CHAPTER IX.

A small Apology for writing on. The different State of the two Companies. Wilks invited over from Dublin. Estcourt, from the same Stage, the Winter following. Mrs. Oldfield's first Admission to the Theatre-Royal. Her Character. The great Theatre in the Hay-Market built for Betterton's Company. It Answers not their Expectation. Some Observations upon it. A Theatrical State Secret.

I now begin to doubt that the Gayeté du Cœur in which I first undertook this Work may have drawn me into a more laborious Amusement than I shall know how to away with: For though I cannot say I have yet jaded my Vanity, it is not impossible but by this time the most candid of my Readers may want a little Breath; especially when they consider that all this Load I have heap'd upon their Patience contains but seven Years of the forty three I pass'd upon the Stage, the History of which Period I have enjoyn'd my self to transmit to the Judgment (or Oblivion) of Posterity.[326] However, even my Dulness will find somebody to do it right; if my Reader is an ill-natur'd one, he will be as much pleased to find me a Dunce in my old Age as possibly he may have been to prove me a brisk Blockhead in my Youth: But if he has no Gall to gratify, and would (for his simple Amusement) as well know how the Playhouses went on forty Years ago as how they do now, I will honestly tell him the rest of my Story as well as I can. Lest therefore the frequent Digressions that have broke in upon it may have entangled his Memory, I must beg leave just to throw together the Heads of what I have already given him, that he may again recover the Clue of my Discourse.

Let him then remember, from the Year 1660 to 1682,[327] the various Fortune of the (then) King's and Duke's two famous Companies; their being reduced to one united; the Distinct Characters I have given of thirteen Actors, which in the Year 1690 were the most famous then remaining of them; the Cause of their being again divided in 1695, and the Consequences of that Division 'till 1697; from whence I shall lead them to our Second Union in——Hold! let me see——ay, it was in that memorable Year when the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland were made one. And I remember a Particular that confirms me I am right in my Chronology; for the Play of Hamlet being acted soon after, Estcourt, who then took upon him to say any thing, added a fourth Line to Shakespear's Prologue to the Play, in that Play which originally consisted but of three, but Estcourt made it run thus:

For Us, and for our Tragedy,

Here stooping to your Clemency,

[This being a Year of Unity,]

We beg your Hearing patiently.[328]

This new Chronological Line coming unexpectedly upon the Audience, was received with Applause, tho' several grave Faces look'd a little out of Humour at it. However, by this Fact, it is plain our Theatrical Union happen'd in 1707.[329] But to speak of it in its Place I must go a little back again.

From 1697 to this Union both Companies went on without any memorable Change in their Affairs, unless it were that Betterton's People (however good in their Kind) were most of them too far advanc'd in Years to mend; and tho' we in Drury-Lane were too young to be excellent, we were not too old to be better. But what will not Satiety depreciate? For though I must own and avow that in our highest Prosperity I always thought we were greatly their Inferiors; yet, by our good Fortune of being seen in quite new Lights, which several new-written Plays had shewn us in, we now began to make a considerable Stand against them. One good new Play to a rising Company is of inconceivable Value. In Oroonoko[330] (and why may I not name another, tho' it be my own?) in Love's last Shift, and in the Sequel of it, the Relapse, several of our People shew'd themselves in a new Style of Acting, in which Nature had not as yet been seen. I cannot here forget a Misfortune that befel our Society about this time, by the loss of a young Actor, Hildebrand Horden,[331] who was kill'd at the Bar of the Rose-Tavern,[332] in a frivolous, rash, accidental Quarrel; for which a late Resident at Venice, Colonel Burgess, and several other Persons of Distinction, took their Tryals, and were acquitted. This young Man had almost every natural Gift that could promise an excellent Actor; he had besides a good deal of Table-wit and Humour, with a handsome Person, and was every Day rising into publick Favour. Before he was bury'd, it was observable that two or three Days together several of the Fair Sex, well dress'd, came in Masks (then frequently worn) and some in their own Coaches, to visit this Theatrical Heroe in his Shrowd. He was the elder Son of Dr. Horden, Minister of Twickenham, in Middlesex. But this Misfortune was soon repair'd by the Return of Wilks from Dublin (who upon this young Man's Death was sent for over) and liv'd long enough among us to enjoy that Approbation from which the other was so unhappily cut off. The Winter following,[333] Estcourt, the famous Mimick, of whom I have already spoken, had the same Invitation from Ireland, where he had commenc'd Actor: His first Part here, at the Theatre-Royal, was the Spanish Friar, in which, tho' he had remembred every Look and Motion of the late Tony Leigh so far as to put the Spectator very much in mind of him, yet it was visible through the whole, notwithstanding his Exactness in the Out-lines, the true Spirit that was to fill up the Figure was not the same, but unskilfully dawb'd on, like a Child's Painting upon the Face of a Metzotinto: It was too plain to the judicious that the Conception was not his own, but imprinted in his Memory by another, of whom he only presented a dead Likeness.[334] But these were Defects not so obvious to common Spectators; no wonder, therefore, if by his being much sought after in private Companies, he met with a sort of Indulgence, not to say Partiality, for what he sometimes did upon the Stage.

