield is ranked above both Jane Rogers (£60

p.a.) and Mary Porter (£40 p.a.).129 Milhous points out that this proposed salary would

have been rather low for Anne Oldfield, even in 1703, since she had signed a contract at

128 Judith Milhous “The Date and Import of the Financial Plan for a United Theatre Company in P.R.O. LC 7/3,” Maske und Kothurn, 21 (1975), 81-88. 129 PRO LC 7/3 is reproduced in full in Allardyce Nicoll’s A History of English Drama, 1660-1900 6 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952-1959), II, pp. 276-278.

166

Drury Lane in March of that year which gave her 50 shillings a week, and suggests that

this may have been because of her allegiance to the Drury Lane company (p.85).

The next information on Anne Oldfield’s salary comes from the 1708-09 season,

when the theatres were in a considerable state of unrest culminating in the silencing of

Drury Lane, under Christopher Rich, in June of 1709. Two documents extant in the Lord

Chamberlain’s papers (PRO LC 7/3, fol. 104 and 175) are “Mrs. Oldfield’s complaint

against Christopher Rich,” March 1709, and “The Answer of Mr. Rich, the Patentees &

Adventurers, to a Paper intitled Mrs. Oldfields Complaint,” no definite date.130 In her

complaint, Mrs. Oldfield says that while at the Haymarket she had an agreement for £4

per week, with a benefit for which the house charges would be £40; she left the

Haymarket and returned to Drury Lane on the understanding that she would receive the

same terms but for her benefit on March 3rd Rich deduced £71.131 Rich’s reply argues

that her salary of £4 weekly was paid, that it was higher than that of any other woman,

and that the agreement for her benefit was that she would pay £40 house charges and then

receive two-thirds of the balance for herself which amounted to £62.7.8. The reply does

not say why an extra one-third of the profits should now be kept by the house in addition

to the standard house charges or explain why Mrs. Oldfield would have agreed to accept

only two-thirds of the receipts after house charges. Given the circumstances in the

company at the time, and the subsequent support of the actors by the Lord Chamberlain’s

office, there is a strong possibility that “Mrs. Oldfield’s complaint” was a test case used

by the actors to gauge Rich’s likely response and/or provoke him into taking a public

130 Document Register I, items 2000 and 2001, p. 436. 131 The return to Drury Lane which Mrs. Oldfield mentions would have been at the time of the union of the companies in 1708, and she would not have had any choice in the move if she wished to continue acting in London.

167

position on the issue of benefits, which could later be used against him. Of course there

is also the possibility that Anne Oldfield, given her seniority in the company, was simply

the first performer to run into Rich’s new benefit terms, and took umbrage accordingly.

Following the silencing of Drury Lane in June 1709, a document entitled

Advertisement Concerning the Poor ACTORS, who under Pretence of hard Usage from

the PATENTEES, are about to desert their Service was published by Zachary Baggs, the

treasurer of the Theatre-Royal at Drury Lane. The Biographical Dictionary (1: 210-211)

points out that this was probably printed in collusion with Rich and not just in support of

his management—Baggs had been the treasurer since at least 1701 and the extent of his

influence in management decisions is not clear. This document gives the salaries for

Wilks, Betterton, Escourt, Cibber, Mills, and Mrs. Oldfield, and denies that they were

underpaid by the management; instead Baggs claims that given the number of weeks the

theatre was forced to close, that these performers received exactly the wages to which

they were entitled. He explains that

The whole Company began to Act, on the 12th of Oct. 1708. and left off

on the 26th of the same Month, by reason of Prince George’s Illness and

Death; and begun 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 3 Days,

accounting Six Acting Days to a Week.

Then there follows a breakdown, and explanation, of monies received by each of the

named performers. There are four payments entered for Anne Oldfield, totaling

£132.06.1 with the following details

168

To Mrs. Oldfield at 4 l. a Week Salary, which for 14 Weeks and

one Day; she leaving off Acting presently after her Benefit, (viz.)

on the 17th of March last 1708. tho’ the Benefit was intended for

her whole 9 Months Acting, and she refused to assist others in their

Benefits; her salary for these 14 Weeks and one day came to,

and she was paid.

£56.13.04

In January she required, and was paid Ten Guineas, to wear on the

Stage in some Plays, during the whole Season, a Mantua and Petticoat

that was given her for the Stage, and tho’ she left off 3 Months before

she should, yet she hath not returned any part of the Ten Guineas.

£10.15.00

And she had for wearing in some Plays a Suit of Boys Cloaths on

on the Stage, paid.

£2.10.09

By a Benefit Play, paid.

£62.07.08

In a separate column, Baggs lists what he estimates each performer received for their

benefits above and beyond the normal ticket price, and then sums up the earnings of the

six performers as follows:

l. s. d. Both Acted 100 Times Mr.Wilks certain, 259 01 05

and more by Guess 40 00 00 299.01.05

Acted 16 Times Mr. Betterton, certain

188 14 05

169

and more by Guess 450 00 00 638.14.05

Acted 52 Times Mr. Estcourt, certain

163 18 06

and more by Guess 200 00 00 363.18.06

Acted 71 Times Mr. Cibber,certain 162 10 10 and more by Guess 50 00 00 212.10.10

Acted Times132 Mr. Mills, certain 170 11 04 and more by Guess 20 00 00 190.12.04

Acted 39 Times Mrs. Oldfield,certain

132 06 07

and more by Guess 120 00 00 252.06.07

How accurate his estimates are is difficult to say—he does include a note explaining the

vast sum he credits Betterton with receiving; explaining that no person was admitted for

that performance who did not have one of Betterton’s own tickets, the lowest of which

was priced at half a Guinea. Baggs also claims that many people gave Betterton well over

the ticket price, with one lady paying twenty Guineas. The benefit in question was the

special one on April 7th 1709, a performance of Congreve’s Love for Love, for which

Anne Bracegirdle temporarily came out of retirement; given Betterton’s standing, and

popularity, a huge profit from this benefit would have been very possible.

Looking just at the figures given for certain income, in relation to number of

performances, Anne Oldfield was doing very well. Cibber, who granted was not as

senior a performer, was acting nearly twice as much as she was yet received only £30

more; Wilks, with whom Mrs. Oldfield was frequently partnered, was performing two

and a half times more often but his salary was only £127 greater than hers.

132 There is no record of the number of times that Mr. Mills acted given here.

170

In this document, Anne Oldfield is the only performer singled out for any

personal comment—the jibe about her refusal to play in other people’s benefits—the

money received by the actors is simply broken down into weekly salary and benefits.

The only other comments Baggs makes are on the wives of Betterton and Mills; he

includes in Betterton’s salary 1l. per week for Mrs. Betterton “although she does not

Act”, and 1l. per week for Mills’ wife “for little, or nothing”. Mary Betterton had retired

from acting circa 1694 but continued to work with the younger performers; Margaret

Mills was both an actress and singer who was a useful stock performer—why Baggs

should resent them is unclear.

The next record of salary that survives for Anne Oldfield comes from Cibber in

his Apology and refers to the 1710-1711 season when the management of Drury Lane was

transferred to a group of actor-managers. According to Cibber, she was initially

supposed to be part of the management, but Dogget objected and she was compensated

accordingly:

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

171

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. (2: 70-71)

Cibber’s claim that Anne Oldfield did not object to being excluded from management

seems entirely reasonable. She had been acting on the London stage for eleven years by

this time, had worked under various managements, and had recently been through the

debacle involving Rich and Drury Lane—nothing in these experiences would necessarily

have tempted her to get involved in management herself. From what we can learn of her

character, though the information is admittedly not very detailed, she does not appear to

have been particularly ambitious beyond the scope of her roles—she was a leading

actress who had a life and family beyond the theatre and no reason to wish for a greater

involvement in the running of the company.

The final comment on Anne Oldfield’s finances comes from herself—her will

was made on June 27th 1730, and a codicil added on September 15th; she died on October

23rd of that year. The contents of the will can be summarized as follows:

To her son, Charles Churchill—her house in Grosvenor Street;

To her son, Arthur Mainwaring—the interest on £5000 until he reached

the age of thirty, then the principal was to be his;

To her mother, Anne Oldfield—10 guineas immediately, and a £60 annuity;

To her aunt, Jane Gourlaw—£10 immediately, a £10 annuity during the

life of Anne Oldfield Snr. and £30 annuity after that;

172

To her friend, the actress Margaret Saunders—a £10 annuity.

The remainder of her estate was to be divided into three equal parts,

two parts for her son Arthur Mainwaring and one for her other son,

Charles Churchill. Brigadier Charles Churchill was the residual legatee

for all her estate.133

The bequests listed above seem clear and straightforward but the detail in which the will

is written is far from simple—every possible contingency seems to have been thought of

and planned for, down to the last detail. Mrs. Oldfield not only includes details of what

should happen to the money or property if one of her legatees should die before

inheriting, but also includes details of when all the annuities should be paid.

Item, I give and bequeath unto Mrs. Margaret Saunders, the Yearly

Sum or Annuity of Ten Pounds per Annum, to be paid her during her

Life, by Four Quarterly Payments; the first Payment thereof to be made

on the Quarter-Day next following the Day of my Death.

Although we cannot know the amount of legal advice Anne Oldfield received on the

making of this will, the precision and attention to detail is not something found in all

wills of this period.

133 For a full transcript of Anne Oldfield’s will, see Appendix C.

173

Chapter 4: Case Studies Sample Group 3, 1750-1755.

The two principal actresses discussed in the last sample group—Hester

Santlow/Booth and Anne Oldfield—both had careers which ended at the beginning of the

1730’s, the time at which the stable management of Drury Lane under the triumvirate

also came to an end. While the 1730’s saw a boom in the number of theatres operating in

London, and in the amount of new material they offered, all this came to a rather abrupt

end with the introduction of the Licensing Act in June 1737. This Act had a detrimental

and long lasting effect on the London theatre scene; it had the effect of reducing the

number of legal theatres to the two patent houses, and gave control over all material

performed on stage to the office of the Lord Chamberlain. The reason for jumping ahead

to the 1750’s for the next sample is that although the Licensing Act was still, and would

remain, law, the theatres had by this time recovered from the most immediate ill-effects,

and theatrical entertainment had settled into a “new” pattern.

Before beginning the case studies for this third sample group, some explanation of

the circumstances which led to the Licensing Act, and the ramifications which followed,

is in order. Before the Licensing Act came into effect, there were a large number of

theatres operating in London—the introduction to The London Stage 1729-1747134 lists

eight theatres for this period, not counting those which had opened in Richmond, or the

various fairs at which theatrical entertainments were performed. The two major houses

were still Drury Lane and, from 1732, Covent Garden, with the King’s Opera House in

the Haymarket performing only operas, but Lincoln’s Inn Fields was in decline and

134 Vol. 3, pp. xix-xli.

174

would close in 1744. The principal competition for the patent companies came from the

Goodman’s Fields Theatre, which was opened by an Irish actor, Thomas Odell, at

converted premises in Ayliffe Street in 1729. Odell encountered considerable opposition

to his venture and the theatre did not really become a success until the actor Henry

Giffard joined the management. Under Giffard, the Goodman’s Fields company

expanded and he oversaw the construction of a new purpose-built theatre which opened,

still in Ayliffe Street, on October 2nd 1732. In 1733 Giffard purchased Barton Booth’s

share in the Drury Lane company from his widow, Hester Santlow/Booth but continued

to manage, and act with, the Goodman’s Fields company. Giffard’s company moved to

Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1736 and proposed a new subscription plan to increase the profits

of that theatre, and on May 3rd 1737 he put the Goodman’s Fields theatre up for sale.

However, little over a month later the Licensing Act was passed and Giffard was left with

a theatre in which he could not legally perform. Both the Biographical Dictionary (6:

186-195) and The London Stage (III: I, pp. lxxx-lxxxv) agree that Giffard’s talents as an

actor were average, although he played and maintained some major roles, but that his real

abilities lay in management. Giffard ran a very efficient company—he kept adding to his

roster of performers with both newcomers and established actors from other companies,

and was not afraid to move actors around in different parts until he achieved the “right”

combination; he insisted on a regular rehearsal schedule for all the company; and was one

of the first to use newspaper advertising to puff forthcoming performances and employ

more sensational language to attract the public’s attention. The rigorous training that

Giffard’s actors received paid off; many of them went on to long-term successful careers

at the patent companies. The most famous of these was David Garrick—who, as Scouten

175

(p. lxxxi) points out, would probably have gone on to great things irrespective of where

he trained—but there were many “middle rank” players, such as William Havard, Mrs.

Dunstall, and Miss Bradshaw who would be unlikely to have had the long careers they

did without the training they received from Giffard.

Henry Giffard’s part in the event which seems to have precipitated the

introduction of the Licensing Act to parliament in June 1737, centers on Sir Robert

Walpole and a play called The Golden Rump. Walpole was the butt of many satirical

attacks, both on stage and off, particularly from Henry Fielding at the New Haymarket,

and had made previous attempts to curb theatrical activities—a bill he had introduced to

the Commons in conjunction with Sir John Barnard had been defeated in April 1735.

According to The London Stage:

In May 1737, occurred the strange episode of The Golden Rump. The

standard version of the story is that a play by this title, containing obscene

allusions to, and scurrilous attacks upon, Walpole, was offered to Giffard.

Instead of producing it he offered it to Walpole, who, with great indignation,

read passages of it on the floor of the House of Commons. (p. l)

The House was outraged and the end result was the Licensing Act. However, a more

devious reading of the situation was offered in the Apology for the Life of Mr. T---C---:

Suppose, Sir, some Golden Rump Farce was wrote by a certain Great

Man’s [Walpole] Own direction, and as much Scurrility and Treason larded in it

as possible . . . Suppose Giffard had a private Hint how to act in this

affair, and was promised Great Things . . . Suppose he was promised

176

a separate License. 135

Whether or not the latter is true is impossible to say for certain; Giffard did not receive a

“separate license” but was nevertheless back in business in London for the 1740-41

season, and does seem to have received “special consideration” from the authorities. The

author of this Apology, and thus the source for this suggestion is also a matter for

conjecture. The Biographical Dictionary entry for Henry Giffard includes the quote

above, saying

Henry Fielding, whose satirical jabs at Walpole had appeared on

the stage of the Haymarket Theatre, wrote in An Apology for the

life of Mr. T . . . C . . . in 1740, . . . (6:191)

however, the authorship of this “autobiography” is completely unclear. The contents of

the work indicate that it was written by a theatrical insider, and while Henry Fielding is

certainly a possible candidate, to say definitively that it was written by Henry Fielding is

impossible to prove.

The Licensing Act of 1737 was an amendment to an earlier one dating from the

reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714) which included actors in the same group as beggars

and vagrants, for the purposes of the law. In the Document Register, Milhous and Hume

give the following entry for June 6 1737

“An Act to explain and amend so much of an Act made in the Twelfth

Year of the Reign of Queen Anne Intituled An Act for reducing the

Laws relating to Rogues Vagabonds Sturdy Beggars and Vagrants and

Sending them whither they ought to be sent as relates to Common

135 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: J. Mechell, 1740) p. 94.

177

Players of Interludes.” Forbids theatrical performances without Royal

patent or license from the Lord Chamberlain and forbids theatres to

present “any new Interlude Tragedy Comedy Opera play ffarce or other

Entertainment of the Stage or any new Prologue or Epilogue unless

a true Copy thereof be sent to the Lord Chamberlain of the Kings

Household for the being fourteen days at least before the acting

representing or performing thereof.” Anyone performing anything

not allowed by the Lord Chamberlain’s office to forfeit £50 and the

authority to perform. (2: Item 4139)

Strictly speaking, there should not have been any companies performing, other than the

two holding the royal patents, at this date but the authorities tended to turn a blind eye

unless there were serious public objections. The Licensing Act however, clearly states

from and after the twenty fourth day of June One Thousand

seven hundred and thirty seven every person who shall for hire

Gain or Reward act represent or perform or cause to be acted

represented or performed any Interlude Tragedy Comedy opera

Play ffarce or other Entertainment of the Stage or any part or

parts therein in case such person shall not have any Legal Settlement

in the place where the same shall be acted represented or performed

without authority by vertue of Letters Patent from His Majesty His Heirs

Successors or Predecessors or without Licence from the Lord Chamberlain

of His Majestys Household for the time being shall be deemed to be

a Rogue and a Vagabond within the intent and meaning of the said

178

recited act and shall be liable and subject to all such penalties and

punishments and by such methods of conviction as are inflicted on

or appointed by the said act for the punishment of Rogues and

Vagabonds . . . 136

This limiting to just two playhouses meant that from here on there would be no real

competition between theatres; the city of London had enough of a theatre-going

population to support more than the two patent houses, they had no need to compete for

the audience by producing lots of new works, or experimenting with new types of plays

or modes of production. The overall result was long-term stagnation—the patent houses

were large and expensive to run, they had a monopoly and therefore no reason to take

risks; the managements of both theatres were well pleased and resisted all efforts to

change the situation.

Walpole’s real goal, which he achieved, was the imposition of censorship on all

plays to be performed, including prologues and epilogues—since even if the material of a

play were innocent enough, the addition of a new prologue or epilogue could direct the

audience attention in a new way and/or add a range of new comments which could

contain topical allusions giving new significance to the material about to be seen.

However, the most immediate effect was the reduction of employment for actors in

London—with just two theatres operating not only were there fewer actors needed at any

given time but the opportunities for newcomers to gain experience, and a place in a

company, were drastically reduced.

136 Vincent J. Liesenfeld, ed. , The Stage and the Licensing Act 1729-1737 (New York: Garland , 1981) “The Licensing Act of 1737.”

179

The passing of the Licensing Act was not something that went unnoticed; it

occasioned considerable debate among politicians, as well as other citizens, many of

whom were concerned by the level of censorship it imposed. A speech made by the Earl

of Chesterfield in the House of Lords, early June 1737, stated that the Act

seems designed not only as a Restraint on the Licentiousness of the

Stage, but it will prove a most arbitrary Restraint on the Liberty of the

Stage; and , I fear, it looks yet farther, I fear, it tends towards a Restraint

on the Liberty of the Press, which will be a long Stride towards the

Destruction of Liberty itself.

Unfortunately, despite this, and other objections, the Act was passed; Lord Chesterfield’s

fears for the liberty of the stage were to prove true, the power of the Lord Chamberlain’s

office to censor plays and refuse performance rights remained in effect until the repeal of

the Act in 1968, which was precipitated by the Royal Court Theatre’s performances of

the controversial plays of Edward Bond.137

Sample Group 3 – 1750-1755

The method for selecting the individual case studies for this sample remains the

same as for the first two groups, except for a modification of the second category—four

actresses [Sarah Toogood; the Misses Davis; Jane Hippsley (later Mrs. Henry Green;

Catherine (Kitty) Clive] whose careers illustrate respectively the following categories:

1. A very brief involvement with the theatre and little

137 This is necessarily just a brief summary of the Licensing Act of 1737, and some of the circumstances which surrounded its passing, in order to provide a backdrop for the London theatre scene which existed in the seventeen-fifties; for a full and comprehensive account of the Licensing Act, see Vincent J. Liesenfeld’s The Licensing Act of 1737 (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984)

180

or nothing known about the actress’s personal life.

2. The original criteria for this category were “A career

spanning a number of years where there is some detail

on professional activity but little on personal life” but

for this sample group the extant records, at least on

professional activities, are more detailed for performers

who had careers lasting beyond a season or two. For this

sample group therefore, the case study is of a number of

actresses with the same name whose short careers and

similar lines illustrate the difficulties of trying to disentangle

even those records that are more complete.

3. A longer career where information on both professional

and personal lives is available, but the actress in question

remained relatively minor.

4. A long career with professional and personal information

extant, where the actress became one the leading players

of her day.

181

Table 1 All actresses active in the years 1750-1755 Notes: Name in bold indicates that this actress became a leading performer on the London stage; those who played “second lead” roles are not included in this category, and neither are those who played lead roles in Ireland, or the provinces, that did not maintain their status when they transferred to London. ‡ after name indicates that this actress also sang or danced in addition to her straight acting roles. ♦ after name indicates that this actress spent part of her career in Ireland. Y in the “Family Connections” column stands for “Yes” this actress had a connection to the theatre either by blood or by marriage. **There are question marks under all columns for “Miss Davis” since, as will be discussed, there were several actresses of this name who are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Actresses are listed alphabetically by the surname under which they spent most of their professional lives; maiden names are included if a career began before marriage or the actress belonged to a theatrical family, and married names if the career continued after marriage.

Actress Family Career length Year of first Year of last

connection (in years) performance performance Ann Allen 27 1742 1769 Susanna Mara Arne (Mrs. T. Cibber II) ‡ ♦ Y 33 1732 1765 Mrs. Baker ‡ Y 11 1749 (?) 1760 Ann Barrington (neé Halam) ♦ Y 40 1733 1773 George Anne Bellamy ♦ Y 26 1744 1770 Elizabeth Bennet ‡ Y 33 1733 1766 Esther Bland (Mrs. John Hamilton) ♦ ‡ Y 31 1741 1772 Mary Bradshaw Y 35 1743 1778 Elizabeth Chambers ‡ 7 1751 1758 Jane Cibber (Mrs. T. Cibber I) Y 10 1741 1751 Kitty Clive ♦ ‡ 41 1728 1769 Mary Cokayne 22 1753 1775 Elizabeth Copin ‡ Y 28 1745 1773 Mrs. Cowper ♦ 9 1748 1757 Frances Cross (neé Shireburn) ‡ Y 54 1727 1781 Mrs. John Cushing ‡ Y 8 1743 1751

182

Susannah Davies (neé Yarrow) ♦ Y 15 1749 1764 Miss Davis ** ? ? ? Mary Dunstall ‡ Y 18 1740 1758 Harriet Dyer (neé Bullock) ‡ ♦ Y 45 1728 1773 Mary Elmy (neé Morse) ♦ 29 1733 1762 Mrs Ferguson Y 15 1735 1750 Jane Ferguson Y 38 1735 1773 Elizabeth Fitzhenry (neé Flanagan) ♦ 20 1754 1774 Ann Glen ♦ 11 1755 1766 Mary Ann Graham (Mrs. Richard Yates II) ‡ ♦ Y 30 1753 1783 Jane Green (neé Hippisley) ‡ Y 45 1735 1780 Mrs. (Urusla?) Griffith Y 3 1752 1755 Isabella Hallam (Mrs. George Mattocks) ‡ Y 52 1746 1808 Hannah Haughton ‡ 30 1734 1764 Elizabeth Havard (formerly Mrs. Kilby) ‡ Y 34 1728 1762 Susanna Helme ‡ 22 1752 1774 Elizabeth Hippisley ‡ Y 27 1742 1769 Christiana Horton 38 1714 1752 Mrs. Harris James ‡ Y 18 1736 1754 Elizabeth Jefferson (neé May) ♦ Y 13 1753 1766 Miss Kennedy (Elizabeth Griffith) ♦ Y 8 1749 1757 Isabella Lampe (neé Young) ‡ ♦ Y 57 1733 1790 Ann Macklin (the first Mrs. Charles) ‡ ♦ Y 37 1721 1758 Maria Macklin ‡ Y 35 1742 1777 Elizabeth Mills (neé Holliday) ‡ Y 32 1723 1755 Sybilla Minors (or Myners) (Mrs. John Walker) ‡ ♦ Y 26 1741 1767 Anna Maria Morrison (Mrs. Thomas Hull) ‡ Y 38 1737 1775

183

Susanna Mullart (Mrs. Evans) Y 34 1740 1774 Maria Isabella Nossiter ♦ 6 1753 1759 Ann Pitt ‡ ♦ 47 1745 1792 Miss Popling ‡ 7 1749 1756 Mrs. Price (Mrs. William Parsons I) ‡ Y 25 1751 1776 Hannah Pritchard (neé Vaughan) ‡ Y 36 1732 1768 Mary Ridout (neé Woodman) ‡ Y 14 1739 1753 Ninetta de Rossenaw ‡ 1 1754 1755 Elizabeth Simpson Y 30 1744 1774 Miss Thomas ‡ ♦ 23 1753 1776 Sarah Toogood ‡ 8 1747 1755 Catherine de Vallois ‡ Y 28 1728 1756 Jane Vernon ( neé Poitier, later Thompson) ‡ ♦ Y 40 1736 1785 Elizabeth Vincent (neé Bincks) ♦ Y 44 1729 1773 Sarah Ward (neé Achurch) ♦ Y 25 1745 1770 Ann Willoughby (Mrs. James Lacy II) Y 4 1748 1752 Peg Woffington ‡ ♦ 26 1731 1757 Mrs. Wright ‡ 22 1728 1750 Miss Yates ‡ Y 9 1744 1753 Mrs. Thomas Yeates ‡ Y 10 1745 1755 Ester Young (Mrs. Charles Jones) ‡ ♦ Y 40 1736 1776

As this table illustrates, the range of career length for actresses during this period

extends from one year to fifty-seven, however, there are only three actresses whose

careers lasted for under five years, whereas there are forty-two women who had careers

of over twenty years. Although many actresses spent varying proportions of their careers

in the provincial, Irish, or Scottish theatres, this pattern represents a considerable change

from the earlier sample groups, as Table 2 shows.

184

Table 2. Sample 1, 2, and 3—career length comparison.

Sample 1 (1670-1675)

Sample 2 (1710-1715)

Sample 3 (1750-1755)

Total number 42 31 64 Major 6 7 14 Minor 36 24 50 Career span 1-36 years 1-45 years 1-57 years Careers >5 years 13 4 3 Careers <20 years 11 10 20

These figures show not only a steady increase in the length of actresses’ careers, but also

a diminution in the number of women who spent just a short time in the profession. In

the first sample group, 33% of all actresses had careers which lasted less than five years;

in the second group that number drops to 13%; by the time of the third group it has

diminished to a negligible 5%. However, the other end of the spectrum—careers

exceeding twenty years—does not demonstrate such a drastic change; 26% of actresses in

sample one had careers which lasted for twenty years or more; this increases slightly with

sample two to 32%; but decreases marginally to 31% for sample three.

The change from 33% of actresses, who were active 1670-1675, having careers of

less than five years, to 5% of actresses who were active 1750-1755, indicates that a

serious stabilization of the profession took place over this eighty-five year time span,

primarily in the earlier years. The high percentage of actresses who had only short

careers in the first sample group is to be expected—acting was, for women, still a

relatively new profession and the closure of the public theatres during the interregnum

185

meant that there was no family tradition of theatrical involvement to follow. However,

the continuing decrease, from 13% (1710-1715) to 5% (1750-1755), is more surprising

since working conditions in the theatre companies were not that different. The change

may be, at least in part, accounted for by the large percentage of actresses in the third

group who had family connections in the theatre—which would suggest, for those born

into theatrical families, that they had firsthand experience of the pitfalls as well as the

advantages of their chosen profession and would therefore be less likely to enter into it on

a whim; and those who married fellow actors, or others employed in the theatrical world,

then had a vested interest in remaining in situ. This trend towards more stable careers

would have been of great benefit to the theatre companies; a solid base of reliable

performers, even if they are not great actors, is essential to the effective running of any

repertory company.

While there is a logical explanation for the decrease in the numbers of actresses

with very short careers, the fact that the percentage of those with careers of over twenty

years holds steady around 30%, between 1670 and 1755, is less easy to explain. One

possibility is that the number of older actresses needed by a company at any given time

remains fairly static—the age distribution of casts does not particularly change; there are

invariably more young roles than middle-aged, or older. Therefore, if an actress began

her career on stage at age seventeen, after twenty years in the business she would be

thirty-seven and beyond the age of playing the young marriageable girl (only a few senior

and favorite actresses would have been acceptable to audiences, and therefore

management, playing roles well beyond the age range). If this were the case, then

actresses who lasted beyond the twenty year mark would have a more limited number of

186

roles available to them and the number of these actresses required by a company would

not really change significantly over time.

The numbers of actresses in sample three who had family connections is shown in

Table 3, below, which gives the figures and percentages for the whole sample and also

shows the differences, if any, between the major and minor players.

Table 3. Sample Group 3 Breakdown Note: As above, those actresses classified as “Major” are only those who played lead roles on the London stage.

No. of

actresses Family

connections Sang/danced Ireland Total 64 43 (67%) 31 (48%) 25 (39%) Major 14 10 (71%) 8 (57%) 9 (64%) Minor 50 33 (66%) 23 (46%) 16 (32%)

Although a very high percentage of these actresses had a family connection to the

theatre, either by blood or through marriage, this connection does not appear to have been

of particular advantage in gaining success within a company—71% of actresses classified

as “major” had family connections, as did 66% of those who remained “minor”. From

the point of view of a company’s management, hiring, or trying out, new actors from

theatrical families made sense; these new recruits already knew how the company and

how theatre itself worked, if they had grown up watching family members on-stage then

they would need considerably less training than someone off the street, and they would

probably be more loyal to the company if they had family already employed there.

However, these statistics seem to show that, beyond the initial “break,” these connections

187

have little effect; virtually equal proportions of the actresses with family in the business

remain minor, as those who go on to be major stars.

Another interesting facet of this sample group is the proportion of actresses who

spent at least part of their career in Ireland—nearly 40% overall. Quite a number of these

women, such as Peg Woffington, began their careers in Ireland and then transferred to

London, while others started in London and then moved to Dublin in later years. A

number of actresses who had considerable success at Smock Alley did not manage to

translate that success to the London stage, but most remained in London and played

“second woman” roles rather than return to Ireland—either out of pride, or, because new

young actresses had risen to fill their place, or, because they considered second billing at

a top venue was better than first at a lesser one. Those who moved from London to

Dublin usually did so because they, or a spouse, were unable to maintain the roles they

wanted, or, they had a dispute with the London management over money. However,

many performers did not make the change, in either direction, a permanent one and one

of the characteristics of this sample group is a much greater mobility between theatres

and between countries.

Sarah Toogood

Although Mrs. Toogood had a career that lasted eight years, there are few extant

details available on her personal life, and only a small number of known roles for her.

We do not know when, or where, she was born, only that she first appears in the Drury

Lane records on May 5th, 1747 when she shared a benefit with other performers. As the

Biographical Dictionary (15:27) says, she must have been performing roles that were too

188

minor to be advertized prior to this. The next record of her is of performances with the

Richmond-Twickenham company in the summer of 1750; the troupe also had a Miss

Toogood, aged five, listed who was probably her daughter. From 1750-1755 Sarah

Toogood was at Drury Lane, acting minor roles and also dancing—she died on 19th

September 1755 and was buried at St. George, Bloomsbury two days later. Her death is

mentioned by the prompter Richard Cross, in his diary, but he does not say how she died

or what happened to her daughter. Sarah Toogood does not appear to have had any

family connection with the theatre—her surname is unusual enough that such a

connection would be relatively easy to trace if it existed—and her daughter does not

appear to have continued on the stage beyond the summer performances of 1750.

The roles that she played were all minor, mostly attendants and servants such as

Mincing in Congreve’s The Way of the World and Dainty Fidget in Wycherley’s The

Country Wife. In her years at Drury Lane she never moved up the ranks but the fact that

she was continuously employed would seem to indicate that she was at the very least

competent at what she did. While any company needs performers with talent and

ambition who will move up to starring roles, it also needs a proportion of foot-soldiers

who will continue to perform the same minor parts year-in and year-out—Sarah Toogood

appears to have been such a foot-soldier. Her last recorded performance at Drury Lane

was on May 8th 1755 and the Biographical Dictionary states that she seems to have left

the stage at this time. Since this was four months before her death, she may have been ill

or perhaps pregnant—her daughter, if still alive, would have been ten years old at this

time so Sarah Toogood was probably still a young woman—childbirth, or complications

afterwards, was a common cause of death for women. However, since we do not have a

189

date of birth for Mrs. Toogood, or a cause of death, I can offer this speculation only as a

possibility.

Miss (or The Misses?) Davis

The reason for including this actress in the case study for sample three is because

she, or possibly they, illustrates the confusion that exists over minor players with

common surnames even half way though the eighteenth-century. Although by the 1750s

the number and detail of extant records increase dramatically from those available from

the Restoration period, there are still considerable gaps particularly when dealing with the

lower ranks of performers. The Biographical Dictionary (4: 215-233) has entries on

forty-eight performers with the surname Davis who were active in the theatre from 1660

to 1800; for twenty-one of these individuals, we do not have a known Christian name.

When the entries for Davies are included (4: 197- 214), since the spelling of these two

names was frequently interchangeable during this period, an additional eighteen

performers can be added to the list—five of whom have no known Christian names.

Many of the Davis/Davies entries can be separated by the dates when the individuals

were active, but when there are a number of performers working at roughly the same time

with similar lines in roles, then trying to establish whether one is looking at one or a

number of different careers becomes very difficult indeed.

Such is the case with the Biographical Dictionary entry for “Davis, Miss [fl.

1739-1762?], actress, dancer, singer?” (4: 215-216) which opens by stating that

between the years 1739 and 1762 a number of similar roles—the ingénue, the pert

maidservant, Columbine in pantomime—are advertised as performed by a Miss Davis.

190

The authors then explain that these roles could not have been performed by other

actresses named Davis who were active at this time and the conclusion at which they

arrive is that:

The likelihood that an actress would not only remain unmarried but

would retain parts of this youthful cast for long was not great, but neither

was such a retention, of name or of roles, unknown. The (by no means

confident) assumption of the following account is that only one Miss Davis,

an actress, dancer, and singer of satisfactory middling talents, is

concerned in all of the roles cited. (4: 218)

Unfortunately they do not explain why these roles cannot belong to any of the other

Davises, nor do they offer any examples of actresses of this rank who retained the title

“Miss,” and the accompanying roles, beyond the usual sixteen or seventeen years of age.

The following are the known periods of activity for this “Miss Davis”:

Table 4 – Known performances of Miss Davis 1739-1762.

Dates Type of

role City Venue

1739-40 Chorus singer London

Covent Garden

1740-42 Actress &

singer London Covent Garden

1742 Actress &

singer London Bartholomew

Fair 1743 Actress London Southwark

1743-46 Actress &

singer Dublin

Aungier Street &

Smock Alley

1749-50 Actress &

singer London The

Haymarket

191

1750-51 Actress &

singer London Covent Garden

1751-52 Actress &

singer London Richmond & Twickenham

1755 Actress London The

Haymarket

1761-62 Actress &

singer London Covent Garden

The types of roles Miss Davis played in these assorted venues are of a similar

type—young girls, nymphs and sprites; sometimes the roles are repeated, for example she

played Rose in Farquhar’s The Recruiting Officer at Covent Garden 1741 and also at The

Haymarket in 1750. This particular role is a comedic stock part, the “Country Wench,”

which was played by Mrs. Mountfort in the opening production in 1706. Rose is the

archetypal “wench”—saucy, promiscuous, and young—whose broad comedy acts as a

foil for the more sophisticated ways of the heroine. The role is one that any reasonably

competent comedy actress should be able to perform with little difficulty, but the

principal requirement, as with many of the other roles listed, is youth.

If we accept the Biographical Dictionary’s assessment that all these roles belong

to the same actress, and assume that she was sixteen/seventeen years old when she began

her career in 1739, then she would have been around thirty-nine years of age 1762.

While many actresses continued performing well beyond this age, they usually did so in

more age-appropriate roles with the exception of some of the major stars, and even an

actress such as Elizabeth Barry merely retained the “young” roles she had created many

years before and did not take on new parts in this vein in her later career. Considering

that all theatre companies have a number of young, pretty, and reasonably competent

actresses on their books at any given time, allocating the “young” roles to a thirty-nine

192

year old does not make sense when there are eighteen year olds available who would be

far more pleasing to the audience. There are, of course, always exceptions but these tend

to be based on a particular talent, for example many exceptional singers maintain roles

that are not age-appropriate; however there is no evidence that “Miss Davis” had a great

vocal talent, all the roles the Biographical Dictionary list for her, either singing or

straight acting, are minor.

The next issue is her name—there is no logical explanation for why a thirty-nine

year old would still be advertised as “Miss,” when, as has already been discussed,

actresses are usually given the title “Mrs.” from about the age of sixteen onwards. Again,

the only exception might be a star performer who used the form of address as a

distinguishing “trademark” but this was clearly not the case with Miss Davis.

The final point which could indicate that this “Miss Davis” is in fact several

different actresses of the same name is a combination of the dates of activity and the

locations, as laid out in Table 4. While performers do demonstrate much greater mobility

than ever before between both companies and countries during this time, the fact that

“Miss Davis” changes location so much and has several gaps where there is no record of

her leads me to believe that this is not the record of a single individual. I suggest that

Table 4 in fact shows the careers of possibly three different performers—one who began

her career with Covent Garden in 1739, worked at Bartholomew Fair in the summer of

1742, tried the new theatre at Southwark in 1743 and still failing to move up the ladder in

London, moved to Dublin soon after; the second Miss Davis began her London career in

1749 and continued until 1752; and the third had a brief career which only lasted from

1761 to 1762.

193

Of course all this is supposition, but the evidence of Miss Davis’s documented

career, combined with what we know of theatrical company policy, leads me to disagree

with the conclusion reached by the authors of the Biographical Dictionary. While we

can never be certain that the “Miss Davis” who was active from 1739 to 1762 was one

actress or several, this case demonstrates the range of possibilities that have to be

considered when looking at the careers of minor performers, particularly those with

common surnames.

Mrs. Henry Green, née Jane Hippisley (1719-1791)

Jane Hippisley was born into a theatrical family—her father, John, was a famous

and very popular “low” comedian at Covent Garden—her two sisters and half-brother

also followed their father onto the stage, and she married a fellow actor, Henry Green, in

1747. Her first appearance on the London stage seems to have been at the age of sixteen

on March 1st 1735, on the occasion of her father’s benefit, when she played the role of

Cherry in The Stratagem, and her final one was on May 26th 1780, as Mrs. Hardcastle in

Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer. Over the course of her forty-five year career, Jane

Hippisley played at least 83 different roles in the principal theatres of London and

Dublin, as well as summers seasons spent in the provinces—over the years she played

frequently at Bristol and Bath, with some appearances at Ipswich earlier on in her career.

The reason that there is some doubt over the date of her first performance is that

the actress who played Cherry at John Hippisley’s benefit of March 1735 is advertised

simply as “Hippisley’s daughter”; Jane did have two sisters, who also became actresses,

but as she was the eldest, the assumption is that this notice refers to her. There is also

194

some confusion over which one of John Hippisley’s daughters acted which roles during

the 1741-42 season since both Jane and her sister Elizabeth belonged to the Goodman’s

Fields company at this time and they had very similar lines; however after this season

Elizabeth moved to Covent Garden while Jane stayed with Henry Giffard’s company.

The third of Hippisley’s daughters, who became a Mrs. Fitzmaurice, does not appear ever

to have acted in London, but worked in Bath, York and Edinburgh; there is no known

record of her first name. As can be seen in Table 5 below, Jane Hippisley moved

between a number of different theatres over the course of her forty-five year career.

Table 5.

Jane Green – known employment.

Year Theatre Manager City Summer season Personal

1735 -36 Covent Garden London

Stage debut, aged 16.

1740 Drury Lane London

1740-41 Goodman’s

Fields Henry Giffard London Ipswich

1741-42 Goodman's

Fields Henry Giffard London

1742-43 Linclon's Inn Fields

Henry Giffard London

Jacob's Wells, Bristol

1745-46 Goodman's

Fields Henry Giffard London

1747-51 Drury Lane David

Garrick London Jacob's Wells,

Bristol

June 1747, marries Henry Green.

February 1748, her

father dies.

1751 Orchard St.

Theatre Bath

195

1752-54 Smock Alley Dublin

1754-80 Covent Garden London

Jacob's Wells, Bristol - until 1766; then at King's Street until 1772.

Retires from the

stage May 26th 1780, aged 61.

1791

Dies in Bristol on August 21st, aged 72.

Some of Mrs. Green’s movements between venues can be explained by family

connections and others by her own decisions. In addition to working on stage in London,

John Hippisley also owned and ran a theatre at Jacob’s Wells in Bristol from 1729 until

his death in 1748—he bequeathed this, and most of the rest of his property, to his long

term mistress, Mary Charley, even though his legal wife was still living. Jane Hippisley

seems to have got on well with her father, his will refers to her as “my dear Jane,” and

she spent many summer seasons working at his theatre in Bristol.138 When she married

fellow actor Henry Green in June of 1747 the Bristol connection continued—he

performed with the Drury Lane Company in London, but only in minor roles, and worked

the summers in Hippisley’s Jacob’s Wells theatre from 1741 onwards. The likelihood is

that Jane Hippisley and Henry Green became acquainted during the Bristol summer

seasons.

Mrs. Green joined David Garrick’s company at Drury Lane in 1747 and remained

there until then end of the 1750-51 season but did not return for the 1751-52 season; the

decision not to continue with Drury Lane beyond this date appears to have been her own.

138 This quotation from John Hippisley’s will is taken from the Biographical Dictionary 6:331.

196

The Biographical Dictionary quotes an entry from the diary of prompter Richard Cross

for September 26th 1751

Mrs. Green went to Bath to play & left us—O fool. (6: 330)

Unfortunately, Cross offers no indication as to why Mrs. Green would so choose; the

Biographical Dictionary (6: 330) suggests that Mrs. Green’s move to Bath and then to

Smock Alley in 1752 appears to be connected to her husband’s career rather than her

own. This seems quite likely as Henry Green’s career seems to have been more and more

in the provinces from 1745 onwards, and while the distance between London and Bristol

is not great, once he made the decision to try Dublin maintaining the marriage would

have been much more difficult. Jane Green returned to London, to the Covent Garden

Company, in 1754 but whether her husband was with her is not known—he does not

appear again in any extant cast lists after the seasons at Smock Alley.

Few personal details of Jane Green survive—we know nothing of her relationship

with her husband; she did have three sons Charles, John Hippisley, and Henry who are

mentioned in her will, and possibly a daughter who predeceased her, but we have no

dates of birth for her children or any account of them other than a mention of the eldest

son in her obituary in the Bristol Journal. An anonymous Theatrical Biography,

published in 1772, suggested that Mrs. Green had a relationship with David Garrick that

resulted in the birth of a son but proof of this allegation has never been found.139 This

gossipy work states that

Mrs. Green, difficult as it may be believed at present, from the

139 Theatrical biography: or, memoirs of the principal performers of the three Theatres Royal ... Together with critical and impartial remarks on their respective professional merits. ... (London printed; and Dublin re-printed for H. Saunders, E. Lynch, W. Sleater, D. Chamberlaine, J. Potts, J. Williams, W. Wilson, R. Moncrieffe, T. Walker, L. Flin, and C. Jenkin 1772). 2: 19-21.

197

unwieldiness of her figure, and want of personal charms, captivated

the heart of her theatrical sovereign: who then could be obdurate when

Rocius made love? . . . —a chopping boy bore witness to their

loves,—whose death is since to be lamented, both on a private and

public account . . .

This union, however, has been long since dissolved, nor has even the

scandalous chronicle ever spoke of any other on the part of the lady:

ill nature might say she carries her protection about her . . . (p. 20)

There were rumors that the young actor Samuel Cautherley (d. 1805) was in fact

Garrick’s illegitimate son but this seems to be the only source which suggests that Jane

Green might have been his mother.

Although there are few reliable comments extant on Jane Green’s personal life,

we do have a certain amount of detail on the roles she played, particularly those from her

London years. As can been seen from Table 6, she specialized in comedy, playing

mainly roles that were companions or confidants to the leading lady.

Table 6. Jane Green’s known new roles, by year.

First year of role Role Play 1735 Cherry The Strategem 1736 Rose The Recruiting Officer

1740-41 Prue Love for Love Jenny The Provok'd Husband Ann Page The Merry Wives of Windsor Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd Cleone The Distrest Mother Situp The Double Gallant

198

Ophelia Hamlet Penelope Tunbridge Wells Hoyden The Relapse

Follower of Hymen The Imprisonment, Release, Adventures,

and Marriage of Harlequin Perdita The Winter's Tale Mrs. Vixen The Beggar's Opera Angelina Love Makes a Man Beatrice The Anatomist Mathilda King Arthur Colombine Harlequin Student Diana All's Well that Ends Well Harriet The Miser Cloe Timon of Athens Lucy Lethe Lappet The Miser

1741-42 Inis The Wonder Maria George Barnwell Patch The Busy Body Edging The Careless Husband Prince Edward Richard III Serina The Orphan Jane Pamela Kitty Pry The Lying Valet Lavinia The Fair Penitent Sylvia The Old Batchelor Foible The Way of the World Arante King Lear

1742-43 Lucilla The Fair Penitent Wheedle The Miser

1747-51 Mrs. Pincushion The Mock Doctor Armelina Albumazar Florella The Orphan Lucetta The Suspicious Husband Mrs. Slammekin The Beggar's Opera Dorinda The Tempest Lettice The School Boy Corinna The Confederacy

199

Flora She Wou'd and She Wou'd Not Peggy The Miller of Mansfield Margaret A New Way to Pay Old Debts Mopsophil The Emperour of the Moon Mrs. Fardingale The Funeral Mrs. Tatoo Lethe Ismene Merope Lucy The London Merchant Dorcas The Mock Doctor Maria Twelfth Night

1754-80 Lady Dove The Brothers Mrs. Cross Man and Wife Flippanta The Confederacy Mrs. Cadwallader The Author Ursula The Padlock Old Lady Lambert The Hypocrite Lucinda The Englishman Returned from Paris Mrs. Heidelberg The Clandestine Marriage Filagree A Trip to Scotland Johayma Don Sebastian, King of Portugal Mrs. Grub Cross Purposes Lady Wrangle The Refusal Lady Froth The Double Dealer Lady Strangeways The Romance of an Hour Miss Harlow The Old Maid Tag Miss in her Teens Margery Love in a Village Dorcas Thomas and Sally Mrs. Sneak The Mayor of Garratt the Mother The Chances Mrs. Malaprop The Rivals The Duenna The Duenna Mrs. Hardcastle She Stoops to Conquer Mrs. Garnet The Good-Natured Man Mrs. Markam A Wife in the Right Mrs. Western Tom Jones Catherine Rouge The Invasion Lady Bauble The Duellist

200

As an indication of Mrs. Green’s workload, Table 7 provides a list of her known

performances for the 1757-1758 season.

Table 7. Jane Green’s known performances 1757-1758.

Date Role Play Afterpiece

Plays in which Mrs. Green did not perform

Afterpieces with no known cast

1757 September

14 Foible The Way of the World

14th - The Country Lasses

21 The Committee

26 Jenny

The Provok'd Husband

28 The Funeral

30 The Merchant of Venice

Loves of Pluto and Persephone

October

3 The Earl of Essex

Harlequin Sorcerer

5 Henry IV Harlequin Sorcerer

7 Sherry The Stratagem

Harlequin Sorcerer

8 Hamlet Harlequin Sorcerer

10 As you like it Harlequin Sorcerer

12 Prue Love for Love

13 The Beggar's Opera

14 The Twin Rivals

15 Oroonoko Harlequin

201

Sorcerer

17 Wit without Money

Harlequin Sorcerer

19 The Rover Orpheus & Eurydice

20 The Double Gallant

Orpheus & Eurydice

21 Fine Lady Lethe

22

She Wou'd and She wou'd not

Orpheus & Eurydice

23

The Merry Wives of Windsor

24 She wou'd and she wou'd not

Orpheus & Eurydice

25 She wou'd and she wou'd not

Harlequin Sorcerer

26 Jenny

The Provok'd Husband

27 The NonJuror Orpheus & Eurydice

28 The Inconstant

29 Hamlet Harlequin Sorcerer

31 The Refusal Harlequin Sorcerer

November The Beggar's Opera

2 Rose

The Recruiting Officer

3 The Beggar's Opera

4 Tamerlane Orpheus & Eurydice

5 Henry V

7 Fine Lady Lethe Love Makes a Man

8

The Merry Wives of Windsor

Orpheus & Eurydice

9 The London Harlequin

202

Cuckholds Sorcerer

10 The Twin Rivals

11 Richard III

12 Wit without money

Harlequin Sorcerer

14 The Concious Lovers

15 Foible The Way of the World

Harlequin Sorcerer

16 Fine Lady Lethe Othello

17 Henry IV Pt 1 Orpheus & Eurydice

18 Nell

The Suspicious Husband

19 The Rover 21 The Committee

22 Fine Lady Lethe The Earl of Essex

23 Lappet The Miser

24 King Henry IV Orpheus & Eurydice

25 Oronooko

26 The Orphan Harlequin Sorcerer

28 Henry V

29 She wou'd and she wou'd not

30 The Country Lasses

December

1 The Spanish Fryar

Harlequin Sorcerer

2 Fine Lady Lethe The Mourning Bride

3 The Spanish Fryar

Harlequin Sorcerer

5 Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd King Lear

6 The Merchant of Venice

7 Romeo and

203

Juliet

8 The Twin Rivals

9 The Distressed Mother

10 Macbeth 12 Othello

13 The Inconstant Orpheus & Eurydice

14 Theodosius

15 Fine Lady Lethe The Conscious Lovers

Romeo and Juliet

17 Lappet The Miser

19 Prue Love for Love

20 The Rival Queens

21 Nell

The Suspicious Husband

22 Fine Lady Lethe The Rival Queens

23 Sherry + Lucy

The Stratagem

The Virgin Unmask'd

24 The Beggar's Opera

Harlequin Sorcerer

27 Romeo and Juliet

28 Henry V Orpheus & Eurydice

1758 January

6 The Rival Queens

7

The Merry Wives of Windsor

Harlequin Sorcerer

9 The Spanush Fryar

10 King Lear

11 Alzira Harlequin Sorcerer

204

12 Henry Iv, Pt 1 Orpheus & Eurydice

13 Alzira

14 Jenny

The Provok'd Husband

Harlequin Sorcerer

16 Fine Lady Lethe The Earl of Essex

17 She wou'd and she wou'd not

Harlequin Sorcerer

18 Love makes a man

19 The Refusal Harlequin Sorcerer

20 Hamlet 21 As You Like It

23 The Orphan Harlequin Sorcerer

24 Fine Lady Lethe The Rehersal

25 The Committee Harlequin Sorcerer

26 Catherine Catherine & Petruchio Oronooko

27 Mariamne 28 Mariamne 31 Mariamne

February 1 The Prophetess 2 Mariamne 3 The Prophetess 4 The Prophetess 6 The Prophetess

7 Catherine Catherine & Petruchio The Prophetess

9 The Prophetess

10 The Triumph of time and truth

11 Mariamne 13 The Prophetess

14 Romeo and Juliet

205

15 The Triumph of time and truth

16 The Prophetess 18 King Lear 20 The Prophetess 21 Othello 22 Belshazzar 23 The Prophetess 24 Israel in Egypt

25 The Rival Queens

27 The Prophetess 28 Fine Lady Lethe Hamlet

March 1 Jeptha 2 The Prophetess

3 Judas Maccabeus

4 Mariamne 6 The Prophetess 7 Macbeth

8 Judas Maccabeus

9 All for Love 10 The Messiah

11 Damaris

The Amorous Widow

13 Richard III 14 Coriolanus 15 The Messiah 16 Fine Lady Lethe Douglas The Messiah Theodosius

Romeo and Juliet

Harlequin Sorcerer

The Rival Queens

29 Not named

The Anniversary

The Siege of Damascus

30 The Beggar's

206

Opera 31 The Prophetess

April

1 The Rover Harlequin Sorcerer

3 Betty

A bold stroke for a wife

4 Fine Lady Lethe Othello

5 Jenny

The Provok'd Husband

6 Betty

A bold stroke for a wife

Harlequin Sorcerer

7 King Lear 8 The Stratagem

10 Anna Bullen 11 Henry IV Pt II

12 Fine Lady Lethe The Fair Penitent

13 Henry V 14 Julius Caesar

15 Betty

A bold stroke for a wife

Harlequin Sorcerer

17 Catherine Catherine & Petruchio King John

18 Betty

A bold stroke for a wife

Harlequin Sorcerer

19 Alzira 20 Coriolanus 21 Fardingale The Funeral

22

The Merry Wives of Windsor

24 Hamlet

25 Philis

The Conscious Lovers

26 The Prophetess

207

27 Fine Lady Lethe Love makes a man

28 Damaris

The Amorous Widow

29 Catherine Catherine & Petruchio

The Spanish Fryar

May 1 Macbeth

2 The Double Gallant

3 Fine Lady Lethe The Earl of Essex

4 The Siege of Damascus

5 The Country Lasses

6 Betty

A bold stroke for a wife

8 Lappet The Miser 9 Love for Love

10 Theodosius

11 Wit without money

12 The Committee

15 Betty

A bold stroke for a wife

Harlequin Sorcerer

16 Henry IV Pt I Harlequin Sorcerer

18 Hamlet Harlequin Sorcerer

208

Kitty Clive (née Raftor) (1711-1785)

Born in London, to an Irish father and English mother, Catherine Raftor began her

theatrical career on the stage of Drury Lane in 1728, at the age of seventeen. Her last

performance was on April 24th, 1769—other than two seasons at Covent Garden, and a

summer in Dublin, she spent the rest of her forty-one year career at Drury Lane. Over

this time she played one hundred and eighty different roles, both acting and singing, and

rose to be one of London’s most celebrated comic actresses and best-known personages.