In the Year 1699, Mrs. Oldfield was first taken into the House, where she remain'd about a Twelvemonth almost a Mute[335] and unheeded, 'till Sir John Vanbrugh, who first recommended her, gave her the Part of Alinda in the Pilgrim revis'd. This gentle Character happily became that want of Confidence which is inseparable from young Beginners, who, without it, seldom arrive to any Excellence: Notwithstanding, I own I was then so far deceiv'd in my Opinion of her, that I thought she had little more than her Person that appear'd necessary to the forming a good Actress; for she set out with so extraordinary a Diffidence, that it kept her too despondingly down to a formal, plain (not to say) flat manner of speaking. Nor could the silver Tone of her Voice 'till after some time incline my Ear to any Hope in her favour. But Publick Approbation is the warm Weather of a Theatrical Plant, which will soon bring it forward to whatever Perfection Nature has design'd it. However, Mrs. Oldfield (perhaps for want of fresh Parts) seem'd to come but slowly forward 'till the Year 1703.[336] Our Company that Summer acted at the Bath during the Residence of Queen Anne at that Place. At that time it happen'd that Mrs. Verbruggen, by reason of her last Sickness (of which she some few Months after dy'd) was left in London; and though most of her Parts were, of course, to be dispos'd of, yet so earnest was the Female Scramble for them, that only one of them fell to the Share of Mrs. Oldfield, that of Leonora in Sir Courtly Nice; a Character of good plain Sense, but not over elegantly written. It was in this Part Mrs. Oldfield surpris'd me 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 to little or no purpose; and she mutter'd out her Words in a sort of mifty[337] 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 experienc'd Actor.[338] Perhaps it may not be unacceptable, if I enlarge a little more upon the Theatrical Character of so memorable an Actress.[339]

SIR JOHN VANBRUGH.