Miss Raftor became Mrs. Clive in October 1733, when she married George Clive

who was of a wealthy and well-connected family.140 The marriage did not however last

very long; the couple appears to have separated after a year or two, though they never

divorced and Catherine kept the name Clive. Other significant men in her life were the

playwright Henry Fielding, manager/actor/playwright David Garrick, and the author

Horace Walpole. Mrs. Clive worked closely with Fielding and Garrick, and as far as can

be judged, her relationship with both was entirely professional, but her personal, though

apparently purely platonic, relationship with Walpole is less easy to explain. According

to the Biographical Dictionary (3: 354) their mutual attraction had begun perhaps as

early as 1738 and Walpole mentions Mrs. Clive in a letter to Lord Lincoln in 1741. She

appears to have set up a residence at Marble Hill in Twickenham, near Walpole’s home at

Strawberry Hill, circa 1749—though she maintained lodgings in town near her work—

and in 1754 she moved to a cottage called “Little Strawberry Hill” on his property. After

Mrs. Clive’s retirement from the stage in 1769 she lived at “Clive-den”, as Walpole

christened the house, until her death in 1785. Horace Walpole was known for his 140 His father, also George, was appointed Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer in 1735 and his cousin Robert would become the 1st Baron Clive, the famous “Clive of India” renowned for his defeat of the Nawab of Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 which helped establish British authority in India.

209

snobbery and elitist views, while Kitty Clive was renowned not only for her talents as

actress and singer on the London stage—neither a particularly respectable profession—

but for her temper and her loud personality; the basis of the connection between these

two was never an obvious one but their relationship was long lasting and obviously

satisfying to both. Unlike many of her fellow actresses, Kitty Clive’s personal reputation

was rarely, if ever, attacked—other than her marriage to George Clive and her platonic

relationship with Horace Walpole her name does not appear ever to have been linked

with that of another man.

Although Mrs. Clive did not perform a particularly wide range of roles, she was

one of the most influential actresses of her time, and a “personality” who occasioned

considerable comment from contemporary writers and newspapers. Her forte was

comedy, though she did make occasional forays into tragedy, usually with less than

pleasing results; her style of playing, combined with her excellent singing voice made her

perfect for many leading roles in the afterpieces which formed a significant part of her

repertoire.

Contemporary accounts

The only contemporary account which deals with Mrs. Clive’s personal

background is that by W.R. Chetwood, published in 1749.141 He devotes three pages of

his history to Mrs. Clive and since the work was published when she not only alive, but

exceedingly successful, then we may reasonably assume that Chetwood’s account is

141 William Rufus Chetwood A general history of the stage, from its origin in Greece down to the present time. … Collected and digested by W.R. Chetwood (London: W. Owen, 1749). The discussion of Mrs. Clive is on pp. 126-128.

210

either the truth or the truth she wished to be told—unfortunately, there is no way of

knowing whether or which.

According to Chetwood, Miss Raftor’s father, William, was a lawyer from a

wealthy family in Kilkenny, Ireland who lost his “Paternal estate” due to his allegiance to

King James II—her brother, James Raftor, tried unsuccessfully to reclaim the family’s

property in Ireland. William Raftor gained a pardon after the Battle of the Boyne in 1690

and came to live in London where he married a well-to-do woman, one Mrs. Daniel of

Fishstreet Hill. From these beginnings, a future career in the theatre does not seem an

obvious choice for Catherine Raftor, and Chetwood provides no real explanation of how

this came about. He says only that she told him how she and her friend Miss Johnson—

who would later become the first Mrs. Theophilus Cibber—would “tag after the

celebrated Mr. Wilks” in the street. Then without any description of how Miss Raftor

actually came to be introduced to the management at Drury Lane, Chetwood tells us that

Miss Raftor had a facetious Turn of Humour, and infinite Spirits,

with a Voice and Manner in singing Songs of Pleasantry peculiar

to herself. Those Talents Mr. Theo. Cibber and I (we all at that Time

living together in one House) thought a sufficient Pasport to the

Theatre. We recommended her to the Laureat, whose infallible

Judgment soon found out her Excellencies; and the Moment he

heard her sing, out her down in the List of Performers at twenty

Shillings per week. But never any Person of her Age flew to

Perfection with such Rapidity; and the old discerning Managers

always distiinguish’d Merit by Reward. (p. 127)

211

He goes on to give her first role as Ismenes, a page dressed in “Boy’s Cloaths”, in

Mithridates, King of Pontius, in which she sang and was received “with extraordinary

applause”. Chetwood does not give a date for this performance, but Mithridates was

performed only once in 1728, on April 13, and the playbill does not mention Miss

Raftor—this does not necessarily mean that she did not perform at this time. Since she

was new and in a very minor part she was probably omitted from the cast list.142 She

does, however, appear on the Drury Lane roster for the 1728-29 season onwards, where,

as Chetwood says

But after this, like a Bullet in the Air, there was no distinguishing

the Track, till it came to its utmost Execution. (p.127)

He was correct; Miss Raftor rose rapidly through the ranks at Drury Lane and then

remained at the top of her profession for several decades.143

The only other role of hers that Chetwood discusses is that of Phillida in Colley

Cibber’s pastoral opera Love in a Riddle, which premiered on January 7th 1729.

According to Chetwood, Miss Raftor’s appearance saved the house from a riot; her

popularity with audiences was assured but she was unable to save the play as it received

only that one performance. He closes with the information that Miss Raftor married Mr.

G. Clive in 1732—though this date is unlikely to be correct since she was advertised as

“Miss Raftor” up to the beginning of October 1733—and gives only one comment on her

marriage

142 There is also a possibility that Chetwood is describing the reaction to Miss Raftor’s first performance in the light of her subsequent success rather than giving a precise memory of the occasion; he was writing in 1749, when Mrs. Clive had been on the stage for twenty-one years and was one of London’s leading actresses. 143 Kitty Clive’s position at Drury Lane was not always maintained easily or without conflict, her interactions with fellow actors and management are discussed in detail later in this chapter, on pages 225-228 and 232-234.

212

I shall be silent in conjugal Affairs; but in all my long

Acquaintance with her, I could never imagine she deserved

ill Usage. (p. 128)

Although this statement implies Mrs. Clive’s ill-treatment by her husband there is no

extant account of their relationship, nor any suggestion as to why the marriage failed so

swiftly. According to the Biographical Dictionary (3:345) circa 1769 Mrs. Clive’s

reaction to news of her husband from David Garrick was that

You are very much mistaken if you imagine that I shall be sorry

to hear Mr. Clive is well; I thank God I have no malice or hatred

to anybody; besides it is so long ago since I thought he used me ill,

that I quiet forgot it. I am very glad he is well and happy.

The impression here is one of a successful and self-assured woman who has moved on,

possibly mellowed, and is both willing and able to leave her past behind her.

Although Chetwood is the only contemporary author to give any details of Mrs.

Clive’s personal family life, there are a number of other theatrical accounts and

biographies which do discuss her professional activities and relationships with other

performers. One of these is a life of the comedian James Quin, published in 1766, which

devotes a chapter to Quin’s relationship with the other leading players of his time—Mr.

Barry, Mrs. Cibber, Mrs. Woffington, Mrs. Pritchard, and Mrs. Clive.144 The author of

this work tells that Mrs. Clive “displayed a very early inclination and genius for the

stage;” that her first appearance was as a page in Mithridates, King of Pontius where she

sang only one song but received “great applause;” and that she was the only good part of

144 The Life of Mr. James Quin, comedian. With the history of the stage from his commencing actor to his retreat to Bath (London: printed for S. Bladon, 1766).

213

Cibber’s Love in a Riddle (p. 69)—all of which confirms Chetwood’s account, from

which it may have been copied. He does, however, include more detail on the first role in

which she made a huge impact on the audience

In the year 1730 she had an opportunity of displaying most amazing comic

powers, in the character of Nell in the Devil to Pay. Her merit in this character

occasioned her salary to be doubled, and not only established her own

her own reputation with the audience, but fixed the piece itself on the

constant list of acting farces; an honour which, perhaps, it would never

have arrived at, had she not performed the capital character in it, nor

may long maintain, when her support in it is lost. (p. 69)

Unfortunately no records survive to substantiate the claim that Mrs. Clive’s salary was

doubled after her performance in The Devil to Pay—an afterpiece by Charles Coffey

which was her fourteenth such role in her third season with the Drury Lane Company—

but such an increase seems highly unlikely. As is documented in Table 8, p. 210, Mrs.

Clive rose quickly but steadily within the company; her roles in the 1730-31 season after

The Devil to Pay do not show the sort of meteoric rise that might be expected if such a

salary increase had indeed occurred. The piece itself was indeed very popular and

whether or not Mrs. Clive was responsible for its initial success, it continued in the

repertory for the rest of the eighteenth-century.

Quin’s biographer then comments on the relationship between the comedian and

Mrs. Clive, saying that “they could never agree while they were united in the same

company” (p. 69) and goes on to decry his subject’s attitude towards both Mrs. Clive and

“the ladies” in general, explaining the roots of Quin’s dislike of Kitty Clive:

214

the first disgust Quin took to this lady, was upon his offering some

indecencies to her in her dressing-room; she made a complaint to

the manager, who rebuked him for his conduct. This lady’s virtue

had never been impeached, and he ought not therefore to have

supposed, that so brutish an attack, as it is said, he made upon her,

could meet with success; (pp. 70-71)

Presumably this incident, if it did occur, took place when James Quin joined the Drury

Lane Company in 1734, at which time he was a seasoned actor, aged 41, with a

reputation for a fiery and sometimes violent temper whereas Kitty Clive was 23 years old

and only in the sixth year of her career.145 The manner in which she is supposed to have

dealt with Quin’s advances is indicative of the character she would show throughout her

career—a strong personality who had disagreements with fellow performers, and at times

the company management, but who did not allow such things to interfere with her

performances on stage or the development of her career as a whole.

Another positive endorsement of Mrs. Clive, at roughly the same time that this

incident was supposed to have taken place, comes from the author Henry Fielding in his

preface to The Intriguing Chambermaid—an afterpiece first performed, and printed, in

1734 written specifically for her—which takes the form of a four page “Epistle to Mrs.

Clive.” Fielding takes the first page to explain that such epistles as he is writing are too

often full of gross flattery and reflect no credit either on the author or the recipient, but

that he is not afraid to criticize or praise when either is truly deserved.

145 Quin probably began his career on the Dublin stage, at Smock Alley, and was at Drury Lane from 1715 and by the time he met Mrs. Clive had been involved two separate incidents which had resulted in the death of his opponents—both fellow actors. The Biographical Dictionary 12: 226-242 gives the details of James Quin’s life and career.

215

The epistle is of particular interest when looking at the career of Kitty Clive not

just because of its author but because of what he chooses to say. This is not just the

standard “rave review” for the theatrical talents of a leading actress but a piece which

attempts to establish her personal character and situate her in a broader theatrical context

than that in which she may have previously been considered by her audience:

It is your Misfortune to bring the greatest Genius for acting on the Stage,

at a time when the Factions and Divisions among the Players have

conspired with the Folly, Injustice, and Barbarity of the Town, to

finish the Ruin of the Stage, and sacrifice our own native Entertainments

to a wanton affected Fondness for foreign Musick; and when our

Nobility seem eager to rival each other, in distinguishing themselves

in favour of Italian theatres, and in neglect of our own.

……………………………………………………………………………

But as great a Favourite as you at present are with the Audience, you

would be much more so, were they acquainted with your private character;

cou’d they see you laying out great part of the Profits which arise to you

from entertaining them so well, in the support of an aged Father; did they

see you who can charm them on the Stage with personating the foolish and

vicious Characters of your Sex, acting in real Life the Part of the best Wife,

the best Daughter, the best Sister, and the best Friend.

The Part you have maintain’d in the present Dispute between the Players

and the Patentees, is so full of Honour, that had it been in higher Life, it

would have given you the Reputation of the greatest Heroine of the Age.

216

You looked on the cases of Mr. Highmore and Mrs. Wilks with Compassion . . .

In short, if Honour, Good-nature, Gratitude, and Good Sense, join’d with the

most entertaining Humour, wherever they are found, are Title to publick

Esteem, I think you may be sure of it; at least. I am sure they will always

recommend you to the sincere Friendship of,

MADAM,

Your most oblig’d humble Servant,

HENRY FIELDING

The conflict to which Fielding is referring is the defection of many of the senior actors

from Drury Lane, led by Theophilius Cibber, in protest of the management style of John

Highmore who, with Robert Wilks’ widow, held the Drury Lane patent. Highmore was

an amateur who was “dabbling” in theatre, unlike Cibber who—however reprehensible

his character—and been born and bred in the London theatre world. As Hume points out,

there must have been considerable general dissatisfaction on the part of the majority of

the company when they followed Cibber away from the patent company.146 T. Cibber’s

mutterings of discontent changed to outright rebellion when his father, Colley Cibber,

sold his entire share of the patent to Highmore and then Highmore refused T. Cibber’s

offer to be deputy manager running the day-to-day operations of the theatre.147

Virtually the only star performer to remain with Highmore was Mrs. Clive. Why

did she choose to stay with the Drury Lane Company when most of her fellow actors

chose to leave? Unfortunately we have no definite answer to this question, though there

are a number of factors which may have influenced her decision. She may have done so

146 Robert D. Hume Henry Fielding and the London Theatre 1728-1737 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) p. 157. 147 Ibid. pp. 155-164 gives a detailed explanation of Cibber’s plan for a new company.

217

partly from a residual loyalty to Robert Wilks whom she had greatly admired, but this

does not seem sufficient motivation for a woman who took her profession very seriously.

Another possibility is that she felt safer staying with the patent company rather than

risking the unknown but this too seems rather unlikely—Mrs. Clive had only been with

Drury Lane for five years but was already one of their most popular and valuable

performers who was well aware of her own worth. An additional suggestion is that she

was motivated by her distrust and dislike of T. Cibber—he had been married to her

fellow actress and friend Jane Johnson who died in childbirth on January 25th 1733, just

two months before the actors rebellion— and Mrs. Clive was therefore unwilling to place

her career in his hands. The depth of the dislike between Cibber and Mrs. Clive at this

time is not known, nor is it possible to gauge the extent to which she would have allowed

her personal feelings to override her professional self-interest.

The reasons behind Kitty Clive’s decision to remain at Drury Lane may be due to

one of these factors, or a combination of all, or may owe nothing to any of them. As we

have no extant letters or reports on her thoughts on the matter we can only speculate

rather than provide a definitive answer but her choice, given the circumstances, seems

rather puzzling.

The championing of Mrs. Clive in this epistle may have been an attempt on the

part of Fielding to counteract the growing public perception of her as a difficult and

irascible person who showed little thought or consideration for others. Fielding worked

very well with Mrs. Clive and created a number of roles especially for her, in both main

and afterpieces.148 Her talents lay in comedy and singing, and at least early in her career

148 Fielding wrote the part of Isabel in The Old Debauchees, Kisinda in The Covent Garden Tragedy, the chambermaid in The Intriguing Chambermaid, and Lappet in The Miser, for Mrs. Clive.

218

she specialized in the pert and saucy maid/companion roles; although her range of comic

roles did change to a certain degree as she aged, these were the type of roles for which

she was remembered.

Mrs. Clive’s roles.

As a comic actress with a good singing voice, Kitty Clive not only played leading

roles in mainpieces but was also the mainstay of many of Drury Lane’s very popular

afterpieces. Her first documented role however was not a comic one—Mrs Clive’s first

full season with Drury Lane debuted with Bianca in Othello—but this was one of the few

roles in tragedy that she would perform. As can be seen from Table 8 below, she quickly

became established as a comedy specialist; the seasons when she acted principally in

afterpieces do not reflect any decline in popularity but rather periods when the company

was performing mainly tragedies—for example, in February 1739 the tragedy Mustapha

ran for 12 nights—and Mrs. Clive was sensibly cast where she would have greatest

effect.

One of the few exceptions to Kitty Clive’s comedy “rule” was the part of Ophelia

in Hamlet, which she first played in 1734 aged twenty-three—when she could reasonably

have been cast against type simply for her youth—but she was still performing the role in

1741 at the age of thirty. Given her rise within the company during this time, by 1741

she would have been in a position to decline roles she felt were unsuitable, this retention

would seem to indicate that Ophelia was a personal favorite; perhaps a tragic role which

she knew well was a welcome change of pace from the saucy characters in farce that had

become her stock-in-trade.

219

Table 8. Mrs. Clive’s new roles per season. Notes: 1. DL after the date signifies that she acted this season at Drury Lane. CG after the date signifies that she acted this season at Covent Garden. 2. Column 3 lists the mainpieces in which she appeared whether they were straight acting roles or involved some form of music. 3. Titles in bold denote new works.

Season Role Play/Opera Afterpiece 1728-29 (DL) Bianca Othello

Minerva Perseus & Andromeda

Dorinda The Tempest Honoria Love Makes a Man Rosella The Village Opera Valeria The Rover Flora The Lover's Opera Bonvira The History of Bonduca

Phebe Phebe, or, The Beggar's Wedding

Arethusa The Contrivances Maria Whig and Tory Phillida Love in a Riddle 1729-30 (DL) Night

The Comical Distress of Pierot

Kitty The Humours of Oxford

Isabella The Stage Coach Opera

Rosella The Chambermaid Dulceda Baye's Opera Serena The Orphan

The Fairy Queen The Fairy Queen

Jenny The Provok'd Husband Prue Love for Love Peggy The Fair Foundling 1730-31 (DL) Procris Cephalus & Procris Dorinda The Tempest Phillida Damon & Phillida

220

Jenny The Amours of Billingsgate

Rachel The Jovial Crew Annie The Jovial Crew Farcia Baye's Opera

Kitty The What D'Ye Call It

Nanny The Highland Fair Urania The Triumphs of Honour Nell The Devil to Pay 1731-32 (DL) Miss Littlewit Bartholmew Fair Miss Sprightly The Tragedy of Tragedies Busy The Man of Mode

Margery The Country Wedding

Flametta The Devil of a Duke

Martin's wife The Comical Revenge

Isabel The Old Debauchees

Kisinda The Covent Garden Tragedy

Chloe The Lottery

Not named The Ephesian Matron

Dorcas The Mock Doctor Polly The Beggar's Opera 1732-33 (DL) Silvia The Old Batchelor Leonora Sir Courtly Nice Cyndaria The Indian Emperour Thalia The Judgement of Paris Edging The Careless Husband

Deborah Deborah; or, A Wife for You All

Belnda The Man of Mode Mrs. Fanciful The Imaginary Cuckholds Aranthes Theodosia Cicely Wat Tyler Jenny The Boarding School Thirsis Damon and Daphne

221

Philis The Livery Rake Venus Cupid and Hymen Lappet The Miser 1733-34 (DL) Estifania Rule a Wife and Have a Wife

Diana Harlequin Doctor Faustus

Elvira The Spanish Fryar Kitty The Harlot's Progress Dollalolla The Opera of Opera's Miranda The Busy Body Mercury Timon in Love

the Chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Columbine Cupid and Psyche Fillipanta The Confederacy 1734-35 (DL) Primose The Mother-in-law

Lucy

The Virgin Unmask'd, or, An Old Man Taught Wisdom

Mrs. Pinchwife The Country Wife

Maragret A Cure for a Scold Lady Wou'dbe Volpone Nell The Merry Cobbler

Maria The Man of Taste, or, The Guardian

Cherry The Strategem Ophelia Hamlet

A spirit Merlin, or, The Devil of Stonehenge

Hoyden The Relapse 1735-36 (DL) Doll Common The Alchemist Lady Froth The Double Dealer Lady Sadlife The Double Gallant Aurelia The Twin Rivals Flavia The Connoisseur Clymene The Fall of

222

Phaeton Biddy The Tender Husband Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife Phaedra Amphitryon 1736-37 (DL) Isabella The Squire of Alsatia Arabella The Wife's Relief

Ghost of Statira The Rival Queens

the Wanton Wife The Amorous Widow

Eurydice Eurydice, or, The devil Henpeck'd

Liberia The Universal Passion Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife 1737-38 (DL) Narcissa Love's Last Shift Laetitia The Old Bachelor Doris Aesop Olivia The Plain Dealer Miss Kitty The Coffee House Violetta Art and Nature Miss Kitty Sir Cockle at Court Euphrosyne Comus (masque) 1738-39 (DL) Viletta She Wou'd and She Wou'd Not Hillaria Tunbridge Walks Ann Lovely A Bold Stroke for a Wife Loveit The Man of Mode Miss Notable The Lady's Last Stake 1739-40 (DL) the Daughter

An Hospital for Fools

Kitty Britons Strike Home

Milliamant The Way of the World 1740-41 (DL) Manto Oedipus, King of Thebes Emilia A Fond Husband Caelia As You Like It Olivia Twelfth Night Lady Townley The Provok'd Husband Rosamond Rosamond

223

Bessy The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green

Portia The Merchant of Venice 1741-42 (DL) Lady Lurewell The Constant Couple Pallas The Judgement of Paris Lucy Miss Lucy in Town 1742-43 (DL) Dalila Samson Not named Messiah Not named L'Allegro Kitty The Lying Valet Bayes The Rehearsal 1743-44 (CG)

the Shade of Hero The Necromancer

Rhodope Orpheus & Eurydice

Morayma Don Sebastian, King of Portugal

1744-45 (CG) Lucy The Beggar's Opera Melissa Timon of Athens 1745-46 (DL) Ariel The Tempest

Columbine Harlequin Incendiary

Melantha The Comical Lovers Lucinda The She Gallant Clarinda The Commonwealth of Women 1746-47 (DL) Sophronia The Refusal Betty Marry or Do Worse 1747-48 (DL) Margery

The Dragon of Wantley

1748-49 (DL)

Lady Wronghead The Provok'd Husband

Tag Miss in Her Teens Mrs. Riot Lethe

a Shepherdess The Triumph of Peace

Clarinda The Suspicious Husband 1749-50 Lady Harriet The Funeral

224

(DL) Pastora The Chaplet

Lady Squeamish Friendship in Fashion

Bayes Bayes in Petticoats **

1750-51 (DL) Diana Secular Masque Bisarre The Inconstant Girtred Eastward Hoe 1751-52 (DL) Daphne

The Shepherd's Lottery

1752-53 (DL) Mrs. Marwood The Way of the World Lady Haughty Epicoene Zara The Mourning Bride "Herself" A Lick at the Town 1753-54 (DL) Mrs. Frail Love for Love

Pricess Theoraz The London 'Prentice

1754-55 (DL) Abigail The Drummer Jacintha The Mistake the Mother The Chances Mrs. Kitely Every Man in His Humour 1755-56 (DL) Catherine

Catherine and Petruchio

Lady Wronglove The Lady's Last Stake

1756-57 (DL) Flora

The Wonder, a Woman Keeps a Secret

Mrs. Cadwallader The Author

1757-58 (DL) Lady Wishfort The Way of the World 1758-59 (DL) Patch The Busy Body 1759-60 (DL) Kitty

High Life Below Stairs

Lucy The Guardian Termagant The Upolsterer 1760-61 Muslin The Way to Keep Him

225

(DL) Lady Freelove The Jealous Wife 1761-62 (DL) Lady Beverly The School for Lovers 1762-63 (DL) the Old Maid The Old Maid

Not named

Sketch of a Fine Lady's Return from a Rout**

1763-64 (DL) Mrs. Friendly The Dupe 1764-65 (DL)

the Faithful Irishwoman

The Faithful Irishwoman**

Lady Fanshaw The Platonick Wife Lisetta The Capricious Lovers 1765-66 (DL)

Widow Blackacre The Plain Dealer

Mrs. Heidelberg The Clandestine Marriage

1766-67 (DL) No new roles 1767-68 (DL) Lady Fuz

A Peep Behind the Curtain

1768-69 (DL) Mrs Winifred The School for Rakes

One of the major roles which Kitty Clive assumed, beginning in the 1732-33

season, was that of Polly in The Beggar’s Opera; one of her greatest successes, it would

also provide one of the most intense, and public, disputes of her long career. By the

1735-36 season when Mrs. Clive was well established, and exceedingly popular, in the

part, Charles Fleetwood, then manager of Drury Lane, decided that another actress would

be better suited to the role—the second Mrs. Theophilus Cibber, Susanna Maria (née

Arne). Whether Fleetwood arrived at this conclusion by himself or was prompted by

Cibber is impossible to say, though some involvement from Cibber seems likely, but he

226

could not have predicted the storm that would ensue or how involved the theatre-going

public, and the press, would become.

Susanna Maria Arne (1714-1766) had married T. Cibber in 1734, some fifteen

months after the death of his first wife, and was a well established singer/actress before

her marriage.149 Although her career had only begun in 1732, Miss Arne’s exceptional

musical talent was recognized very quickly as is indicated both by the roles she was

given and the fact that she had a solo benefit night within her first year. She first

encountered T. Cibber when she joined his rebel group of players at the Haymarket in the

autumn of 1733, and stayed with the company when they returned to Drury Lane in the

spring of 1734. In addition to Mrs. Cibber’s singing roles, her straight acting line was in

tragedy, so there should not have been any particular conflict with Mrs. Clive once the

rebels returned to Drury Lane. Before the move to Drury Lane Mrs. Cibber had been

primarily a singer—she sang the title roles in Teraminta and Rosamond at Lincoln’s Inn

Fields in the 1732-33 season—and when she began to develop her acting line the roles in

which she excelled, and for which she was lauded by the public, were tragic parts such as

the title role in Aaron Hill’s Zara, Desdemona in Othello, Isabella in Measure for

Measure, and Monimia in Thomas Otway’s The Orphan. Monimia was a role created by

Elizabeth Barry in 1680, and while Mrs. Barry, though renowned as a tragic actress, did

perform many comedic roles, the London theatre world had changed considerably in the

intervening fifty-six years.150 By the 1730’s leading performers were becoming far more

specialized, a trend which continued to the extent that each theatre virtually had two

distinct companies—one for tragedy and the other for comedy.

149 Susanna Maria Arne came from a musical family and her older brother, Thomas would go on to become one of England’s most prominent musicians and composers. 150 For details on Elizabeth Barry’s roles and career see Chapter 2, pp. 34-86.

227

Thus the circumstances at the time of the controversial performance of The

Beggar’s Opera—Mrs. Clive’s proven abilities in comparison with Mrs. Cibber’s relative

inexperience, and the non-theatrical background of the manager, Charles Fleetwood—

would seem to indicate that Theophilus Cibber had considerable involvement in the

affair. As the actress already “in possession” of the part, Kitty Clive had a long standing

theatrical “right” to the role of Polly and she was very popular with the audience;

however, Mrs. Cibber was a rising star who had her own supporters both in the theatre

and among the public—so the stage was set for a contretemps which would keep the

public entertained for several months and which was happily fuelled by the press. Not

only were opinions bandied back and forth in the newspapers, but the battle for Polly was

immortalized in a new farce—Henry Giffard capitalized on the public interest in the

dispute and produced the very successful The Beggar’s Pantomimes; or Contending

Columbines at his Goodman’s Fields theatre. Kitty Clive entered the newspaper debate

directly on November 19th 1736 with a letter to the London Daily Post and General

Advertiser in which she clarified her position

I have shewn an Unwillingness to surrender my own Part of

Polly and to act the inferior Part of Lucy, I confess is true. But

then I must declare this Unwillingness did not proceed from my

Jealousy of Mrs. Cibber, or from any Intent of mine to obstruct

the Progress of her Merit: No; the true and only Reason is this:

Not only the Part of Polly, but likewise other Parts (as could be

made to appear) have been demanded of me for Mrs. Cibber,

which made me conclude (and I think, with Reason) that there

228

was a Design form’d against me, to deprive me by degrees of

every Part in which I had the happiness to appear with any

Reputation; and at length, by this Method, to make me so little

useful to the Stage, as not to deserve the salary I now have,

which is much inferior to that of several other Performers.

In this letter Mrs. Clive not only defends her right to the role of Polly, but by putting the

conflict in the broader context of the management of the theatre—both in the matter of

role allocation and salary—she is astutely making the public aware that this is not a

frivolous spat between temperamental leading ladies but a serious matter involving her

future. The outcome of the dispute was that Kitty Clive retained the role of Polly for the

duration—how relations stood between the two actresses after this is not known, but the

atmosphere within the company cannot have been particularly pleasant for quite some

time afterwards.

This letter, in addition to showing that Kitty Clive was an intelligent woman well

able to defend her rights and manipulate her audience, also illustrates the approach she

would adopt for the rest of her career. She was frequently criticized for being fiery and

outspoken, but this does not seem to have been a matter of a diva expressing

“temperament” but a highly professional actress, well aware of her own worth and

abilities who did not suffer fools gladly—whether she encountered them in the Green

Room, the management’s office, or in society at large. The claims she makes here with

regard to her salary did not become a serious issue at this time but are indicative of the

problems the Drury Lane actors would have with Charles Fleetwood’s management in the

years to come, and which would result in another actors’ rebellion in 1743.

229

Mrs. Clive and Covent Garden

Other than two seasons at Covent Garden (1743-45), Kitty Clive spent all of her forty-

one year career at Drury Lane—so what caused her to move from the company where she

had risen to be London’s leading comedienne for only two seasons? The answer lies in

the actors’ rebellion of 1743 at Drury Lane, which was precipitated by manager Charles

Fleetwood’s treatment of his actors.151

At the end of the summer of 1743 the principal actors of Drury Lane together

wrote to Fleetwood requesting a guarantee that he would pay the promised salaries of all

theatre employees for the upcoming season. He refused to discuss the matter and a few

days later more than twenty actors from Drury Lane, led by Macklin and Garrick and

including Kitty Clive, signed a formal petition to the Lord Chamberlain in which they

stated

That many of your Petitioners have for a long time suffer’d

great hardships and Calamities by the Oppressive Measures

of the present Patentee Charles Fleetwood Esqr by his violating

all contracts, and withholding great part of the stipulated agreement[s]

from the Actors. There is not one of the underwritten Petitioners

who has not at this present sum of money (some large ones)

owing to him or her. That the Distresses and Miserie of the

lower sort of People have been unspeakable, many of them

having been ready to perish for Want (not having received the 151 What follows here is a brief summary of events, for a full account of the actors’ rebellion see Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume’s “The Drury Lane Actors’ Rebellion of 1743,” Theatre Journal 42:1 (March 1990): 57-80.

230

smallest Sum from the Theatre for Sixteen or Eighteen weeks

together, and if they have insisted upon their money owing,

have been discharged the Playhouse. That your Petitioners often

have made small collections to prevent the lower people from

starving.

………………………………………………………………….

That his [Fleetwood] Effects and Estates are either so secured

by Friendly Executions or loaded with Mortgages that your

Petitioners cannot fin the least redress.

These are our Grievances.

We humbly beg leave to lay before your Grace how great the

profits of the Theatre have been (by his own confession) and how

enabled he has been from the said profits to perform all Contracts

with your Graces Petitioners, And likewise the proposals made by

your Petitioners to the Patentee before we would give your Grace

this trouble. 152

The petition continues with a suggestion of a possible financial solution and ends with a

long list of individual “Monies owing.” On September 19th the petition was sent from the

Lord Chamberlain’s Office to Fleetwood; when he eventually deigned to answer on Oct

4th, his written reply categorically denied that he had illegally withheld any money owing

to the actors; stated that no-one had suffered any hardship; and asserted that far from

making a £3000 profit (as the petitioners had claimed), he had in fact suffered a £2000

loss—mainly due to the exorbitant salaries he was paying the lead actors. The actors 152 Ibid pp. 59-60, quotation from The National Archives LC 5/204.

231

managed to produce documentation of the receipts for the 1742-43 season but Fleetwood

maintained that the costs outstripped these, though he refused to produce proof.

Milhous and Hume show that “Fleetwood was a ruined gambler” and that he had

borrowed money from the theatre’s treasurer, Mr. Pierson, among others—thus the actors

had no allies on the financial front and no way in which to prove that the books were

being cooked. In an attempt to demonstrate that the actors were vastly overpaid,

Fleetwood published a comparison of current salaries and a salary list from 1708-09

when Wilks, Betterton and Mrs. Oldfield were the leading performers (taken from

Zachary Baggs “Advertisement Concerning the Poor Actors” of 1709) which “showed”

how inflated were the salaries of Garrick, Macklin, Mrs. Clive, and Mrs. Woffington.

However, as Milhous and Hume point out, in 1709 the actors salaries were considerably

reduced since the theatres lost circa three months acting time due to royal mourning and

the temporary silencing of the Drury Lane, and Fleetwood also exaggerated the current

season, claiming 200 days of performance when in fact there were only 183. He also did

not address the principal grievance of his actors—the fact that they had not actually been

paid their agreed salaries, therefore rendering any set of salary figures meaningless.

Unfortunately for the actors, the Lord Chamberlain, the Duke of Grafton, was so

offended by the supposedly huge salaries the lead actors were “receiving” that he missed

the point that they had not in fact been paid; he also seems to have ignored completely

the plight of the “lower sort” in the theatre and the result was that he sided with

Fleetwood. This decision by the Lord Chamberlain left the actors with no other choice

but to go back to Fleetwood on his terms or try their luck with John Rich at Covent

Garden. They had requested permission to set up their own company—as Betterton,

232

Barry, and Bracegirdle had done in 1695—but were denied since the Lord Chamberlain

was determined to enforce the Licensing Act of 1737.

Mrs. Clive went to Rich at Covent Garden but on terms not much better than

those offered by Fleetwood—although there was no formal agreement, or cartel, between

the two London theatres at this time, in practice the Licensing Act created one since if a

performer left, or was forced out of, one theatre then there was only one other option left.

Incensed by the treatment she and her colleagues had received, Kitty Clive put her case to

the public in a pamphlet published in 1744, entitled The Case of Mrs. Clive Submitted to

the Publick in which she stressed not only her particular grievances but also the effect the

behavior of the management was having on the way in which theatre business was

conducted. She opens with the usual rhetorical device of having been advised to publish

her complaints by friends and moves on to throw herself on the mercy of her readers by

reminding her public that they have always supported performers who pleased them on

the stage. She clearly thinks that the current state of affairs—with both Drury Lane and

Covent Garden offering the actors very poor terms—was a deliberate conspiracy on the

part of Fleetwood and Rich:

As only two theatres were authorized, the Managers thought it

was in their Power to reduce the Incomes of those Performers,

who could not live independent of their Profession; but in order

to make this appear with a better Face to the Town, it was agreed

to complain of the Actors Salaries being too great, and accordingly

a false Account was published of them in the daily Papers, by whom

I will not say: (p. 8)

233

She goes on to point out that in the past, when the theatres were well managed, that not

only were the actors and everyone else working in the theatre paid properly and on time,

but that the management also made a considerable profit from the enterprise. Mrs. Clive

describes how after the failure of the rebellion, the managers seemed already to have

decided between themselves who would go to Covent Garden and who would return to

Drury Lane and as proof of the existence of the cartel informs her readers

I did, indeed, apprehend I should meet with better Terms at

Covent-Garden, because that manager had made many Overtures

to get me into his Company the preceding Season, and many times

before: But when I apply’d to him, he offered me exactly the same

which I had refused at the other Theatre, and which I likewise

rejected, but was persuaded to accept some very little better,

rather than seem obstinate in not complying as well as others, and

yielded so far to the Necessity of the Time, as to Act under a much

less Salary than several other Performers on that Stage, and submitted

to pay a Sum of Money for my Benefit, notwithstanding I had had

one clear of all Expence for Nine Years before; an Advantage the

first Performers had been thought to merit for near Thirty Years,

and had grown into a Custom. (pp. 10-11)

This account indicates that Kitty Clive was not only concerned about the financial impact

of the “arrangement” between the two sets of management but also about the blow to the

position which she had worked very hard to achieve. For a leading actress to be forced to

take unfavorable terms with a different company would have difficult enough without the

234

added humiliation of the benefit custom being ignored in her case. Mrs. Clive continues

with an a account of how she was treated with further disrespect at Covent Garden, where

she says she had intended to stay, but after her first season (1743-44) though she was not

given any notice, realized that other actresses were being listed in her parts. At the time

she wrote this pamphlet she had not yet been made any offer by Drury Lane, though

several of the other rebels had been taken back and Mrs. Clive was also very angry that

the lack of notice from Covent Garden meant she was not able to make any arrangements

to transfer to the theatre in Ireland—she did in fact return to Covent Garden for one more

season but Rich did not employ her until November 1744.

Whilst at Covent Garden Kitty Clive continued to play lead roles but did not add

many new ones—only three new mainpiece roles (Moryama in Don Sebastian, Lucy in

The Beggar’s Opera, and Melissa in Timon of Athens) and two new afterpiece ones (the

Shade of Hero in The Necromancer and Rhodope in Orpheus & Eurydice). For the 1745-

46 season she returned to Drury Lane, which was now under the management of James

Lacy but did not really regain her place in the company until the following season when

David Garrick became manager.

Mrs. Clive’s workload

One of the points which Kitty Clive raises in her defense in The Case of Mrs. Clive is that

she

not only acted in almost all the Plays, but in Farces and Musical

Entertainments; and very frequently two Parts in a Night, even to the

Prejudice of my Health. I have been at a very great Expence in Masters

235

for Singing; for which Article alone, the Managers now give five and

six Pounds a Week. (p.19)

She was not exaggerating about the number of performances she gave, either at this

particular time, or indeed throughout her career. Table 9 below shows the number new

roles she undertook over the course of her long career and Tables 10-13 provide four

different “snapshots” of Mrs. Clive’s work as an actress in 1738-39, 1747-48, 1757-58,

and 1767-68.

Table 9. Number of new roles per season performed by Mrs. Clive in main and afterpieces. Season Plays/Opera Afterpieces 1728-29 8 4 1729-30 6 4 1730-31 6 5 1731-32 5 7 1732-33 12 3 1733-34 7 3 1734-35 7 4 1735-36 8 1 1736-37 6 1 1737-38 6 2 1738-39 5 0 1739-40 1 2 1740-41 7 1 1741-42 2 1 1742-43 4 1 1743-44 1 2 1744-45 2 0 1745-46 4 1 1746-47 2 0 1747-48 0 1 1748-49 2 3 1749-50 3 1

236

1750-51 3 1 1751-52 3 0 1752-53 0 1 1753-54 2 0 1754-55 4 0 1755-56 1 1 1756-57 1 1 1757-58 1 0 1758-59 1 0 1759-60 1 2 1760-61 2 0 1761-62 1 0 1762-63 0 2 1763-64 1 0 1764-65 0 1 1765-66 1 0 1766-67 0 0 1767-68 0 1 1768-69 1 0

As this table illustrates, Kitty Clive took on at least one new role—either in a

mainpiece or an afterpiece—for thirty-nine of her forty seasons on the London stage, thus

demonstrating a very high level of commitment to her profession. Up to and including

the season of 1740-41, when she was thirty years old and had been acting for twelve

years, Mrs. Clive had at least five new roles in mainpieces per annum, as well as at least

one new role in an afterpiece (with the exception of the 1738-39 season). She maintained

this level of work in new roles until the season of 1755-56 when she began to take on

only one to three new parts per year; by this time, Mrs. Clive was forty-four and had been

on the stage for twenty-three years.

Her number of new roles peaked in the 1732-33 season, when she performed

twelve new parts in mainpieces and three new afterpiece roles, which gives an indication

of how quickly she became one of Drury Lane’s leading actresses. Since this was the

237

season leading up to the Theophilus-Cibber-led actor rebellion, these figures also show

how badly the company would have been affected had Mrs. Clive chosen to depart with

the rebels.

Although she naturally decreased the number of new parts she performed as she

grew older, her later roles—though of an appropriate age—were still major ones. In the

1765-66 season, three years before her retirement, she added Widow Blackacre in The

Plain Dealer and Mrs. Heidelberg in The Clandestine Marriage to her repertoire.

Table 10. All roles played by Mrs. Clive in her 1738-39 season at Drury Lane. Notes: The reason for choosing this season is that it was Mrs. Clive’s tenth at Drury Lane, she was at the top of her profession and thus this “snapshot” gives a useful picture of the work load she carried at this point in her career. A number after a play or afterpiece title indicates the number of performances given of that piece in that month; no number indicates that this piece received only one performance in the given month.

DATE ROLE PLAY AFTERPIECE September

Ophelia Hamlet Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd Hoyden The Relapse

Colombine Colombine Courtezean (5)

Lady Froth The Double Dealer

the Chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Kitty Harlot's Progress October

Laetitia The Old Batchelor

Colombine Colombine Courtezean (5)

Aurelia The Twin Rivals Estifania Rule a Wife Have a Wife

238

Ophelia Hamlet Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife Polly The Beggar's Opera Elvira The Spanish Fryar

November Lappet The Miser Prue Love for Love (2) Flippanta The Confederacy (2)

Viletta She wou'd and she wou'd not (4)

Aurelia The Twin Rivals Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife Biddy The Tender Husband Colombine Colombine Courtezean

December Biddy (2) The Tender Husband

Colombine Colombine Courtezean (2)

Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd Clymene The Fall of Phaeton Elvira The Spanish Fryar Kitty Harlot's Progress (3) Hileria Tunbridge Walks (3) Estifania Rule a Wife Have a Wife Ophelia Hamlet Clymene The Fall of Phaeton (3) Polly The Beggar's Opera Aurelia The Twin Rivals Prue Love for Love

1739 January

Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd (3) Elvira The Spanish Fryar

the Chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid (3)

Lady Sadlife The Double Gallant (2)

Colombine Colombine Courtezean (4)

Aurelia The Twin Rivals

239

Polly The Beggar's Opera Flippanta The Confederacy

Anne Lovely A Bold Stroke for a Wife (4)

Edging The Careless Husband Chloe The Lottery (2) Narcissa Love's Last Shift Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife Ophelia Hamlet Phillida Damon & Phillida

February Philis The Conscious Lovers (3)

the Chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid (2)

Loveit The Man of Mode (3) Phillida Damon & Phillida Anne Lovely A Bold Stroke for a Wife Lappet The Miser Prue Love for Love

March

Colombine Colombine Courtezean (3)

Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd (3) Miss Notable The Lady's Last Stake Phillida Damon & Phillida Dorcas The Mock Doctor Jenny The Provok'd Husband Olivia The Plain Dealer (2)

April Olivia The Plain Dealer Prue Love for Love Polly The Beggar's Opera (2) Maria The Man of Taste Lappet The Miser Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd Primrose The Mother-in-law

Phoebe Phoebe, or, The Beggar’s Wedding

May

240

Mrs. Pinchwife The Country Wife

Loveit The Man of Mode Jenny The Provok'd Husband Aurelia The Twin Rivals (2) Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife Olivia The Plain Dealer

Viletta She wou'd and she wou'd not

Laetitia The Old Batchelor Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd (2) Ophelia Hamlet Aurelia The Twin Rivals Wanton wife The Amorous Widow Estifania Rule a Wife Have a Wife Lappet The Miser Jenny The Provok'd Husband Polly The Beggar's Opera Prue Love for Love

Table 11 All Mrs. Clive’s roles for the 1747-48 season. Notes: 1) The reason for choosing this season for the second “snapshot” of Mrs. Clive’s career is that helps indicate her position at Drury Lane two years after her return from Covent Garden, and also shows the company’s repertory ten years after the Licensing Act. 2) A number after a play or afterpiece title indicates the number of performances given of that piece in that month; no number indicates that this piece received only one performance in the given month.

DATE ROLE PLAY AFTERPIECE September

Portia The Merchant of Venice Lucy The Beggar's Opera Sophronia The Refusal (2) Ophelia Hamlet Nell The Devil to Pay

October

Flippanta & the The Confederacy

The Intriguing Chambermaid

241

chambermaid

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid (2)

Ophelia & Lucy Hamlet The Virgin Unmask'd

Lady Lurewell & Tag The Constant Couple Miss in her Teens(5)

Portia The Merchant of Venice Sophronia The Refusal

November Celia As You Like It (2) Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd Philis The Conscious Lovers Tag Miss in her Teens (3) Lady Fanciful The Provoked Wife(3) Euphrosyne Comus Nell The Devil to Pay

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Ophelia Hamlet Chloe The Lottery (2)

December Chloe The Lottery

Philis & Margery The Conscious Lovers

The Dragon of Wantley (3)

Lucy The Beggar's Opera (3) Lady Fanciful The Provoked Wife

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Tag Miss in her Teens (2) Nell The Devil to Pay Ariel The Tempest(3) Philis The Conscious Lovers Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd

January Portia & Tag The Merchant of Venice Miss in her Teens (3)

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Olivia & Twelfth Night (2) Damon & Phillida (3)

242

Phillida

Margery The Dragon of Wantley (2)

Miss Prue Love for Love Lady Fanciful The Provoked Wife(2)

Viletta She Wou'd and She Wou'd Not (2)

Lucy The Virgin Unmask'd (2)

Ophelia & the Chambermaid Hamlet

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Sophronia The Refusal Philis The Conscious Lovers

February Nell The Devil to Pay Lappet & Kitty The Miser The What D'ye Call It(3)

Margery The Dragon of Wantley (2)

Viletta & Tag She Wou'd and She Wou'd Not Miss in her Teens

Phillida Damon & Phillida Lady Fanciful The Provoked Wife

Miss Prue & Margery Love for Love

March Ophelia Hamlet Celia & Lucy As You Like It The Virgin Unmask'd Tag Miss in her Teens (2)

Margery The Dragon of Wantley (2)

the chambermaid

The Inriguing Chambermaid (2)

Lady Fanciful & Kitty The Provoked Wife

Nell The Devil to Pay Lucy The Beggar's Opera

April

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid (2)

Ariel The Tempest

243

Viletta She Wou'd and She Wou'd Not

Phillis & Phillida The Conscious Lovers Damon & Phillida

Margery The Dragon of Wantley (3)

Ophelia Hamlet Pallas The Judgment of Paris Sophronia The Refusal Lady Fanciful The Provoked Wife Tag Miss in her Teens (2)

May Lucy The Beggar's Opera

Phillis & Phillida The Conscious Lovers Damon & Phillida

Nell The Devil to Pay Portia The Merchant of Venice Celia As You Like It Flippanta The Confederacy

Table 12. All Mrs. Clive’s roles for the 1757-58 season. Notes: 1) This season shows Mrs. Clive’s career a further ten years on, by which time she was 47 years of age and had been acting for 29 years. A number after a play or afterpiece title indicates the number of performances given of that piece in that month; no number indicates that this piece received only one performance in the given month.