Though this Part of Leonora in itself was of so little value, that when she got more into Esteem it was one of the several she gave away to inferior Actresses; yet it was the first (as I have observ'd) that corrected my Judgment of her, and confirm'd me in a strong Belief that she could not fail in very little time of being what she was afterwards allow'd to be, the foremost Ornament of our Theatre. Upon this unexpected Sally, then, of the Power and Disposition of so unforeseen an Actress, it was that I again took up the two first Acts of the Careless Husband, which I had written the Summer before, and had thrown aside in despair of having Justice done to the Character of Lady Betty Modish by any one Woman then among us; Mrs. Verbruggen being now in a very declining state of Health, and Mrs. Bracegirdle out of my Reach and engag'd in another Company: But, as I have said, Mrs. Oldfield having thrown out such new Proffers of a Genius, I was no longer at a loss for Support; my Doubts were dispell'd, and I had now a new Call to finish it: Accordingly, the Careless Husband[340] took its Fate upon the Stage the Winter following, in 1704. Whatever favourable Reception this Comedy has met with from the Publick, it would be unjust in me not to place a large Share of it to the Account of Mrs. Oldfield; not only from the uncommon Excellence of her Action, but even from her personal manner of Conversing. There are many Sentiments in the Character of Lady Betty Modish that I may almost say were originally her own, or only dress'd with a little more care than when they negligently fell from her lively Humour: Had her Birth plac'd her in a higher Rank of Life, she had certainly appear'd in reality what in this Play she only excellently acted, an agreeably gay Woman of Quality a little too conscious of her natural Attractions. I have often seen her in private Societies, where Women of the best Rank might have borrow'd some part of her Behaviour without the least Diminution of their Sense or Dignity. And this very Morning, where I am now writing at the Bath, November 11, 1738, the same Words were said of her by a Lady of Condition, whose better Judgment of her Personal Merit in that Light has embolden'd me to repeat them. After her Success in this Character of higher Life, all that Nature had given her of the Actress seem'd to have risen to its full Perfection: But the Variety of her Power could not be known 'till she was seen in variety of Characters; which, as fast as they fell to her, she equally excell'd in. Authors had much more from her Performance than they had reason to hope for from what they had written for her; and none had less than another, but as their Genius in the Parts they allotted her was more or less elevated.

In the Wearing of her Person she was particularly fortunate; her Figure was always improving to her Thirty-sixth Year; but her Excellence in acting was never at a stand: And the last new Character she shone in (Lady Townly) was a Proof that she was still able to do more, if more could have been done for her.[341] 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 they were as desirous of being left to their own Capacity, which they then thought would be disgrac'd by their seeming to want any 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. With all this Merit she was tractable and less presuming in her Station than several that had not half her Pretensions to be troublesome: But she lost nothing by her easy Conduct; she had every thing she ask'd, which she took care should be always reasonable, because she hated as much to be grudg'd as deny'd a Civility. Upon her extraordinary Action in the Provok'd Husband,[342] the Menagers made her a Present of Fifty Guineas more than her Agreement, which never was more than a Verbal one; for they knew she was above deserting them to engage upon any other Stage, and she was conscious they would never think it their Interest to give her cause of Complaint. In the last two Months of her Illness, when she was no longer able to assist them, she declin'd receiving her Sallary, tho' by her Agreement she was entitled to it. Upon the whole she was, to the last Scene she acted, the Delight of her Spectators: Why then may we not close her Character with the same Indulgence with which Horace speaks of a commendable Poem:

Ubi plura nitent—non ego paucis

Offendar maculis——[343]

Where in the whole such various Beauties shine,

'Twere idle upon Errors to refine.[344]

What more might be said of her as an Actress may be found in the Preface to the Provok'd Husband, to which I refer the Reader.[345]