DATE ROLE PLAY AFTERPIECE September

Nell The Devil to Pay Pastora The Chaplet Lucy The Beggar's Opera

October

Phillis & Pastora The Conscious Lovers The Chaplet

Edging The Careless Husband Nell The Devil to Pay Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife

244

Flora The Wonder

Mrs. Cadwallader The Author (4)

Lady Froth The Double Dealer November

Mrs. Riot Lethe (2)

Mrs. Cadwallader The Author

Pastora The Chaplet Celia As You Like It Phillis The Conscious Lovers

December Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife

Mrs. Cadwallader The Author (3)

Edging & Mrs. Riot The Careless Husband Lethe

Pastora The Chaplet January

Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife

Mrs. Cadwallader The Author (2)

Lucy The Beggar's Opera Phaedra Amphitryon Pastora The Chaplet

February

Mrs. Cadwallader The Author

Abigail The Drummer

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid (2)

Edging & Mrs. Riot The Careless Husband Lethe

Bissare The Inconstant March

Lady Wishfort The Way of the World Catharine Catharine & Petruchio Slipslop The Upolsterer

April Slipslop The Upolsterer (8)

245

Mother The Chances (2) Nell The Devil to Pay (3)

Lady Wishfort & Slipslop The Way of the World

Lady Fanciful The Provok'd Wife Phaedra Amphitryon (2)

Phillis & Pastora The Conscious Lovers The Chaplet

the chambermaid

The Intriguing Chambermaid

May Isabella The Squire of Alsatia Jacintha The Mistake Slipslop The Upolsterer (3) Phaedra Amphitryon

Edging & Slipslop The Careless Husband

Lucy & the chambermaid The Beggar's Opera

The Intriguing Chambermaid

Celia As You Like It Lappet The Miser Mrs. Riot Lethe

Table 13. All Mrs. Clive’s roles for the 1767-68 season. Notes: 1) This was Mrs. Clive’s second to last year on the stage—she retired in the Spring of 1769. 2) A number after a play or afterpiece title indicates the number of performances given of that piece in that month; no number indicates that this piece received only one performance in the given month.

DATE ROLE PLAY AFTERPIECE September

Mrs. Heidelberg

The Clandestine Marriage (2)

Lady Freelove The Jealous Wife October

Lady Freelove The Jealous Wife Lady Beverley The School for Lovers

246

Kitty High Life Below Stairs (2)

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain (6)

Mrs. Heidelberg The Clandestine Marriage

November

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain (7)

Phillis The Conscious Lovers Lady Beverley The School for Lovers Mrs. Riot Lethe

Mrs. Heidelberg The Clandestine Marriage

Widow Blackacre The Plain Dealer

December Sift The Widow'd Wife(9)

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain (4)

Mrs. Heidelberg The Clandestine Marriage

Phillis The Conscious Lovers Kitty High Life Below Stairs

Widow Blackacre The Plain Dealer

Lady Beverley The School for Lovers January

Sift The Widow'd Wife (3)

Mrs. Heidelberg

The Clandestine Marriage (2)

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain

February

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain (2)

Mrs. Heidelberg

The Clandestine Marriage (2)

Kitty High Life Below Stairs Sift The Widow'd Wife

March

247

Kitty High Life Below Stairs (2)

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain (2)

Mrs. Riot Lethe Sift The Widow'd Wife Lady Wishfort The Way of the World

April Lady Freelove The Jealous Wife Muslin The Way to Keep Him (2)

Mrs. Heidelberg

The Clandestine Marriage (2)

Widow Blackacre The Plain Dealer

May

Lady Fuz A Peep Behind the Curtain

Lady Beverley The School for Lovers Muslin The Way to Keep Him Lady Freelove The Jealous Wife

Mrs. Heidelberg The Clandestine Marriage

The tables above demonstrate both Mrs. Clive’s style of performance and the

heavy workload she carried throughout her career. Her claim in The Case of Mrs. Clive

(1744) that she frequently played in both mainpiece and afterpiece on a given night is

substantiated in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Although Kitty Clive was obviously a very hard

working actress, she, and presumably the management, seem to have taken care not to

overstretch her—on the nights when she performed both pieces of the program, her roles

in the mainpiece, and often the afterpiece also, were invariably ones with which she was

very familiar. In December of 1747 Mrs. Clive performed the new role of Margery in the

afterpiece The Dragon of Wantley and also performed her role of Phillis in the mainpiece,

The Conscious Lovers, which she had been performing regularly since 1734-35. In

248

January 1748, she doubled up with Olivia in Twelfth Night (first performed in 1740) and

Phillida in Damon and Phillida (first performed 1730); also that month Mrs. Clive played

her role of Ophelia in Hamlet (first performed in 1734) in conjunction with the

Chambermaid in The Intriguing Chambermaid (first performed in 1733). Thus although

she would have been on stage for most of the full evening’s performance, Mrs. Clive—

being an experienced performer—would not have been placed under undue stress on

these occasions. She also did not continue with this work load for all her career, as can

be seen from Table 13, which shows her second to last year, when she did not give any

double performances.

Table 14 below shows that although Mrs. Clive did not maintain her earlier level

of performance throughout her career she continued to be one of the hardest working

actresses of the Drury Lane company. Her workload does decrease between the 1738-39

and 1747-48 seasons but shows little change after that. In the 1757-58 season Mrs. Clive

gave thirty-one performances in mainpieces and forty-four in afterpieces, whereas ten

years later—one year before her retirement—she performed forty-three times in

mainpieces and thirty-one in afterpieces. Given Kitty Clive’s level of seniority there is

no reason why she would have continued to perform so often other than her commitment

to her chosen profession.

Table 14. Summary of Mrs. Clive’s workload (number of performances) for the seasons detailed in Tables 3-6. Season Plays Afterpieces 1738-39 84 52 1747-48 57 66 1757-58 31 44

249

1767-68 43 31

Mrs. Clive—personal life

Although there is a wealth of information available on Kitty Clive’s career, there is very

little on the person behind the actress. Some hints of her personality can be gleaned from

the theatrical conflicts in which she was involved and her pamphlet The Case of Mrs.

Clive (1744) but in many ways these public writings are just another kind of performance

by a woman who was adept at getting an audience to believe her. We do not know the

extent of her personal correspondence—her bad spelling and poor writing were remarked

upon—but some of her letters to David Garrick are extant. There are only seven of these

letters, dated between 1765 and 1778, with three from the time when Mrs. Clive was still

acting; the last four letters were written from her home in Twickenham and are naturally

more general correspondence than theatre business but do give a greater insight as to her

character.153

Kitty Clive’s first letter to Garrick was written on October 14th, 1765 and is a

bitter complaint about his financial treatment of her.154 This letter indicates that Garrick

had stopped some of Mrs. Clive’s salary because of her lack of attendance at the theatre

and she argues that

153 References to and quotations from these letters are taken from James Boaden’s The Private Correspondence of David Garrick ( London: Colburn & Bentley, 1831-32) 2 vols. As a footnote to the first letter from Mrs. Clive, pp. 203-204, Boaden says that out of respect for this excellent actress he “would not perpetuate her bad spelling”, therefore the quotations given here are his corrections. 154 Although Kitty Clive and David Garrick became friends in later years there relationship at Drury Lane was not always an easy one. They were both strong characters with definite ideas about their performances, which did not always agree; they did however respect each others abilities and came to work well together.

250

It was never before expected of a performer to be in waiting when their

names are not in the papers or bills; the public are witness for me

whether I have ever neglected my business.

………………………………………………………………………….

I have always had good health, and have ever been above subterfuge.

………………………………………………………………………….

You stopped four days’ salary when I went to Dublin, though you gave

me leave to go before the house shut up, and said you would do without

me……………………………………………………………………….

I had my money last year stopped at the beginning of the season for not

coming to rehearse two parts that I could repeat in my sleep, . . .

Mrs. Clive goes on to say that she has always done her best to “serve and oblige”

Garrick—she mentions how she traveled to and from London at her own expense to

rehearse the newcomer Mrs. Vincent in the part of Polly, because he asked her to; and

how she has only had a small share, compared to his, of the profits made by Drury Lane.

She also mentions that

you gave Mrs. Cibber 600l. for playing sixty nights, and 300l.

to me for playing a hundred and eighty . . .

The tone of this letter is what one would expect from Kitty Clive, the fiery leading actress

determined to defend her rights—if she did not, then who would? Whatever her ability

with spelling, or lack thereof, her defense of her position in the theatre is clear and well

argued—she raises a number of issues and deals with each one in turn. Unfortunately

251

there is no extant copy of Garrick’s reply, or any indication that he did indeed write a

reply.

Most of the other letters are more general in nature—enquiring after Garrick’s

brother George, praising his treatment of his nephew David, criticizing the behavior of

R.B. Sheridan —but two in particular show Mrs. Clive in a different light. On January

13th, 1774 she wrote to Garrick on a matter completely unrelated to the theatre, requesting

his help on behalf on her local wine merchant, Mr. Crofts, who “. . . wants to get his son

into the excise.” (Vol. I, 604) 155 Garrick obviously requested further details because her

next letter refers to forwarding a letter of reference from the vicar, Mr. Costard, on behalf

of “young Crofts.” (p. 610) Although Mrs. Clive’s professional record shows that she

was usually kind to other performers with regard to benefit performances, this shows her

going to considerable trouble for a young man of whom she knew little, simply because

his father had asked for a favor that she was able to grant.

155 Garrick was a commissioner of the Excise at this time.

252

Chapter 5: Conclusion

The basic answer to the initial question—did acting change as a profession for

women over the course of the long eighteenth-century?—is yes. To examine the changes

and suggest reasons why they occurred, an analysis of both the private and the public

lives of the actresses from the three sample groups is necessary.

Although the personal and professional life of any individual are necessarily

intertwined, to help provide a clear analysis of the actresses considered in this study, I

have separated these two facets. The first section—Personal Lives—considers how

women came to join the acting profession; how old they were when they went onstage,

and when they left; whether or not they married and/or had children; and whether, or not,

these factors affected their careers. The second section—Public Lives—deals with how

the actresses were viewed by the public; how they fared in their company; the speed at

which they progressed through the company ranks, or not; how, or if, their roles changed

over time; the workload they carried as actresses; whether or not they specialized in

particular lines, and how this affected their careers.

However, one must always remember that the extant theatrical records from the

Restoration to the beginning of the eighteenth century are not complete. Therefore, the

conclusions drawn with regard to the first sample group (1670-1675) are necessarily

based on data available.

Personal Lives

Since women had not appeared on the professional stage in England prior to 1660,

one of the first questions is—where did actresses come from? As no one had done this

253

before, did a few women suddenly decide that they wanted to appear on stage, and if so,

how did they go about joining a company? The most logical starting point for recruiting

actresses would seem to be the families of those already involved in the theatre—wives

and daughters of actors, managers, theatre employees. However, this does not seem to

have been the case. Of the forty-two actresses in sample one, only ten appear to have had

a family connection with the theatre, and of these ten five became leading actresses.156

Unfortunately, there are no extant records on many of the performers of this time so

determining how, or why, they began careers on the stage is impossible. Given this lack

of family connection to theatre, one may ask the question why was this case, why did

women already connected to the companies not try their hand at this new opportunity?

One possibility is that the actors/managers/theatre employees felt that the stage was an

unsuitable place for their wives/sisters/daughters, one where the women would be on

public view, in contact with, and open to comment from, a variety of men. This type of

concern however does not seem particularly valid given that the husband/brother/father

would have been on hand to look after the woman on question and also that those

involved in the theatre were generally of a practical rather than puritanical outlook. Also,

the Duke’s Company was run by Sir William Davenant, with the support of his wife

Mary—they housed the first actresses of the company, and their adopted daughter,

Elizabeth Barry, went on to become one of the company’s leading actresses. So although

the theatre may have seemed very scandalous to outsiders, those working within would

have had a very different viewpoint.

156 In this group there are 9 actresses about whose personal lives we know nothing but since their surnames do not match any of the known actors or theatre employees of the time, they are unlikely to have had a family theatre connection.

254

Unfortunately this does not help explain why more women connected with the

theatre did not go onstage. The reason may be as simple as a lack of interest or a lack of

talent. Since there are no surviving advertisements for new performers, or any audition

process, perhaps a number of women with theatre connections tried out and were

rejected; we have no way of knowing.

Another possibility is that since acting as a profession for women was an

unknown quantity, those close to the theatre who needed to work may have decided to

stick to more traditional forms of employment that had more stability. Actors in the

lower ranks were not well paid, and should the theatres be closed—due to plague, or

mourning for a member of the royal family, for instance—then they were not paid at all.

In such situations, a family would be financially more secure if all the working members

were not involved in the same business.

Perhaps surprisingly, the figures for the sample group of actors for the same

period show an even smaller percentage with family connections to the theatre:

1670-1675

Actors with family connections: 15%

Actresses with family connections: 24%

This would seem to indicate that acting, as a profession for either sex, was not at this time

something that was seen in the light of a ‘family business’—though of course, there is no

guarantee that siblings or children will have the same degree of talent, or aptitude for

learning how to act.

Both actors and actresses with family connections to the theatre do however tend

to have longer careers, though of course not all performers with long careers have family

255

connections to the theatre. Mrs. Cartwright is the only exception to this—she was

probably married to the actor William Cartwright, possibly she was the third of his three

wives, but since we only have one known role for her and no dates of birth or death, no

reasonable speculation can be made as to why her career was so brief. Other than this,

actresses with family connections had careers which lasted from thirteen to thirty-seven

years; actors had careers from seven to sixty-three years. The logical reason for this

would seem to be that those who had spouses, children, or siblings, also working in the

theatre were more likely to have a greater commitment to the company both in terms of

loyalty and family finances.

When we look at the second and third sample groups the percentage of those who

had family connections to the theatre does change:

1710-1715

Actors with family connections: 50%

Actresses with family connections: 55%

1750-55

Actors with family connections: 52%

Actresses with family connections: 67%

The percentages change, and though the situation regarding career length for those with

family connections in sample one holds generally true for samples two and three there are

a greater number of exceptions. From the 1670-1675 to the 1710-1715 sample group the

percentage of those performers with family connections more than doubles for both men

and women. A possible explanation for this is that during this time there was only one

256

theatre company operating in London; therefore any individuals’ chance of getting work

as an actor was halved. In these circumstances ‘outsiders’ would have been less likely to

gain a position in the company; also, by this time women had been on the London stage

for fifty years, so in that sense the profession had stabilized.

The third sample group shows a distinct difference between actresses and actors

in terms of those with family connections. The actors remain almost the same as the

second group, with 52%, but by this time 67% of the actresses have a family connection.

There seems to be no particular reason as to why this dramatic increase should occur in

the third sample; though one difference with this group is that there are a greater number

of actresses whose mothers were also in the profession.

Although having a connection with the theatre may have been an advantage when

getting started, this does not translate into a guarantee of success within the company—

some actresses who became major stars had family connections, many others did not.

There is no discernible “cause and effect” between how an actress began and how

successful she became. The one difference that having a family connection does make,

and this holds true for all the sample groups, is that the vast majority of those with

connections have long careers—90% of actresses with family connections have careers of

ten years or over. In addition to the personal investment already discussed, those

actresses who came from theatrical families would also have had much more accurate

expectations of a stage career. An outsider looking in at the world of the theatre tends to

see the glamour, the success, the scandal; an insider knows the hard work, long hours,

and difficult conditions that form most of an actor’s life. In other words, those coming

257

from a theatrical background knew what they were getting in to and therefore would be

more likely to stay the course.

Not all family connections within the theatre were by blood; many were formed

through marriage. Since marriage gave a woman’s person, and her property, to her

spouse, marriage could have a significant effect on an actress’s career—did actresses

marry during this time period and if so how did this affect their professional lives? The

short answer is yes, many did marry and this often had surprisingly little effect on their

careers. As Table 1 illustrates, the percentage of those who married increases as the

century progresses; though as must be remembered, there are a number of actresses,

particularly in the first sample group, for whom we have no personal information.

Table 1. Actresses’ marriage and children. Notes: 1) Name in bold denotes major career. 2) M is for “Married” and Y in this column indicates that yes, the actress was married; an (L) after this indicates that she left the stage when she got married. 3) C is for “Children” the number of children is shown where known, a Y indicates that she had children but we do not know how many, ? indicates that she probably had children but we are not certain. 4) Children born to an actress after she left the stage are not included in this table 5) A blank in the “Starting Age” or “Finishing Age” columns indicates that there is no extant information on birth date for this actress. 6) A blank in the “Married” and/or “Children” columns indicates either that the actress was unmarried and/or without children, or that there are no records of either. 7) The row of ? for Miss Davis in sample three indicates the confusion existing over possible dates and people (for full details see pp. 190-194). Actress Career Starting Finishing M C

length (yrs) Age Age

SAMPLE 1 Elizabeth Barry 35 c. 17 c. 53 1 Mary Betterton 34 23 57 Y Elizabeth Boutell 32 c. 16 c. 48

258

Mrs. Burroughs 1 Charlotte Butler 12 Mrs. Cartwright 1 Y Mrs. Clough 3 Mary Corbett 7 Y Katherine Corey 32 25 57 Y 4 Elizabeth (Betty) Cox 10 32 42 Y Mrs. John Coysh 11 Y Elizabeth Currer 15 Mrs Eastland 10 Y Susanah Elliot 2 Y

Elizabeth Farley 18 Y? C

(L) Mrs. Ford 1 Eleanor (Nell) Gwyn 7 22 29 Elizabeth James 7 Y Mrs. Jennings 9 Mrs. Johnson 3 Mrs. Knapper 3 Y Mary Knepp 15 Y 4 Mary Lee (Lady Slingsby) 15 Y Elinor Leigh 37 Y 8 Mrs. Lilburne 1 Jane Long 12 Elizabeth (Betty) Mackarel 30 Rebecca Marshall 17 Mrs. Norris 22 Y 2? Mrs. Norton 8 Y? Margaret Osborn 23 Mrs. Pratt 21 Jane Rathbun 1 Anne Reeves 5 Margaret Rutter 19 Anne Shadwell 26 c. 16 c. 42 Y 5 Elizabeth Slade 7 Mrs. Spencer 2 Mrs Timothy Twyford 13 Y Susanna Uphill 6 Mrs. Wright 1 Mrs Wyatt 1

259

SAMPLE 2 Baker, Katherine 29 Bicknell, Margaret nee Younger 21 17-22 38-43 Y Bradshaw, Lucretia 18 c. 15 c. 32 Y (L) Clark(e), Mrs. 28 Cox, Susannah 13 Cross, Letitia 38 c. 17 c. 55 Y Finch, Katherine 23 Garnet, Mrs. 6 Horton, Christiana 38 15 53 Y 1 Hunt, Mrs. 15 Kent, Mary, Mrs. Thomas 26 Y Knight, Frances Maria 40 Mills, Margaret, Mrs. John 21 Y 2 Moore, Henrietta 32 Mountfort, Susanna 15 13 28 Oldfield, Anne 31 c. 16 c. 47 2 Porter, Mary 45 c. 15 c. 60 Powell, Mary, Mrs. George 28 Y Y Rogers, Jane 26 Y (L) 1 Rogers, Jane, Mrs. Christopher Bullock 22 c. 15 c. 37 Y 3 Santlow, Hester, Mrs. Barton Booth 27 c. 16 c. 43 Y Saunders, Margaret 14 21 35 Sherburn, Elizabeth 2 Smith, Miss 5 Spiller, Elizabeth, Mrs. James 31 Y Stockdale, Mrs. 1 Y? Thurmond, Sarah, Mrs. John 22 Y 2 Vincent, Mrs. 1 Willis, Mary 33 c. 7 c. 40 Willis, Elizabeth, Mrs. Richard 44 c. 25 c.69 Y 2 Younger, Elizabeth 23 c. 12 c. 35 Y (L) 1 SAMPLE 3 Ann Allen 27 Susanna Mara Arne (Mrs. T. Cibber II) 33 18 51 Y 3 Mrs. Baker 40 Y?

260

Ann Barrington (neé Halam) 26 Y 1 George Anne Bellamy 33 c. 13 c. 39 3 Elizabeth Bennet 31 19 52 Esther Bland (Mrs. John Hamilton) 35 Y Mary Bradshaw 7 Y 1 Elizabeth Chambers 10 Y Kitty Clive 41 18 59 Y Mary Cokayne 22 Elizabeth Copin 28 Y 1 Mrs. Cowper 9 Y Frances Cross (neé Shireburn) 54 20 74 Y 3 Mrs. John Cushing 8 Y Susannah Davies (neé Yarrow) 15 ? 41 Y Miss Davis ? ? ? ? ? Mary Dunstall 18 Y 1 Harriet Dyer (neé Bullock) 45 c. 7 c. 52 Y 4 Mary Elmy (neé Morse) 29 21 50 Y Mrs Ferguson 15 Y? 1 Jane Ferguson 38 Elizabeth Fitzhenry (neé Flanagan) 20 Y 2 Ann Glen 11 Mary Ann Graham (Mrs. Richard Yates II) 30 25 55 Y Jane Green (neé Hippisley) 45 16 61 Y 3 Mrs. (Urusla?) Griffith 3 Y Isabella Hallam (Mrs. George Mattocks) 52 6 62 Y 1 Hannah Haughton 30 1 Elizabeth Havard (formerly Mrs. Kilby) 34 Y Susanna Helme 22 Elizabeth Hippisley 27 Christiana Horton 38 15 53 Y 1 Mrs. Harris James 18 Y Elizabeth Jefferson (neé May) 13 Y 2 Miss Kennedy (Elizabeth Griffith) 8 22 30 Y 2 Isabella Lampe (neé Young) 57 Y 1 Ann Macklin (the first Mrs. Charles) 37 Y 2 Maria Macklin 35 c. 9 c. 44

261

Elizabeth Mills (neé Holliday) 32 c. 21 c. 53 Y Sybilla Minors (or Myners) (Mrs. John Walker) 26 18 44 Y Anna Maria Morrison (Mrs. Thomas Hull) 38 10 48 Y Susanna Mullart (Mrs. Evans) 34 5 39 Y ? Maria Isabella Nossiter 6 18 24 Ann Pitt 47 c.25 c. 72 2 Miss Popling 7 Mrs. Price (Mrs. William Parsons I) 25 Y Hannah Pritchard (neé Vaughan) 36 23 59 Y 3 Mary Ridout (neé Woodman) 14 Y Ninetta de Rossenaw 1 Elizabeth Simpson 30 Y 6 Miss Thomas 23 Sarah Toogood 8 1 Catherine de Vallois 28 Y 1 Jane Vernon ( neé Poitier, later Thompson) 43 6 49 Y Elizabeth Vincent (neé Bincks) 44 21 65 Y 3+ Sarah Ward (neé Achurch) 25 c. 18 c. 43 Y 9 Ann Willoughby (Mrs. James Lacy II) 4 Y 1 Peg Woffington 26 c. 14 c. 40 Mrs. Wright 22 Miss Yates 10 Mrs. Thomas Yeates 9 Y Ester Young (Mrs. Charles Jones) 40 Y

262

Table 2. Marriage and children – sample comparison. Notes: 1) The figures for sample one are based on the extant records which are incomplete. 2) The columns which show the number of actresses known to be married and those known to have had children during their acting careers do not relate directly to each other—not all those who had children were married.

Sample Group Total no. Known no.

married Known no. with

children One 43 18 (42%) 7 (16%) Two 31 15 (48%) 9 (29%) Three 64 43 (67%) 27 (42%)

Given what is known about population statistics in the eighteenth-century—the

first modern census in England was not until the beginning of the nineteenth-century, so

conclusions are drawn primarily from parish records—the figures displayed in Table 2

are very surprising. From 1600 to 1700, the population of London increased from

approximately 200,000 to 575,000 and by the time of the first national census in 1801, it

had reached 958,863.157 Since London, then as now, attracted a large number of

migrants, these dramatic increases—which far outstrip the population gains seen by other

metropolitan center in England—can be attributed to a number of factors, including the

marriage and fertility rates of those living in the capital. According to E. A. Wrigley’s

calculations, from the period 1681-1821 the population of England increased by 133%

with the most dramatic growth taking place between 1751 and 1821. The explanation for

this increase in population over the long eighteenth century lays two-thirds with the

increase in fertility and one-third in the decrease in mortality. This increase in fertility he

attributes to the decrease in the marriage age of women—from an average of 26.5 years

157 These figures are taken from Roger Finlay, Population and Metropolis: The Demography of London 1580-1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) p.xi and Fergus Linnane, London, the wicked city: A thousand years of vice in the capital (London: Robson Books, 2003) p.268.

263

in the 1680’s to 23.5 years by the early 1800’s—combined with the increase in the

numbers marrying. Wrigley estimates that in the early seventeenth-century 85% of

women were married whereas by the end of the eighteenth-century this had increased to

93%; and with marriage, comes children. 158

Thus the actresses in all three sample groups diverge significantly from the

population norms with regards to marriage and children during this period. Although the

percentage of those actresses who married does increase from 42% in the first group to

67% in the third, this falls far short of the national average. Since the extant data shows

that 96% of all the women in the three sample groups began their stage careers before the

age of 23, then if Wrigley’s figures are correct, the majority of their marriages would

have taken place after they had joined a theatre. Given this fact, a low marriage rate in

the sample group from 1670-75 might be explained by (a) the public perception of

actresses as whores and therefore less likely to marry outside the theatre, (b) many of the

actors were already married when women were admitted to the stage, and (c) the

incompatibility of an actress’s schedule with that of men working in non-theatrical

employment, but these factors become less applicable as the eighteenth-century

progresses. The theatre stabilizes as a profession for women, theatre work becomes a

“family business” for a number people, and while the unsocial hours remain, the public

perception of actresses becomes more favorable as the century progresses. The most

likely explanation for the relatively low numbers of actresses who married in the

eighteenth-century is simply that it was a matter of choice. However, even more

surprising than the marriage figures are the numbers regarding children—in a time when

reliable contraceptives were virtually non-existent, and assuming “normal” sexual 158 E.A. Wrigley “Population Growth: England, 1680-1820,” ReFRESH 1 (Autumn 1985): 1-4.

264

relations between marriage partners, children were not a matter of choice and large

numbers of pregnancies were the norm.159

While we can never know the number of actual pregnancies an actress had—

sometimes there is a report of an actress being taken ill very suddenly which could be due

to a miscarriage but there are also any number of other possibilities which could cause

and actress’s absence—most of those who did have children had surprisingly few. Table

3 shows that in sample one 42% of those with children had only 1 or 2, increasing to 78%

in sample two, and decreasing somewhat to 63% in sample three; no one in sample two

had more than 5 children and only 14% of sample one, and 7% of sample three did.

Table3. Actresses and their numbers of children. Note: 1) These figures are of known children—due to the gaps in the data those for Sample One in particular are incomplete. 2) The last column “Number unknown” refers to actresses who we know had children during their careers but records do not show how many. Sample Group Total no. 1-2 children 3-5 children >6 children Number actresses unkown One 7 3 3 1 0 Two 9 7 1 0 1 Three 27 17 7 2 1

Even allowing for miscarriages, and the possible negative effects of a stressful

career on a woman’s ability to conceive, and the possibility that a certain number of

marriages may have been in name only in order to “protect” a homosexual male—

homosexual acts between men were a criminal offence whereas lesbianism was not—this 159 Condoms were available—made of fine silk or animal skins—but seem to have been more associated with prevention of venereal disease than pregnancy. (Angus McLaren, A History of Contraception: From Antiquity to the Present Day (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990) pp. 157-158.) Women used a variety of herbal preparations and douches but with variable success. ( Shyama Perera, Taking Precautions: an intimate history of birth control (London: New Holland, 2004) chp. 1.)

265

is an extraordinarily low number of children. Since the number of actresses with long

careers increases as the long eighteenth-century progresses, this would indicate that more

women were taking acting seriously as a career rather than as a means to a husband or

“protector”, and for a serious actress children are not desirable. The physical changes

wrought by pregnancy are concealable only up to a point and while strategic draping of a

costume can hide a certain amount, having the innocent young heroine played by an

eight-month pregnant actress would not have been well received by either management or

audience; so depending on an actress’s rank in the company, her roles may have been

under threat. Then there is the time off required for the birth itself, with the

accompanying danger of serious illness following after, and then the issues of child care

begin. During the theatrical season, performers were required to attend daily rehearsals

and although leading performers, at least, did not perform every evening the theatre was

open, most of them still maintained a very heavy workload—as the case studies for all

three samples illustrate.

Given that children were a major inconvenience for any woman wishing to make

the stage her career, the question still remains: how did these actresses manage to control

their number of pregnancies? The short answer is, we do not know. The possibilities are

(a) celibacy—unlikely for most actresses either married or single (if even half the rumors

about actresses’ sex lives were true); (b) abortion—this was illegal and physically very

dangerous; however, the chances of being left sterile after a “backstreet” abortion would

have been very high, which for someone not wishing for further children would have

been a plus; unfortunately there is no way of estimating how common abortion was let

alone how many actresses may have resorted to it; (c) sexual practices that did not

266

involve vaginal intercourse—this seems the most likely explanation but again, there is no

indication that this is what occurred.

What these facts about actress’s personal lives show is that while they presumably

enjoyed their time in the spotlight, being a professional actresses meant living a life that

was different and in many cases, not having what is termed a woman’s “normal life’—

husband, children, domesticity. For many women involved in the theatre, this may not

have been a sacrifice at all but rather an opportunity for a career which they enjoyed and

one which gave them more freedom than a traditional life would have allowed. Since we

do not know how actresses, or actors, were recruited to the London stage, nor do we have

any extant personal musings on their career choice, we cannot say whether or not these

women—particularly those of the lower ranks—viewed the stage as a place of possibility

or simply as a job. However, the fact that the number of actresses with careers over five

years in length dramatically increases from the first sample group to the third, suggests

that as time progressed more and more women did view the stage as their career,

something which they wanted to do, and not just a means of employment.

Professional lives

When considering the development of acting as a career for women, there are a

number of factors which need to be analyzed. Internal theatrical matters—career length,

rank within the company, workload, role specialization—and external influences such as

the way in which actresses were viewed by their public, help show the changes that

occurred for women in the theatre over the course of the long eighteenth-century.

267

Career length

Although any performer’s career length can be influenced by unforeseen personal

circumstances—an individual who had every intention of staying with a company may be

forced to leave through ill-health or family crisis—in general the overall figures for

career length give a very good indication of the stability of the acting profession.

Analysis across the three sample groups shows how the profession developed for women,

but this also needs to be placed in a broader context, where performers of both genders

are taken into account. Therefore, Table 3 shows the career lengths for both actors and

actresses from all the sample groups. The career intervals which I have chosen for this

table are not, statistically speaking, even or random but are those which best reflect a

range of different career types. Those performers who stay a year or less are most likely

to be “trying something new” which does not work out—either they leave of their own

accord or they are fired. Those who remain in the profession from 2-5 years are probably

those who are do not have a particular interest in the stage and leave when a better

opportunity presents itself, or, they are those performers who are not doing particularly

well in London and decide to move to a provincial company, or to Ireland, in hopes of

better roles and status. Some of this latter group will also be in the 6-10 year category

but this reason becomes less likely as the number of years spent on the London stage

increases. A stage career of 11-20 years is a long one, but one which would see the

average performer leaving that career aged 29-38—too young for most to simply stop

working, though ill-health may be a factor here. Performers who remain on the stage for

20 years and over can be considered to be taking this as their life’s work, the reason that I

have further divided this group into those who had careers that lasted from 21-30 years

268

and those with careers over 30 years, is that the last group shows individuals who both

had extraordinarily long careers as well as ones which frequently spanned changes in

management and styles of drama.

Table 4. Career length for actresses and actors, all sample groups.

Notes: 1) Column 2 shows the total number of performers in each sample; these are the numbers used to calculate the percentages showed in columns 4-9 with exception of the actors in Sample 1 and the actresses in Sample 3—in both these cases the number used is the one in brackets. The Sample 1 actors total is altered because I have not counted the twelve actors who had careers before 1660—since the London theatre world was so completely different before the Interregnum— nor have I included Mr. Cory whose career length we do not know. The Sample 3 actresses total used is 62, not 63, because I have excluded “Miss Davis”, about whom there is considerable confusion, from the calculations. 2) Since the percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number, the total number for each sample is not necessarily 100%.

Although the three sample groups span eighty-five years, from 1670-1755, from a time

when actresses were still a relatively phenomenon to when they had become an integral

part of a theatre company—the proportion of women acting on the London stage remains,

Sample Total

number Career range

1 year or less 2-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

Over 30 years

One Actresses 42 1-37 yrs 7 - 17% 6 - 14% 9 - 21% 10 - 24% 5 - 12% 5 - 12% Actors 68 (55) 1-63 yrs 7 - 13% 9 - 16% 11 - 20% 11 - 20% 7 - 13% 10 - 18% Two Actresses 31 1-45 yrs 2 - 6% 2 - 6% 1 - 3% 5 - 16% 12 - 39% 9 - 29% Actors 52 2-63 yrs 0 1 - 2% 3 - 6% 11 - 21% 15 - 29% 22 - 42% Three Actresses 63 (62) 1-52 yrs 1 - 2% 2 - 3% 10 - 16% 8 - 13% 17 - 27% 24 - 39% Actors 103 1-64 yrs 2 - 2% 6 - 6% 6 - 6% 10 - 10% 32 - 31% 47 - 46%

269

rather surprisingly, the same. In the 1670-75 group, 38% of performers were female; in

the 1710-15 group 37%; and in the final group, 1750-55, 38%. These figures seem to

indicate that despite changes in company management and changing fashions in the types

of plays being performed, once actresses became part of the theatrical scene their

numbers, proportionally speaking, remained very stable.

While the proportion of actresses to actors remains the same, the proportion of

actresses in the different “career length categories” changes considerably between the

samples. As time progresses, not only does the proportion of those with long careers

increase but the range of career length also expands. In the first sample group, the

longest career is 37 years, and this has lengthened to 52 years by the final group—in this,

the actresses differ from the actors, whose longest career only increases from 63 to 64

over the eighty-five year period. Although the percentages for actors’ and actresses’

career lengths are quite similar for Sample 1—with an expected greater number of

actresses having careers or one year or less, and fewer having careers over 30 years—

more significant changes do occur in Samples 1 and 2.

Overall, there is a general increase in the proportion of actresses with longer

careers—in Sample 1 17% had careers of one year or less and 12% had careers of over 30

years, in Sample 2 the figures are 6% and 29% respectively, whereas by Sample 3 the

shortest career group has reduced to 3% and longest to 39%. This shows a dramatic

change in the career pattern of women on the stage during this time period, demonstrating

perhaps a greater awareness on the part of individuals of what exactly such a career

would entail and an increase in the numbers of women who viewed their work in the

theatre as a “real” career. The pattern for the actors is similar, but they show even

270

greater differences between Samples 1 and 2, than do the actresses. In Sample 1 13% of

actors had a career of one year or less and 18% had a career of over 30 years but thirty-

five years later, in Sample 2, the percentages are 0% and 42%. The decrease in the

numbers with very short careers is probably due to the fact that during this time there was

only one theatre company in London so there were more performers than positions open.

The dramatic increase in the numbers having careers longer than 30 years is less easily

explained—perhaps only having the option of one theatre in London made performers

much more wary of leaving earlier in their careers and once established, they simply

stayed put. The increase in the percentage of both actors and actresses with careers over

30 years continues from Sample 2 to 3 but with a smaller leap—actresses go from 29% to

39% and actors from 42% to 46%. All these figures seem to point to an increasing

stabilization of the profession, for both men and women, between the years 1670 and

1755.

Rank, roles and workload

Although there are differences between the actresses of the three sample groups

when looking at the number and type of roles that they performed, the greatest difference

occurs between the ranks of actress within each sample. While dividing a company into

“stars” and “foot-soldiers” is quite straightforward, this does not allow for the more

complex ranking that exist within any group of performers. There is always a “second

rank” of people who do not have leading roles but are very competent actors; these

individuals fill in if the lead is unable to perform and some may in time move up to lead

roles whereas others stay permanently at this level. In the theatrical companies of the

271

eighteenth-century, as in present day ones, the factors which determine who achieves

which rank are varied and frequently unpredictable—talent is not necessarily a guarantee

of success. While an argument can be made that a truly extraordinary talent will rise to

the top irrespective of circumstances, chance also plays a part.

The three leading ladies discussed in the case studies—Elizabeth Barry, Anne

Oldfield, and Kitty Clive—were all not only talented actresses, but also were both lucky

and very hard working. Mrs. Barry was raised by Sir William and Lady Mary Davenant,

and so grew up in the Duke’s Company; Mrs. Oldfield was supposedly “discovered”

whilst reading aloud in her uncle’s tavern; and Mrs. Clive somehow went from hero-

worshiping Mr. Wilks to joining the Drury Lane Company. While talent and hard work

can advance a career, getting that career started is often a matter of luck. Since we do not

know how the London theatres recruited their performers, or what proportion of people

never even passed an initial audition—or possibly one performance—we cannot

determine the success/failure rate of the would-be performers. However the extant

evidence suggests that being in the right place at the right time, and having a particular

“look” or appeal that the company needed at that particular moment, greatly influenced

who was accepted or rejected.

Of those who “made it” and were accepted by a company, only a small proportion

would become leading performers, and since the records are mostly incomplete for the

very minor people—with no information on personal lives or activities before or after

their stage careers—there is no way to gauge how many performers began with hopes of

reaching the top of their profession and how many had little or no ambition and were

content with their minor roles. As Table 1 shows, there is no correlation between length

272

of career and rank within a company. While most leading performers have long careers,

unless personal circumstances intervene—for example Nell Gywn’s career lasted only

seven years because she left the stage to become one of Charles II’s mistresses—there are

also a large number of minor actresses who stay in the profession for a very long time.

This raises the question of why would an actress who was not moving up the ranks and

was playing the same, or similar, roles year-in year-out stay performing? The most

obvious answer is that they enjoyed what they did, because for middle and lower rank

performers the theatre did not always provide steady employment. Another contributory

factor may have been their families—many, though not all, of the minor actresses with

long careers had family ties to their companies.

In the case studies for all three samples the actresses discussed under the category

of “long career but remained minor” fall into this group. Elinor Leigh, whose stage

career lasted for 37 years, was married to leading actor Anthony Leigh—whose rank

probably helped her retain her position in the Duke’s Company despite frequent absences

for the birth of their children. Hester Santlow Booth, who had a 27 career as both actress

and dancer, was married to leading actor and manager Barton Booth. Jane Green, whose

husband was a minor actor, came from a theatrical family—the Hippisleys—and had a

career which lasted for 45 years but not with the same company; at first with her husband

and later apparently by herself, she moved between different companies and cities. In the

case of both Mrs. Leigh and Mrs. Booth, their husbands’ positions with their companies

would have enabled them to at least try out a leading role or two, had they so desired—

but there is no record of either of these actresses ever attempting to move outside their

regular lines. Elinor Leigh in particular established a line very early in her career,

273

playing the “older” roles such as duenna, governess, and guardian, from the beginning—

when she returned to the stage after the birth of each of her children (usually taking a

break of nine months to a year) she simply took up the same position in the company that

she had left.

Other actresses who belonged to theatrical families, either by birth or marriage,

have similar career patterns to those discussed in detail in the case studies. Two actresses

from different generations of the Bullock family also had long but minor careers—from

Sample 2, Jane Rogers (Mrs. Christopher Bullock) had a 22-year career, and from

Sample 3, her daughter Mrs. Harriet Dyer (née Bullock) had a career which lasted 45

years. While not all those with family connections had long careers, and not all those

with long but minor careers had family connections, the family tie does provide some

explanation of why actresses who were never going to get leading roles may have stayed

in the acting profession.

Once an actress was established with a company, one of the most important

factors in her career was the roles which she was assigned. Traditionally, when a

performer originated a role in a new play, whenever the company performed the play

afterwards that role “belonged” to him or her until they chose to surrender it—a tradition

with which management were not always in sympathy. The question of who played

which role at times caused considerable dissention, particularly when an up-and-coming

actress was challenging an established leading lady. By present day standards, the

leading performers of the eighteenth-century learned a huge number of parts over the

course of their careers, a large number of which were in new plays which frequently did

not survive beyond their first run.

274

Table 5. Leading actresses’ roles in new and old plays.160

Career dates

Roles in new plays

Roles in old plays

Total number of roles

Elizabeth Barry 1675-1710 118 11 129

Anne Oldfield 1699-1730 68 34 102

Kitty Clive 1728-1769 54 126 180

These figures give an indication of the sheer number of parts a leading actress had

to maintain throughout the period despite the changes that occurred in theatre practice

during this time. Elizabeth Barry has the greatest number of new roles since she was

active at a time when large numbers of new plays were being performed—due mainly to

vigorous competition between the two London companies—but by the time Anne

Oldfield was established, there was only one company in operation and therefore less

need to put on new plays to attract an audience. Kitty Clive’s extraordinary total of 180

roles can be accounted for by her heavy participation in Afterpieces, and although these

were not as dramatically complex as mainpieces, they still represent a considerable

investment of time and effort.

The number of roles performed by an actress during her years on the stage is only

part of the picture of her career—the types of roles performed and also the actual

workload carried give a more complete view of what being an actress during this period

entailed. Though the lack of extant records for the first sample group makes an estimate 160 Since the extant records are not complete and the numbers of roles given here are ones known, these figures represent the minimum number of roles performers by these actresses. The number of roles in old plays for Elizabeth Barry is likely to be a serious under-representation since casts were not advertised for revivals at this time.

275

of workload for these actresses impossible, there is sufficient information for the later

groups to provide an accurate description of the working lives of these women.

One major change that occurs over time is the increased specialization in role type

that takes place, to the extent that by the end of the eighteenth century each London

company is de facto operating two almost entirely separate groups—one for comedy and

one for tragedy.161 The list of known roles for Elizabeth Barry (Table 3, p. 55) shows an

almost equal division between new roles in comedy (62) and tragedy (67) throughout her

career, despite the fact that she is remembered as the great tragic actress of her era.

Whereas Anne Oldfield performed mainly comedic roles—with an occasional stately

tragic part such as Andromache in The Distrest Mother—she did not tackle any of the

really demanding tragic roles such as Elizabeth Barry would have relished. By the time

Kitty Clive began her career in 1728—eighteen years after Mrs. Barry’s retirement—a

greater division between comedy and tragedy actresses was evident. Mrs. Clive, with

exception of a very few roles such as Ophelia in Hamlet, played comedic parts and due to

the combination of her comedic talents and excellent singing voice, also played in great

number of afterpieces—creating a total of 57 new afterpiece roles. Although Anne

Oldfield and Kitty Clive were both comic actresses, their styles were completely

different. Mrs. Oldfield specialized in the witty upper-class leading ladies who inhabit

the plays of Susannah Centlivre and Colley Cibber, whereas Mrs. Clive developed a line

of roles in the broader comedic vein of the “cheeky servant” and later in her career, the

frequently bawdy “older woman” such as Doll Common in The Alchemist and Mrs.

161 At the beginning of any performer’s career there is invariably a considerable mixture of roles while he/she is being tried out by the management. Also, minor performers do not specialize to the same degree as the do the major—minor roles tend to be cast according to type e.g. the confidante, the lady-in-waiting, rather than according to genre.

276

Winifred in The School for Rakes. With regards to new roles, there is however, one

constant factor across the three sample groups—all the leading actresses continue

creating roles right up to their retirement. Naturally, they do not develop the same

number of roles as they did earlier in their careers but Elizabeth Barry, Anne Oldfield and

Kitty Clive, all had at least one new role in their final year on the stage. This further

contributes to the picture of these actresses as women for whom their careers were a vital

part of their lives—none of them had a need to create new roles this late in their careers.

All three were the leading actresses of their day, they were secure in their position, loved

by audiences, and of great value to management, so can not have felt any pressure to

venture into new territory unless it were through a genuine interest in and love for their

stagecraft.

Although the types of new roles that these actresses created changed as they aged,

they often retained roles created in their youth well past what could be considered an

appropriate age. In the first sample group, the records are incomplete but there are some

interesting changes visible for the end of the career of its leading actress. When

Elizabeth Barry retired temporarily in 1708-09 at the age of fifty her roles were taken by

five different actresses—Mrs. Oldfield, Mrs. Porter, Mrs. Bradshaw, Mrs. Knight and

Mrs. Rogers—who were between fifteen and twenty-five years her junior. Mrs. Oldfield

had already taken over her role of Monimia in Otway’s The Orphan in the 1707

production and she was the only actress to keep one of Mrs. Barry’s roles—Mrs. Loveit

in Ethererge’s The Man of Mode—when that actress returned in 1710. Both of these

roles had been created by Mrs. Barry, in 1680 and 1676 respectively. One of the only

other roles that we know Mrs. Barry ceded was Hellena in Behn’s The Rover; her friend

277

Anne Bracegirdle had taken over that role by 1707 when Mrs. Barry took the part of

Angellica Bianca.162 The loss of her roles to Anne Oldfield would appear to have been

through pressure from the management, since Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Oldfield were not

friends. There are no extant records indicating how Elizabeth Barry reacted to this change

in casting, or whether or not she objected: however, this occurred towards the end of her

career when she no longer wielded quite the power within the company that she had once

had. Mrs. Barry may also have felt that fighting for a few of her oldest roles was simply

not worth the effort, or potential embarrassment, at this late stage of her career.

In Sample 2, both Anne Oldfield and Hester Booth retained roles that could

logically have been given to younger performers—in Mrs. Booth’s case, both her dancing

and acting roles. The last known acting role for Hester Santlow Booth is Cordelia in

King Lear—a part she first performed in 1712 when she was circa twenty-two years of

age—on April 30th 1733 when she was approximately forty-three; Mrs. Booth also

continued dancing up to her retirement. Given the fact that Hester Booth had a more

prominent career as a dancer than as an actress, her retention of such roles as Cordelia

and Ophelia when she was into her forties may be more attributable to her husband’s

status than her own. Barton Booth’s position as both lead actor and one of the

triumvirate of actor-managers must have been at least part of the equation when roles

were allocated, though theatrical custom regarding the ‘keeping’ of roles does seem to

have exerted quite a strong influence also. Mrs. Oldfield’s roles also show little change

over the years of her career: for example she began playing the Lady Lurewell in The

162 There are no extant cast lists for The Rover between its premiere in 1677, when Mrs. Barry originated the role of Hellena, and the 1707 production when she played Angellica Bianca. For a full discussion of the circumstances surrounding this, and Elizabeth Barry’s ‘retirement’ see Chapter 2, pp. 34-86.

278

Constant Couple in 1707—at the age of twenty-four—and was still playing the role in

1730 at the age of 47.

The tradition of performers retaining the roles they had created can be seen to

continue with the actresses of Sample 3. Jane Green, who had a fairly minor career,

albeit a very long one, and did not remain with the same company throughout,

nonetheless retained the roles she had created. In 1735 at the beginning of her career,

aged sixteen, she originated the role of Cherry in The Stratagem for the Covent Garden

company (this was a revival, Farquhar’s play had premiered in 1707) and despite a

number of company changes in the intervening years, played the role again at Covent

Garden in October and December 1757—at the age of thirty-eight. Mrs. Green had no

particular power in the company and indeed had only returned to Covent Garden in 1754

after an absence of nineteen years. The leading actress from this sample group, Kitty

Clive, also retained many of her roles—though she did switch roles in certain plays such

as The Plain Dealer—she began by playing the role of Olivia in 1737, aged twenty-six,

but in 1765, aged fifty-four, had changed to the Widow Blackacre. However, such roles

as Lappet in The Miser, which she created in 1732, Mrs. Clive was still playing in 1748.

The key issues seem to be a combination of convenience for the company—Mrs. Green

and the role of Cherry, for example—and, more importantly, whether or not a performer

actually created that particular role in a new play.

This pattern of role retention across the three sample groups indicates that the

tradition of an actor’s entitlement to a role he/she had created if anything increased over

time. As far as can be judged, earlier in the period the power of the actress in question

seemed to be a strong contributing factor—a leading actress might choose to cede a role

279

to an upcoming young actress but otherwise maintained her list of parts, irrespective of

age. One other issue which needs to be taken into consideration is public opinion—

audiences will stay away if they are not satisfied with what they are seeing. Unlike the

present day London theatre world, which is kept afloat largely by a continual stream of

tourists, thus ensuring a constantly changing audience, the theatre in eighteenth-century

London had a more static group in regular attendance. Thus the tradition of performers

of both sexes playing roles that were written for someone much younger seems to have

been acceptable, particularly if they had created that role in the first place.

As well as the number, types and changes of roles, the final career component to

be considered is the actual workload carried by actresses during this period. The leading

actresses not only created numerous new roles but also spent many more nights

performing than did the more minor performers. Table 6 shows a comparison between

Mrs. Clive’s workload for the 1738-39 season, and that of Mrs. Butler and Mrs.

Pritchard—Mrs. Butler specialized in tragedy and therefore has no afterpiece roles but

Mrs. Pritchard’s line was quite similar to Mrs. Clive’s.

Table 6. Workload for Mrs. Clive, Mrs. Butler and Mrs. Pritchard 1738-39. Mrs. Clive Month Plays Afterpieces September 3 8 October 7 5 November 12 1 December 11 10 January 14 13 February 9 3 March 4 8

280

April 7 2 May 17 2 Total 84 52

Mrs. Butler 1738-39 Month Plays Afterpieces September 5 0 October 9 0 November 7 0 December 4 0 January 13 0 February 17 0 March 9 0 April 7 0 May 8 0 Total 79 0 Mrs. Pritch. 1738-39 Month Plays Afterpieces September 1 1 October 4 3 November 5 0 December 11 4 January 10 12 February 8 0 March 4 4 April 3 1 May 8 7 Total 54 32

These tables show that Kitty Clive was giving approximately 50% more performances

than the ‘second’ actresses in her company during this season.

Although the records for the earlier two samples are not complete, the same

pattern of hard work is discernible. In the 1711-12 season, Anne Oldfield had been on

281

the London stage for twelve years and was Drury Lane’s undisputed leading actress. In

that season she performed the following number of different roles:

No. of roles No. of nights of performance

September 4 6+ October 23 28 November 17 23 December 19 20 January 16 22 February 19 21 March 8 17+ April 14 15+ May 11 11

As this table indicates, some of these roles were in single perfromances but others had

multiple nights of performance, demonstrating the level of commitment Drury Lane

expected from their leading lady.

While the absence of advertised casts for revivals makes estimating Elizabeth

Barry’s workload impossible, the sheer number of her known roles gives a good

indication of the type of schedule she must have worked. For all the leading actresses

discussed in this study, while they were working, the stage was the main part of their

lives—the time they put in to learning new roles, maintaining old ones, going to rehearsal

and performing must have left room for little else of significance.

282

Public perception

As the careers of actresses changed over the long eighteenth-century, so too did

the ways in which they were perceived by the public. In terms of their place within a

company and their commitment to their work, this study shows that women on the

London stage became increasingly professional in their outlook during the period

considered. While not every actress by 1755 was a dedicated professional with a spotless

personal reputation, the majority were women who regarded their work on the stage as

just that—their means of employment, not their route to a husband/protector and a life

outside the theatre. This increasing professionalization is also reflected in the way in

which the actresses are viewed by the public; from 1670 to 1755 both the tone and the

content of extant comments on actresses changes considerably.

The satires written concerning Elizabeth Barry and many of her contemporaries

do not comment on these women as actresses, critiquing their performances on stage, but

as ‘loose women’ selling their sexual favors to the highest bidder. The actors of this

period are also subject to public comment but are ridiculed for such things as their lack of

acting ability, the airs and graces they give themselves, their vanity—their personal lives

and antecedents are usually left alone. Poems such as Robert Gould’s The Playhouse, a

Satyr (1689, rev. ed. 1709) illustrate the difference in the way in which actors and

actresses were satirized. Gould lashes out at the two principal performers—Thomas

Betterton is portrayed as proud, disdainful and vain while Elizabeth Barry is described in

the filthiest terms as a whore and the daughter of a whore. The 1688 Session of Ladyes

mentions the actress Elizabeth Boutell as “Chestnut-man’d Boutel, whom all the Town

F—ks” ignoring the fact that she was a highly successful actress to concentrate on her

283

physicality and supposed immorality.163 None of the extant satires dwells on bad

performances given by actresses; though there must have been quite a few, given the

newness of the profession and the numbers of actresses from the first sample group who

appeared in just a few plays and then vanished completely. I do not suggest that all

actresses of this period were being unjustly maligned—many were highly, and blatantly,

promiscuous—but that the public comments of the time are biased towards actresses as

sexual beings rather than as women engaged in a profession.

The presence of actresses on the London stage undoubtedly helped fuel the

‘immorality of the stage’ debate at the end of the seventeenth-century, even though they

had been part of the theatre scene for nearly forty years at that time. However, when we

reach the second sample group in 1710, public opinion of actresses is beginning to

change. The fashion for lampoons on public figures was dying out but the ‘celebrity

biography’ as produced by such publishers as Edmund Curll (1683-1747) was gaining in

popularity. The two biographies of Anne Oldfield—The Faithful Memoirs and The

Authentick Memoirs—which appeared within a year of her death in 1730 are both hack

works designed for profit rather than providing the public with an accurate account of her

life, yet neither work dwells on her private life in a salacious manner. In spite of the fact

that Anne Oldfield never married but had two children from two long-term and very

public relationships—with Arthur Mainwaring and then Brigadier General Sir Charles

Churchill—neither biographer felt the need to point out her lack of morals. Both works

give what we assume today to be an over-romanticized account of Mrs. Oldfield’s early

life and start on the London stage, and the Faithful Memoirs gives more detail on the

roles she played and her wonderful acting style, but her relationships with Mainwaring 163 Biographical Dictionary 2: 261.

284

and Churchill are treated as if they had been legitimate marriages. Of the negative extant

accounts of Mrs. Oldfield—A Letter to Sir John Stanley, A Justification of the Letter to

Sir John Stanley, The Memorial of Jane Rogers—only the Justification contains any

personal attack of the sort popular during the Restoration. This slander on Mrs. Oldfield

was probably more of an attack on her partner, Arthur Mainwaring; she was simply a

means to an end. The other two documents which paint Anne Oldfield in a less than

flattering light do so in terms of her pride and mistreatment of those around her; no

mention is made of her personal life or morals.

In the final sample group, Kitty Clive is the leading actresses for the case study;

she was a ‘larger than life’ comedian who had a rather abrasive personality, an early

failed marriage and a long-term, apparently platonic, relationship with Horace Walpole—

yet there are no extant comments, or criticisms, of her personal life. Mrs. Clive’s only

contemporary biographer, Chetwood, mentions her background, her beginnings at Drury

Lane, her meteoric rise in the company and her continued success. Kitty Clive’s

personality and personal life held plenty of material for gossip and innuendo yet no one

seems to have taken advantage of this, at least not in print.

While some of the decrease in sensationalist writing over this period may be

attributed to a change in fashion, one thing did not change: actresses were still very

public figures about whom the public wished to know more. Actresses had devoted fans

who championed their cause if their roles were under threat. People went to the theatre to

see a well-known actress in her signature role/s, but by the mid eighteenth-century the

acting had become the focus not the woman. This is not to say that a pretty actress did

not attract considerable attention then as today but rather that the physical body of the

285

woman playing the part, or what she might choose to do with that body while not on-

stage, was no longer the prime concern. Actresses, by the nature of their profession, have

in the past and will no doubt continue in the future to attract gossip, generate rumor, and

provide sensation for an ever eager public but the emphasis has changed. From the first

sample group to the third, actresses went from being a group of women whose presence

on stage provided titillation and novelty, to being group of women engaged in a

legitimate profession.

286

Works Frequently Cited

Biographical Dictionary Philip H. Highfill, Jr., Kalman A. Burnim, and Edward A. Langhans, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers, and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660-1800. 16 vols. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973-1993). Downes John Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, or an Historical

Review of the Stage (1708) ed. Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume (London: The Society for Theatre Research, 1987).

Howe Elizabeth Howe, The first English actresses: Women and Drama 1660-1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). The London Stage The London Stage 1660-1800: A Calendar of Plays, Entertainments, and Afterpieces Together with Casts, Box- Receipts and Contemporary Comment Compiled from the Playbills, Newspapers and Theatrical Diaries of the Period. Part 1, 1660-1700, ed. William Van Lennep (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965) Part 2, 1700-1729. 2 vols., ed. Emmett L. Avery (1960). Part 3, 1729-1747, 2 vols., ed. Arthur H. Scouten (1961). Part 4, 1747-1776, 3 vols., ed. George Winchester Stone Jr. (1962). Part 5, 1776-1800, 3 vols., ed. Charles Beecher Hogan (1968). Document Register Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, A Register of English Theatrical Documents 1660-1737. 2 vols. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991). Wilson John Harold Wilson, All the King’s Ladies: Actresses of the Restoration. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1958).

287

Appendix A.

LONDON THEATRE CHRONOLOGY

1660-1757164 1660 May Charles II returns to the throne. 1660 August 21 Charles II issues a grant to Sir William Davenant and Thomas Killigrew for a monopoly to run two theatre companies, the Duke’s and the King’s. The actual patents are issued in 1662

and 1663. 1660 October 1 The Master of the Revels, then Sir Henry Herbert, to license the printing of plays. 1660 October 6 Actors sworn as servants to the King and are therefore entitled to certain rights and protections as members of the royal household. 1660 November 5 Formal sharing agreement drawn up between Davenant and his principal actors in the Duke’s Company. 1660 December 8 A woman plays Desdemona in a production of Othello by the

Kings Company. This is the first recorded public performance of an actress on the English stage.

1660 December 12 Davenant granted the permanent rights to his own plays and eleven from the Renaissance, including Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth. 1661 The Duke’s Company opens a new theatre at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, which has changeable scenery. 1662 April 25 The formal patent for Killigrew’s company is issued. Included is

the stipulation that women’s roles in plays, in both companies, are henceforth only to be performed by women.

1663 January 15 The formal patent for Davenant’s company is issued.

164 The source for items included in this chronology from 1660-1737 is Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, A Register of English Theatrical Documents 1660-1737. 2 vols. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991); from 1737-1755 the information provided comes from Jane Milling, The Cambridge History of British Theatre. 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) Vol 2.

288

1663 May 7 The King’s Company opens its new theatre, also with changeable scenery, at Bridges Street. 1663 July 23 Davenant and Killigrew are authorized jointly to open a new theatre, a “nursery”, for the training of boys and girls in the acting profession. 1665 June 5 Theatres closed due to plague; they remain shut for eighteen months. 1666 November 29 Both companies receive permission to re-open their theatres. 1668 April 7 Sir William Davenant dies. Control of the Duke’s Company passes to Lady Davenant in trust for her son, Charles; the day-to- day management of the company is taken over by leading actors Henry Harris and Thomas Betterton. 1671 November 9 The Duke’s Company opens their new theatre in Dorset Garden. 1672 January 25 The King’s Company Theatre Royal at Bridges Street burns down; the company moves temporarily to the theatre at Lincoln’s Inn Fields recently vacated by the Duke’s Company. 1673 May 1 Thomas Killigrew succeeds Sir Henry Herbert as Master of the Revels. 1674 March 26 The new Theatre Royal, possibly designed by Christopher Wren, opens at Drury Lane. 1677 February 22 Charles Killigrew wins legal control of the King’s Company from his father, Thomas. 1677 February 24 Charles Killigrew also takes over his father’s position as Master of the Revels. 1678 At the Duke’s Company, Henry Harris retires and is replaced by William Smith as co-manager with Betterton. 1682 May Articles of Union between the two companies; the new United Company to perform at the both the Dorset Garden and Drury Lane theatres. 1685 February 6 Charles II dies; his brother James II becomes king. 1687 August 30 Charles Davenant sells his shares in the United Company and the Drury Lane theatre to his brother, Alexander.

289

1687 September 12 Alexander Davenant enters into an agreement with Thomas Skipwith to help finance his purchase. The papers are held by Christopher Rich. 1687 October 29 Alexander Davenant installs his brother, Thomas, as manager in place of Betterton and Smith. 1688 March 22 The share of the Duke’s Company which originally belonged to Sir William Davenant and had then been granted by him to Sir William Russell is transferred from the interim owners, Bowes and Roffey, to Christopher Rich. 1688 The “Glorious Revolution”—James II flees England. 1689 William and Mary accede to the throne. 1691 March 21 Alexander Davenant assigns his share in the rent of Drury Lane to Christopher Rich in trust for Thomas Skipwith. 1691 March 26 Articles of agreement on the division of Davenant’s shares—Rich receives 1/6; Skipwith 2, and the patent; Alexander will manage the theatre and keep the accounts which Rich is free to inspect. 1693 October 23 Alexander Davenant flees to the Canary Islands to avoid his creditors. Sir Thomas Skipwith and Christopher Rich now take control of the United Company. 1694 December 28 Queen Mary dies. 1694 November “The Petition of the Players”—a petition, signed by the senior actors and actresses of the United Company, led by Betterton,

was sent to Lord Chamberlain Dorset protesting against Christopher Rich’s management of the company and his treatment of the players.

1694 December 10 “The Reply of the Patentees”—a detailed refutation of the players’ grievances by the patent holders. 1695 March 25 Lord Chamberlain Dorset sides with the rebel actors and grants

them a license to perform at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Some

290

performers stay with Rich and Skipwith who are still operating the theatres at Drury Lane and Dorset Garden.

1702 March 8 William III dies; Anne becomes queen. 1703 John Vanbrugh begins his plans for a new theatre at the Haymarket where he intends to produce spectacular operas. 1704 December 14 Vanbrugh and Congreve are granted a license for a theatre company by the Lord Chamberlain. This makes no mention of the existing companies but Vanbrugh appears to have come to an arrangement with Betterton and the Lincoln’s Inn Fields company whereby the actors signed over their shares to him in return for salaries. 1705 April 9 Vanbrugh’s new theatre at the Haymarket opens; both opera and plays, acted by the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Company, will be performed here. 1705 July 19 Vanbrugh puts forward a proposal for a new union of the acting companies. 1705 July 19 Vanbrugh’s theatre company move back to the Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre premises until the Haymarket is finished. Apparently Vanbrugh rushed the opening of the Haymarket and moved the actors before the building was properly set up to accommodate both opera and acting companies. 1705 July The Drury Lane actors send a petition to the Lord Chamberlain against Vanbrugh’s proposed union of the companies. 1705 July 25 Rich replies to Vanbrugh and refuses to consider a union. 1705 October 20 Vanbrugh’s theatre company move out of Lincoln’s Inn Fields and back to the Haymarket theatre. 1705 December Congreve drops out of the management of the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Company due to financial reasons. 1706 August(?) Draft of an order of separation of the companies—operas and other musical entertainments to be produced only at Drury Lane and Dorset Garden; plays to be performed at the Haymarket. Such a separation is resisted by Rich who retains the right to perform

291

both plays and operas while Vanbrugh can produce plays only. 1706 August 14 An agreement is drawn up between Vanbrugh and Owen Swiney whereby Swiney is to rent the Haymarket theatre from Vanbrugh for seven years. Swiney will pay Vanbrugh ₤5 for every day the company acts and will then keep any remaining profits for himself. 1707 December Vanbrugh takes back control of the Haymarket with Swiney as manager. 1707 December 31 The Lord Chamberlain orders a union of the acting companies at Drury Lane, under Christopher Rich; John Vanbrugh is to have a monopoly of opera at the Haymarket. 1708 March 31 The actors Wilks, Cibber and Estcourt are appointed as managers of the Drury Lane Company. This contract included a change to system of actor benefits which allowed the management to claim a greater proportion of any profits, particularly from the lower ranked performers. 1709 Spring Rich extends this to all performers. 1709 March 4 Anne Oldfield writes a letter of complaint against Rich—after her benefit he deducted not only the agreed house charges, ₤40, but also claimed a third of her remaining profits, a further ₤31, for “the benefit of the patent.” 1709 March 10 Owen Swiney signs a partnership agreement with the actors Wilks, Doggett, and Cibber to form an acting company at the Haymarket. 1709 April 30 The Lord Chamberlain forbids the management at Drury Lane to deduct more than the house charges of ₤40 from actors benefits. 1709 March/April Other actors, such as Anne Oldfield, sign on with Swiney’s proposed company. 1709 June 6 Lord Chamberlain Kent issues an “Order of Silence” for Rich’s Drury Lane Company. 1709 July 8 The Lord Chamberlain grants permission for the Haymarket to hire any of the Drury Lane performers that it wishes. 1709 July The actors who remained at Drury Lane petition the Lord Chamberlain to be allowed to perform again.

292

1709 September(?) The patentees petition the Queen requesting an investigation of the Lord Chamberlain’s closure of Drury Lane. 1709 September 6 Rich tries to open a new season without permission; the theatre is shut down before the performance can begin. 1709 September 15 The new company at the Haymarket opens; by mid-October they are performing four plays and two operas per week. 1709 November Swiney requests confirmation of the Haymarket monopoly from the Lord Chamberlain—at this time one of the patentees, William Collier, is maneuvering to set up a company at Drury Lane. 1709 November 19 Collier applies for, and is granted, a license for a new company to perform at Drury Lane provided that he gives up his interest in the original patent and does not allow any of the other holders of that patent, including Christopher Rich, to be involved in the management of the new company. 1709 November 22 Collier takes forcible possession of the theatre at Drury Lane to find that Rich has removed anything of value but opens the season. 1709 November Swiney objects to the license and receives limited satisfaction

from the Lord Chamberlain in the form of an order guaranteeing the services of his principal players.

1710 January(?) Collier appoints Aaron Hill, an aspiring dramatist, to manage Drury Lane in place of the existing committee of seven actors. 1710 May The actors at Drury Lane riot against the management of Hill and Collier. 1710 June The actors and Christopher Rich take possession of the Drury Lane theatre; Hill and Collier are locked out; no performances during this summer. 1710 November A compromise is reached—a new genre split; opera will be at the Haymarket and plays will be performed by a new united company at Drury Lane. 1710 November 6 A license to operate an acting company is granted to Swiney, Wilks, Cibber and Doggett.

293

1710 November 16 Swiney sublets the opera concern to Collier on condition that the original terms of his agreement with Vanbrugh are maintained. 1710 December Swiney complains of his treatment by Wilks, Cibber, and Doggett; he requests that the Lord Chamberlain enforces the terms of the partnership agreement. 1711 January Swiney accuses his partners of withdrawing large amounts from the company funds. This was the beginning of the legal battle

between Swiney and the actor/managers over the company finances and management.

1711 March By this time Collier’s opera company is in serious financial trouble. 1711 May An agreement is reached between Swiney and his partners—

the partnership will be dissolved; Swiney will have no further part in the management of the acting company and will receive an annual stipend of ₤600.

1712 April 17 A license is granted to Collier, Wilks, Cibber, and Doggett for an acting company. 1712 April 17 A license is granted to Swiney for a company to perform opera and other musical entertainments. 1712 December 6 An agreement is drawn up making Collier a sleeping partner at Drury Lane and guaranteeing him ₤700 per annum. 1713 January Swiney is bankrupt and flees to the continent where he tries to sort out the company finances. John Jacob Heidegger takes over the management of the opera company. 1713 November 11 Actor Barton Booth is added to the managers listed on the license for Drury Lane. 1714 August 1 Queen Anne dies; George I accedes to the throne. 1714 August Wilks, Booth and Cibber manage to oust Collier from management. He is replaced by Richard Steele. 1714 September John Rich, son of Christopher, is managing a company at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. 1717 Rich begins to produce pantomimes at Lincoln’s Inn Fields.

294

1720 The “Little Theatre” opens in the Haymarket. 1720 January Steele is barred from active management at Drury Lane. 1727 June 11 George I dies; George II accedes to the throne. 1728 January Barton Booth retires from the stage due to ill health. 1729 October Thomas Odell opens a new theatre in Ayliffe Street, Goodman’s Fields. 1729 Sir Richard Steele dies; Cibber, Wilks and Booth apply for a new patent for Drury Lane. 1731 Henry Giffard takes over the Goodman’s Fields theatre. 1732 July 3 A new patent granted to Cibber, Wilks and Booth for Drury Lane. 1732 July 13 Booth sells half of his share in the patent to John Highmore. 1732 September 27 Robert Wilks dies. 1732 October Cibber rents his share in the patent to his son, Theophilus, and goes on salary. 1732 October Giffard opens a new theatre, designed by Edward Shephard, at Goodman’s Fields. 1732 John Rich moves his company from LIF to a new theatre, designed by Edward Shephard, at Covent Garden. 1733 May 10 Barton Booth dies. 1733 Mrs. Hester Booth sells her remaining share of the Drury Lane patent to Henry Giffard. 1733 Colley Cibber sells his share of the patent to John Highmore and John Ellys. 1733 Theophilus Cibber leads a revolt of the Drury Lane actors . 1733 Highmore sells out to John Fleetwood. 1734 March 12 T. Cibber reaches an agreement with Fleetwood and the “rebels” return to Drury Lane.

295

1735 March 5 Sir John Barnard moves for a parliamentary Bill which would restrict the number of theatres allowed to operate in London, and control what could be performed. This fails to become law. 1735 December 12 Fleetwood and Rich sign a profit-sharing agreement that might have been a first step towards a union between Drury Lane and Covent Garden had the two principals not had a falling out. 1736-37 Henry Fielding assembles and manages a company at the Little Haymarket. 1737 June 24 Robert Walpole’s “Licensing Act” becomes law. From now on anyone performing for money without a license or patent from the Lord Chamberlain’s office would be prosecuted as a

vagabond and all material to be performed was to be first submitted to the Lord Chamberlain’s office for approval.

1743 Garrick and Macklin lead an actors’ strike at Drury Lane. 1744 A riot ensues at Drury Lane caused by Fleetwood’s attempt to raise ticket prices; as a result he is forced to leave the theatre. 1744 December Fleetwood sells out to bankers Norton Amber and Richard Green who enter into a partnership with actor James Lacy to manage Drury Lane. 1747 April 9 David Garrick and James Lacy become joint owners/managers of Drury Lane. 1757 December 11 Colley Cibber dies.

296

Appendix B. Actors’ careers – Sample 1 (1670-1675), Sample 2 (1710-1715), Sample 3 (1750-1755) Table 1. Sample 1 (1670-1675) Actors’ career lengths. Notes: Names in bold indicate actors who can be classified as “major”. ■ after an actors name denotes that this performer began his career in some form of theatre before the Restoration in 1660; since extant theatrical records from before and during the interregnum are incomplete, therefore making exact calculations difficult, and this study is concerned with acting careers from 1660 onwards, then these years have not been counted in the “Career length” column. + after the number of years of a career indicates that this actor also had a stage career pre-1660 which has not been counted here. ‡ after a name denotes that this actor was also either a dancer or singer. ♦ after a name denotes that this actor spent part of his career in Ireland. Y in the “Family Connection” column indicates that “Yes” this actor had a family connection to the theatre world. m after Y denotes that this connection was through marriage. (P) after an actor’s name indicates that he was also a playwright.

Sample 1 1670-1675 Family Career Length Year of first Year of last

Connection (in years) performance performance Mr. Adams 4 1669 1673 Edward Angel ■ 13+ 1660 1673 Mr. Bamfield ‡ 1 1671 1671 William Beeston ■ Y 10+ 1660 1670 Richard Bell 4 1668 1672 Thomas Betterton ■ 50 1660 1710 Theophilus Bird Y 10 1664 1674 John Boman ‡ Y m 63 1675 1738 Mr. Burford ‡ 2 1670 1672 Nicholas Burt ■ 30+ 1660 1690 Philip Cademan Y 13 1660 1673 Peter Carlton 4 1673 1677 William Cartwright ■ Y 24+ 1660 1684 Mr. Chapman 1 1674 1674 John Chudlegh 5 1669 1674 Thomas Clark 21 1670 1691 John Cogan 8 1664 1672

297

Mr. Cory ? ? 1675 John Coysh Y m 30 1667 1697 John Crosby 10 1669 1679 Alexander Douglas 1 1672 1673 Edward Eastland 9 1670 1679 Rupert Eastland 1 1674 1675 William Field 1 1671 1672 Thomas Gillow 14 1673 1687 Cardell Goodman 14 1673 1687 James Gray 10 1674 1684 Philip Griffin ♦ 38 1670 1708 Joseph Haines ‡ 33 1667 1700 Thomas Hancock 15 1661 1676 Henry Harris ‡ 21 1660 1681 William (?) Harris 14 1663 1677 Charles Hart ■ 21+ 1660 1681 Richard Hart ‡ 8 1670 1678 Thomas Jevon ‡ Y m 13 1673 1686 Matthew Kempton 18 1663 1681 Nathaniel Kew (or Cue) 10 1672 1682 Edward Kynaston ■ 41+ 1660 1701 John Lacy ■ ‡ 21+ 1660 1681 John Lee Y m 7 1673 1680 Nathaniel Lee (P) 11 1672 1683 Anthony Leigh Y m 21 1671 1692 John Littlewood 3 1668 1671 Edward Lydall ■ 17+ 1660 1677 Matthew Medbourne (P) 17 1661 1678 Michael Mohun ■ 22+ 1660 1682 James Nokes 31 1660 1691 Henry Norris 26 1661 1687 Thomas Percival 21 1672 1693 John Perin 13 1667 1680 Martin Powell 25 1670 1695 Charles Rotch 1 1674 1675 Samuel Sandford ‡ 37 1661 1698 Robert Shatterell ■ 20+ 1660 1680 Mr. Sherwood ‡ 2 1671 1673 George Shirley ‡ 6 1668 1674 William Smith 31 1662 1693 Guilbert Soper 9 1674 1683

298

Cave Underhill 50 1660 1710 Mr. Venner 2 1673 1675 Marmaduke Watson ♦ 37 1660 1697 Theophilus Westwood 2 1670 1672 Mr. Whaley 1 1671 1671 Walter Williams ■ 11+ 1660 1671 ? Joseph Williams 33 1673 1706 John Wiltshire Y 10 1675 1685 William Wintershall ■ 17+ 1660 1677 John Young 14 1662 1676

Table 2. Sample 1 analysis of actors’ careers. Career Career Career Career

Span under 5

yrs over 20

yrs pre-1660

Total 68 1-63 yrs 16 (23%) 24 (35%) 13 (19%)

Major 11

(16%) 0 10 6

Minor 57

(84%) 16 14 7 Table 3. Sample 2 (1710-1715) Actors’ career lengths. Notes: Names in bold indicate actors who can be classified as “major”. These do not include such players as William Pinketheman, who though famous and exceedingly popular with audiences in their time, specialized in “low comedy” and would not have been able to carry a play in way which Barton Booth or Robert Wilks did. ‡ after a name denotes that this actor was also either a dancer or singer. ♦ after a name denotes that this actor spent part of his career in Ireland. “Year of last performance” refers to an actor’s last London performance; if he moved to Ireland, or the provinces, and did not return to the London stage then I have not counted these years in the length of career. Career lengths do, however, include seasons or years spent in non-London venues.

299

Y in the “Family Connection” column indicates that “Yes” this actor had a family connection to the theatre world. m after Y denotes that this connection was through marriage. (P) after an actor’s name indicates that he was also a playwright. Sample 2 1710-1715 Family Career Year of first Year of last

Connection (in

years) performance performance John Bickerstaff 18 1703 1721 Matthew Birkhead ‡ 15 1707 1722 Barton Booth ♦ Y m 30 1698 1728 Wiliam Bowen ♦ 34 1683 1717 Mr. Boman Y 32 1712 1744 John Boman ‡ Y m 63 1675 1738 Christopher Bullock (P) Y 15 1707 1722 William Bullock Y 44 1695 1739 James Carnaby 12 1701 1713 Colley Cibber (P) Y 55 1690 1745 Mr. Coker 6 1715 1721 John Corey (P) 34 1701 1735 Richard Cross ♦ 25 1700 1725 Thomas Doggett ‡ ♦ 26 1691 1717 Thomas Elrington ♦ Y 21 1709 1730 Richard Estcourt (P) 20 1693 1712 John Evans ♦ 22 1695 1717 Richard (?) Frisbe ♦ 18 1715 1733 Benjamin Griffin ‡ (P) 23 1714 1737 Thomas Griffith ‡ ♦ Y 37 1698 1735 John Hall ‡ ♦ 20 1714 1734 Joseph Harris ‡ Y m 30 1685 1715 Benjamin Husband ♦ 46 1695 1741 Benjamin Johnson ‡ 47 1695 1742 Theophilus Keene ♦ 21 1696 1717 Mr. Knapp ‡ 24 1694 1720 Francis Leigh Y 18 1701 1719 John Leigh ♦ Y 16 1709 1725 Mr. Maddocks 2 1714 1716 Josias, or Joseph Miller ‡ Y 34 1704 1738 John Mills Y m 41 1695 1736 William Mills Y 38 1712 1750 Henry Norris ‡ ♦ Y 31 1693 1724

300

John Ogden ‡ Y m 17 1715 1732 George Pack ‡ Y m 24 1700 1724 Mr. Pendry 7 1708 1715 William Pinkethman ‡ ♦ Y 36 1688 1724 George Powell ‡ (P) Y 27 1687 1714 James Quin ‡ ♦ 40 1713 1753 John Ray ‡ 39 1712 1751 Thomas Rogers 7 1715 1722 Lacy Ryan ♦ 48 1709 1757 Mr. Schoolding ‡ ♦ Y 25 1698 1723 Charles Shepherd 33 1710 1743 Thomas Smith ‡ ♦ Y 31 1702 1733 James Spiller ‡ Y m 21 1709 1730 John Thurmond ‡ ♦ Y 32 1695 1727 John Thurmond Jr. ‡ ♦ Y 29 1708 1737 Thomas Walker ‡ ♦ (P) 28 1714 1742 Mr. Weller 15 1703 1718 Robert Wilks ‡ ♦ Y 41 1691 1732 G. Wright ‡ Y 37 1713 1750

Table 4. Sample 2 - analysis of actors’ careers. Career Career Career Also Sang Part of career

Span under 5

yrs over 20

yrs or Danced in Ireland

Total 52 2-63 yrs 1 39 (75%) 25 (48%) 22 (42%)

Major 6

(11%) 0 6 (100%) 4 (67%) 4 (67%)

Minor 46

(89%) 1 33 (72%) 21 (46%) 18 (39%)

301

Table 5. Sample 3 (1750-1755) Actors’ career lengths. Notes: Names in bold indicate actors who can be classified as “major”. These do not include such players as Edward Shuter, who though famous and exceedingly popular with audiences in their time, specialized in “low comedy” and would not have been able to carry a play in the way in which David Garrick or Spranger Barry did. ‡ after a name denotes that this actor was also either a dancer or singer. ♦ after a name denotes that this actor spent part of his career in Ireland. “Year of last performance” refers to an actor’s last London performance; if he moved to Ireland, or the provinces, and did not return to the London stage then I have not counted these years in the length of career—these are indicated by an * after the year. Career lengths do, however, include seasons or years spent in non-London venues. Y in the “Family Connection” column indicates that “Yes” this actor had a family connection to the theatre world. m after Y denotes that this connection was through marriage. (P) after an actor’s name indicates that he was also a playwright.

Sample 3 1750-1755 Family Career length Year of first Year of last

connection (in years) performance performance Ellis Ackman 24 1750 1774 Mr. Allen 12 1745 1757 Mr. Anderson 29 1738 1767 John Arthur Y m 39 1735 1769 Charles Atkins ‡ 27 1748 1775 Thomas Baker ‡ Y m 37 1745 1782 John Barrington ♦ Y m 37 1735 1772 Spranger Barry ♦ Y m 32 1744 1776 John Beard ‡ Y m 34 1732 1766 James Bencraft ‡ Y m 33 1729 1762 Warner Bennet ‡ 27 1741 1768 Edward Berry ‡ 30 1729 1759 Charles Blakes ‡ 26 1736 1762 Mr. Blakey 20 1743 1763 George Bland ♦ Y m 3 1748 1751 Astley Bransby 33 1744 1777 Mr. Bridges ♦ Y m 9 1752 1761 Roger Bridgwater ‡ 31 1723 1754 Mr. Brown ‡ Y m 3 1748 1751

302

George Bulbrick ‡ 7 1750 1757 Edmund Burton Y m 26 1746 1772 Samuel Cautherley Y 25 1755 1775* Theophilus Cibber ‡ ♦ Y 38 1720 1758 Thomas Clough 29 1741 1770 William Collins ‡ 21 1741 1762 Patrick Costollo ♦ 21 1745 1766 Richard Cross ‡ Y 21 1729 1750 Richard Cross Jr. ‡ Y 12 1748 1760 John Cushing Y m 41 1741 1782 Thomas Davies ♦ Y m 26 1736 1762 John Dexter Y m 3 1751 1753* John Dunstall ‡ Y m 38 1740 1778 Michael Dyer ‡ ♦ Y m 32 1742 1774 Richard Elrington ♦ Y 22 1729 1751* Samuel Foote ♦ (P) 33 1744 1777 David Garrick ♦ (P) 35 1741 1776 William Gibson 32 1739 1771 J. Goodfellow ‡ ♦ 8 1744 1752* James Gray ‡ 32 1729 1761 William Havard (P) 39 1730 1769 Edward Holtom (Holtham) 34 1744 1778 Mr. Howard ‡ ♦ 10 1748 1758 Richard Hurst ‡ ♦ Y m 26 1754 1780* Harris James ‡ Y m 19 1732 1751 Thomas Jefferson ♦ Y m 30 1747 1777* John Johnston ‡ ♦ 39 1742 1781 James Lacy Y m 18 1724 1742 Robert Layfield ‡ ♦ Y 22 1729 1751 John Lee ♦ (P) Y m 32 1745 1777 Jonathan Legg ‡ 27 1751 1778 Philip Lewis ‡ ♦ Y 48 1740 1788 Thomas Lowe ‡ ♦ 42 1740 1782 Charles Macklin ‡ ♦ Y m 64 1725 1789 Henry Marr ‡ 37 1740 1777 John Marten 27 1737 1764 Robert Montgomery ♦ 2 1750 1752 Mr. Moore 17 1755 1772 Henry Mossop ♦ 14 1749 1763* Thomas Mozeen ‡ ♦ (P) Y m 26 1742 1768

303

Arthur Murphy (P) 3 1753 1756 James Oates ‡ ♦ Y 36 1715 1751 Mr. Paddick Y m 25 1735 1760 John Palmer Y m 20 1748 1768 James Quin ‡ ♦ 40 1713 1753 James Raftor ‡ Y 37 1733 1770 John Ray 39 1712 1751 Samuel Redman ♦ 40 1735 1775 Frederick Charles Reinhold ‡ Y 30 1755 1785 Mr. Ricard ♦ 5 1750 1755 Issac Ridout Y m 29 1731 1760 Ellis Roberts ‡ Y 35 1728 1763 Edward Rooker 26 1748 1774 David Ross ‡ ♦ 38 1749 1787 Lacey Ryan ♦ 50 1709 1759 Henry Scrase 15 1749 1764 Thomas Sheridan ♦ 44 1732 1776 Edward Shuter ‡ ♦ Y m 32 1744 1776 Mr. Simpson Y m 24 1733 1757 Mr. Slim 1 1754 1754 Charles Smith ‡ ♦ 43 1726 1769 Richard Smith ‡ Y m 40 1741 1781 John Sowdon ‡ ♦ 24 1747 1771 Issac Sparks ‡ ♦ Y 37 1734 1771 Luke Sparks ♦ Y 33 1732 1765 Mr. Stevens 7 1745 1752 George Alexander Stevens ♦ Y m 31 1741 1773* Michael Stoppelaer ‡ ♦ Y 47 1730 1777 James Taswell Y m 30 1728 1758 Mr. Tomlinson 34 1747 1781 Howard Usher ♦ Y m 60 1739 1799 Henry Vaughan ‡ ♦ Y 35 1731 1766 William Vaughan ‡ ♦ Y 17 1740 1757 Joseph Vernon ‡ ♦ 31 1750 1781 Mr. Vincent 1 1750 1750 Thomas Wogan Wallace ‡ 24 1754 1778 Edward White ♦ Y m 24 1742 1766 John Wignell Y m 42 1732 1774

304

James Wilder ‡ ♦ (P) Y m 7 1748 1755* Richard Winstone ‡ Y m 21 1732 1753* Henry Woodward ‡ ♦ Y m 48 1729 1777 James Worsdale ‡ ♦ (P) 23 1737 1760 Richard Yates ‡ Y m 47 1736 1783* Thomas Yeates ‡ Y 27 1725 1752

Table 6. Sample 3 - analysis of actors’ careers. Career Career Career Sang or Ireland

Span under 5

yrs over 20

yrs danced

Total 103 1-64 yrs 8 (8%) 81 (79%)

50 (49%)

46 (45%)

Major 5

(5%) 0 5 (100%) 3 (60%) 5 (100%)

Minor 98

(95%) 8 76 (76%) 47

(48%) 42 (42%)

305

Appendix C.

Will transcriptions

Hester Booth

In the name of God Amen,

I Hester Booth of Great Russell Street in the parish of Saint-George Bloomsbury in the

county of Middlesex widow do make as my last will and testament in the manner

following (that is to say) my body I desire may be buried near the remains of my late

mother and of my late husband Barton Booth Esquire interred in the Church of Cowley in

the County of Middlesex.

I give the sum of ten guineas to be distributed by my executors herein after mass among

such of the poor Widows of Cowley parish not receiving alms of the parish as they my

executors shall think fit. I give to Mrs. Elizabeth Lally the widow of Michael Lally

Esquire deceased my diamond ring with two hearts joined together. I give to Mrs.

Frances Perrin my diamond ring set round the hoop with sparks. I give and bequeath to

Edward Eliot of Port Eliot in the county of Cornwall Esquire one of my executors herein

after named all my pictures except the oval portrait of myself and the portrait of my said

late husband both of which hang in the back parlour of my house in Great Russell Street

and which said portrait pictures I give to Charles Cooke Esquire who married Elizabeth

the daughter of the Honourable Harriet Hamilton late of Wigmore Street Cavendish

Square widow deceased. I give to Mrs. Ann Evans who formerly lived in my service

fifty pounds. I give to Mrs. Annabella Plunkenet the wife of Mr. Thomas Plunkenet one

306

hundred pounds to be paid into her own proper hands for her own separate use and

benefit nothwithstanding her Jointure and I so will and direct that her receipt shall be a

full and sufficient discharge to my Executors. For the same I give to Margaret Dobson

who formerly lived in my service ten pounds. I give to each of my maid servants who

now live with me in case they respectively shall be living with me at the time of my

decease five pounds for mourning and also all my wearing apparel to be divided among

them in such a manner and proportions as Mrs. Bonfoy and Mrs. Neale herein after

named shall think proper. I give to my servant Thomas Child, in case he shall continue to

live with me until the time of my death an annuity or yearly sum of twenty pounds for

and during his natural life, such annuity to be paid him quarterly without any deductions

in equal proportions, the first payment to be made to him at the end of the calendar month

next after my decease and I give to the said Thomas Child five pounds for mourning. I

give to the Trustees of the Charity School of the Parish of Saint-George Bloomsbury fifty

guineas to be by them applyed for the use and benefit of said School. I give to Benjamin

Victor of Maiden Lane Covent Garden Esquire fifty guineas. I give to the two Mrs.

Blakes being Sisters and living in Great Russell Street five pounds a piece for rings. I

give to Mr. Beruda of Southampton Row who hath aced as my agent twenty pounds. I

give to Mrs. Ann Bonfoy daughter of Mrs. Bonfoy of Wimpole Street and Mr. John

Hamilton the son of the said Harriet Hamilton deceased twenty guineas apiece. I give to

Mrs. Elizabeth Cooke the wife of the said Charles Cooke the sum of two hundred pounds

and I give to Mrs. Eliot the wife of said Edward Eliot twenty guineas and I so constitute

and appoint the said Edward Eliot and Samuel Salt of the Inner Temple London Esquire

Executors of this my will and do give to the said Samuel Salt the sum of one hundred

307

pounds fro his trouble in the Execution of the same will and I so give devise and

bequeath unto the said Edward Eliot and Samuel Salt their heirs executors and

administrators all the rest and residue of my near and personal estate where soever and of

what nature or kind soever. In trust that they the said Edward Eliot and Samuel Salt or

the survivor of them his heirs or Executors so and shall call in sell and dispose thereof

and after payment of my debts and funeral expenses and the Legacies herein before

bequeath and subject to the said annuity to the said Thomas Child do and shall lay out

and invest one fourth of the residue of the moneys to arise by such sales and of Other the

moneys to be received by them on account of my personal Estate in Government or

Parliamentary Securities at interest in their names. In trust that they the said Edward Eliot

and Samuel Salt and the survivors of them and the Executors and administrators of such

survivor do and shall receive the dividends interest and proceed of the said fourth part so

to be invested from time to time as the same shall become due and payable and shall and

do pay the same to Mrs. Harriet Neale the wife of Pendock Neale Esquire and daughter of

the said Harriet Hamilton deceased, for and during the term of her natural life for her own

sole and separate use and benefit notwithstanding her Jointure and her receipt and from

time to time shall be a sufficient discharge to my said trustees for the same and I so give

and bequeath the said fourth part directed to be invested as aforesaid from and

immediately after the decease of the said Harriet Neale in case she shall survive me and

the other three fourths of the said residue of the moneys to arise and be produced by the

sale of or to be received from or on account of my real and personal Estates and also the

said fourth part thereof in case the said Harriet Neale shall die in my life time

immediately after my decease unto John Eliot now Governor of west Florida the said Ann

308

Bonfoy and Catherine Eliot son and daughters of the said Harriet Hamilton deceased or to

such of them as shall be living at the time of my death to be equally divided among and

between them if more than one of them then living share and share alike and if only one

of them shall survive me then the whole to such one of them and so I will and direct that

my said Executors and Trustees for the time being shall pay assign and transfer the sums

accordingly and though I have given less to the said Edward Eliot and Mrs. Cooke than to

their said brother and sisters I hope and desire they will not mistake it to any difference in

my affections towards them since I have an equal regard for all but to their different

situations in life and lastly I do hereby revoke all former and other wills by me at any

time heretofore made and do make this only my last will and Testament by witness

wherof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this twenty second day of February in the

year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty nine. Hester Booth

Codicil

I give to Mrs. Ann Bonfoy my Silver Tea Kettle and also my Silver Tea Table and all the

rest of my Silver Tea Equipage that is in my Ebony Tea Box. Hester Booth

309

Barton Booth

Wholly resignd and Submitting to the Will of God

I Barton Booth of the Parish of St Pauls Covent Garden so make and ordain this my last

Will and Testament as follows. I bequeath to an old servant to my father Christian

Hannah the sum of five pounds. All and singular my Estate as well seal as personal ready

money Bonds notes plate, Jewells Goods and Chattells of what kind or nature soever I

give and bequeath absolutely to my dearest and well beloved wife Hester Booth her heirs

Executors and assigns for ever and I appoint and constitute my said wife Hester Booth

full and sole executrix of this my last Will and Testament hereby repealing and making

void all other wills made. ‘Tis my dearest desire to be buried privately and without

ostentation in Cowley Church near Uxbridge. As I have been a man much known and

talked of my not leaving legayces to my Relations may give occasion to censorious

people to reflect upon my Conduct in this latter Act of my life. Therefore I think it

necessary to assert that I have considered my Circumstances and finding upon a strict

Examination, that all I am now possessed of, does not amount to two thirds of the fortune

my said Wife brought me on the Day of our Marriage, together with the yearly Additions

and Advantages since arising from her Laborious Employment upon the Stage during

twelve years past; I thought myself bound by Honesty, Honour, and Gratitude due to her

constant affection not to give away any Part of the remainder of her Fortune at my death,

having already bestowed in free Gifts upon my Sister Barbara Rogers upwards of £1300

out of my Wife’s Substance and full £400 of her money upon my undeserving Brother

George Booth (besides the Gifts they received before my Marriage) and all these Benefits

were conferred on my said Brother and Sister from time to time at the Earnest

310

Solicitation of my Wife who was perpetually intreating me to continue the Allowances I

gave my Relations before my Marriage. The Inhuman return that has been made my wife

for these Obligations by my sister I forbear to mention. Once more and making void all

former Wills I declare this present Testament to be my true and last Will so witness

whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this second day of June Anno Domni one

thousand seven hundred thirty and one and in the fourth year of the reign of our

Sovereign Lord King George the Second. All written in my own hand. B. Booth.

311

Anne Oldfield

In the Name of God. XXXIIIII

I Anne Oldfield of the parish of St George Hanover-Square in the County of Middlesex

being of sound and disposing mind and memory do make and ordain my last will and

testament as follows. I hereby ratify and confirm the disposition I have made by deed by

me duly executed—of the house in which I now inhabit and dwel in Grosvenor Street in

the parish of St George Hanover I the County of Middlesex for the benefit of my son

Charles Churchill but in case my said son Charles Churchill shall depart this life under

the age of one and twenty years without having any Issue living at his Death, then and in

such case I give and desire the said house for all the residue and remainder of my term

therein as shall be then remaining and unexpired unto my son Arthur Mainwaring in case

he shall be then living. But if the said Arthur Mainwaring be dead then to the

Honourable Brigadier General Charles Churchill. Item, I hereby will and direct my

Executors herein aftermentioned to turn and convert all my Estate and Effects that I shall

leave behind me at my death except my said house in Grosvenor Street and some small

trifles that I may direct to be given away and except what is already placed out in the

funds or in other publick securities into ready money with all convenient speed and that

the money arising from the sale of my said estate placed out at Interest on Government

and other good security at the discretion of my said Executors’ whom I hereby direct to

pay all my just Debts in the first place and after my debts paid and the Expense of my

funeral defrayed I hereby give and bequeath the following legacies to which I submit my

whole Estate and which I direct my Executors o pay accordingly, that is to say I will and

312

direct my Executors to pay the interest or produce of five thousand pounds to my son

Arthur Mainwaring by half yearly payments, the first payment to commence from the day

of my death until he shall attain the age of thirty years—if he shall so long live and upon

his attaining that age then I direct that the sum of five thousand pounds be paid out of my

Estate to this said Arthur Mainwaring to be at his own disposal but in case he shall dye

before he attains that age then I give and bequeath the said sum of five thousand pounds

to my son Charles Churchill if he be living at such the death of the said Arthur

Mainwaring but if my said son Charles Churchill be then likewise dead then and in such

case I give and bequeath the said sum of five thousand pounds to the honourable

Brigadier General Charles Churchill his Executors and administrators. Then I give and

bequeath to my mother Mrs. Anne Oldfield the sum of ten guineas in money to be paid to

her immediately after my decease and to also give and bequeath to my said mother Mrs.

Anne Oldfield the sum of sixty pounds per annum for her life to be paid to her by my

Executors quarterly at four equal payments in the year the first payment to be made on

the quarter day next, following the day of my death. Item, I give and bequeath to my

aunt Jane Gourlaw ten Guineas in money to be paid her immediately after my decease

and in case my said aunt Jane Gourlaw shall survive my said mother Anne Oldfield then

and in such Case but not otherwise I give and bequeath to my said aunt Jane Gourlaw the

yearly sum or annuity of thirty pounds per annum for her life the said yearly sum or

annuity to be paid to her quarterly by four even payments in the quarter first payment this

to begin and commence from the quarter day that shall most happen from the death of my

said mother. Item, I give and bequeath unto Mrs. Margaret Saunders the yearly amount

or annuity of ten pounds per annum to be paid to her during her life by four quarterly

313

payments the first payment thereof to be made out the quarter day next following the day

of my death. Item, I will that what shall remain of the yearly produce of my Estate after

payment of my said debts and legacies shall from time to time be put out at Interest by

my Executors and added to the bulk of my Estate by way of interest thereof and

immediately upon and from and after the death of said Anne Oldfield my mother, the said

Jane Gourlaw my aunt and the said Margaret Saunders and the deaths of the survivor of

them I will and direct that my whole Estate not herein before by me disposed of and that

shall then remain be divided into three equal parts or shares two parts or shares thereof to

go and be paid to my said son Arthur Mainwaring and the remaining third part or share

thereof to be paid to my said son Charles Churchill but in case my sons Arthur

Mainwaring and Charles Churchill both or either of them should be dead then the part or

share of him or them that is dead to go and be paid to the said Brigadier General Charles

Churchill his executors and administrators and I do hereby nominate and appoint the

honourable John Harvey Esq. commonly called Lord Harvey, John Hedges of Finchley in

the County of Middlesex Esq. and the honourable Brigadier General Charles Churchill

and the survivors of them to be executors of this my will and I do hereby revoke all

former and other wills by me at any time heretofore made and do publish and declare this

to be my last Will and Testament. And witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and

seal—this twenty seventh day of June in the fourth year of King George the Second Anno

Domni 1730. Oldfield signed.

A Codicill to my last will beginning date the 15th day of September 1730. I do hereby

give and bequeath to my Aunt Jane Gourlaw the yearly sum or annuity of ten pounds to

314

be paid her during the life of my Mother Anne Oldfield to commence from the day of my

death and to determine upon the death of my Mother Anne Oldfield when the said

annuity of ten pounds shall revert and go back to my Executors for the use and purpose

directed in my Will and I hereby these other things ratify and confirm my said last Will.

In witness hereto of I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of September 1730. Anne

Oldfield.

315

Jane Green

This is the Last Will and Testament of Mrs. Jane Green of the parish of Clifton in the

County of Glouester widow. First I give and graise unto my three sons Charles Green

John Hippisley Green and Henry Green all that my Messuage and Tenement with the

Garden thereunto adjoining and belonging situate at Jacobs Wells within the said parish

of Clifton which I hold under the Incorporated Society of Merchant Venturers of the city

of Bristol which I hold for the term of my own Life and the lives of the said John

Hippisley Green and Henry Green my sons the rents and profits to be equally divided

between them and I do also give unto my said three sons all my household furniture plate

linen and china and all my wearing apparel to be equally divided and distributed between

them. But if they cannot agree upon the equal distribution and division of my said Estate

and effects and it shall appear more eligible to sell the same then I give the same part

thereof to Samuel Hall of Coalrot(?) near Sainboth(?) Esquire my Executor named in

trust to sell the same and every part thereof by public Auction and to give the moneys

arising from the sale thereof to and amongst my said three sons in equal proportions and

as to all my other estate and effects and sums of money out and owing to me at the time

of my death and more particular as to what moneys I shall die possessed of now invested

in the funds of Great Britain commonly called the five percents. It is my will and desire

that after all of my just debts and the costs of proving this my will the net product thereof

after the same shall be sold out for the highest price they are then at with all the sums of

money out to be equally divided amongst my said sons in equal thirds and I constitute

and appoint the said Samuel Hall sole Executor of this my will hereby revoking all

316

former wills and ordaining this only to be my last will and Testament in witness whereof

I have hereunto set my hand and seal the twentieth day of November in the year of our

Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty six. Jane Green

317

VITA

SUSAN M. MARTIN Education 2008 Ph.D., English Pennsylvania State University 1995 M.A., (Honours), Drama & Theatre Studies University College Cork, Ireland 1988 Higher Diploma in Education University College Cork, Ireland 1987 B.A., (Honours), English and Geography University College Cork, Ireland Employment August 2006 – May 2008 Research assistantship on the Hemingway Letters Project Pennsylvania State University Fall 2002 – Spring 2006 Teaching assistantship

Pennsylvania State University

Fall 2001 – Summer 2002 Teacher of English and Communications Cork College of Commerce, Ireland

Fall 1988 – Summer 2001 Teacher of English, Theatre Studies, and Geography Schools in Ireland and the U.K.