With the Acquisition, then, of so advanc'd a Comedian as Mrs. Oldfield, and the Addition of one so much in Favour as Wilks, and by the visible Improvement of our other Actors, as Penkethman, Johnson, Bullock, and I think I may venture to name myself in the Number (but in what Rank I leave to the Judgment of those who have been my Spectators) the Reputation of our Company began to get ground; Mrs. Oldfield and Mr. Wilks, by their frequently playing against one another in our best Comedies, very happily supported that Humour and Vivacity which is so peculiar to our English Stage. The French, our only modern Competitors, seldom give us their Lovers in such various Lights: In their Comedies (however lively a People they are by nature) their Lovers are generally constant, simple Sighers, both of a Mind, and equally distress'd about the Difficulties of their coming together; which naturally makes their Conversation so serious that they are seldom good Company to their Auditors: And tho' I allow them many other Beauties of which we are too negligent, yet our Variety of Humour has Excellencies that all their valuable Observance of Rules have never yet attain'd to. By these Advantages, then, we began to have an equal Share of the politer sort of Spectators, who, for several Years, could not allow our Company to stand in any comparison with the other. But Theatrical Favour, like Publick Commerce, will sometimes deceive the best Judgments by an unaccountable change of its Channel; the best Commodities are not always known to meet with the best Markets. To this Decline of the Old Company many Accidents might contribute; as the too distant Situation of their Theatre, or their want of a better, for it was not then in the condition it now is, but small, and poorly fitted up within the Walls of a Tennis Quaree Court, which is of the lesser sort.[346] Booth, who was then a young Actor among them, has often told me of the Difficulties Betterton then labour'd under and complain'd of: How impracticable he found it to keep their Body to that common Order which was necessary for their Support;[347] of their relying too much upon their intrinsick Merit; and though but few of them were young even when they first became their own Masters, yet they were all now ten Years older, and consequently more liable to fall into an inactive Negligence, or were only separately diligent for themselves in the sole Regard of their Benefit-Plays; which several of their Principals knew, at worst, would raise them Contributions that would more than tolerably subsist them for the current Year. But as these were too precarious Expedients to be always depended upon, and brought in nothing to the general Support of the Numbers who were at Sallaries under them, they were reduc'd to have recourse to foreign Novelties; L'Abbeè, Balon, and Mademoiselle Subligny,[348] three of the then most famous Dancers of the French Opera, were, at several times, brought over at extraordinary Rates, to revive that sickly Appetite which plain Sense and Nature had satiated.[349] But alas! there was no recovering to a sound Constitution by those mere costly Cordials; the Novelty of a Dance was but of a short Duration, and perhaps hurtful in its consequence; for it made a Play without a Dance less endur'd than it had been before, when such Dancing was not to be had. But perhaps their exhibiting these Novelties might be owing to the Success we had met with in our more barbarous introducing of French Mimicks and Tumblers the Year before; of which Mr. Rowe thus complains in his Prologue to one of his first Plays:

Must Shakespear, Fletcher, and laborious Ben,

Be left for Scaramouch and Harlequin?[350]

While the Crowd, therefore, so fluctuated from one House to another as their Eyes were more or less regaled than their Ears, it could not be a Question much in Debate which had the better Actors; the Merit of either seem'd to be of little moment; and the Complaint in the foregoing Lines, tho' it might be just for a time, could not be a just one for ever, because the best Play that ever was writ may tire by being too often repeated, a Misfortune naturally attending the Obligation to play every Day; not that whenever such Satiety commences it will be any Proof of the Play's being a bad one, or of its being ill acted. In a word, Satiety is seldom enough consider'd by either Criticks, Spectators, or Actors, as the true, not to say just Cause of declining Audiences to the most rational Entertainments: And tho' I cannot say I ever saw a good new Play not attended with due Encouragement, yet to keep a Theatre daily open without sometimes giving the Publick a bad old one, is more than I doubt the Wit of human Writers or Excellence of Actors will ever be able to accomplish. And as both Authors and Comedians may have often succeeded where a sound Judgment would have condemn'd them, it might puzzle the nicest Critick living to prove in what sort of Excellence the true Value of either consisted: For if their Merit were to be measur'd by the full Houses they may have brought; if the Judgment of the Crowd were infallible; I am afraid we shall be reduc'd to allow that the Beggars Opera was the best-written Play, and Sir Harry Wildair[351] (as Wilks play'd it) was the best acted Part, that ever our English Theatre had to boast of. That Critick, indeed, must be rigid to a Folly that would deny either of them their due Praise, when they severally drew such Numbers after them; all their Hearers could not be mistaken; and yet, if they were all in the right, what sort of Fame will remain to those celebrated Authors and Actors that had so long and deservedly been admired before these were in Being. The only Distinction I shall make between them is, That to write or act like the Authors or Actors of the latter end of the last Century, I am of Opinion will be found a far better Pretence to Success than to imitate these who have been so crowded to in the beginning of this. All I would infer from this Explanation is, that tho' we had then the better Audiences, and might have more of the young World on our Side, yet this was no sure Proof that the other Company were not, in the Truth of Action, greatly our Superiors. These elder Actors, then, besides the Disadvantages I have mention'd, having only the fewer true Judges to admire them, naturally wanted the Support of the Crowd whose Taste was to be pleased at a cheaper Rate and with coarser Fare. To recover them, therefore, to their due Estimation, a new Project was form'd of building them a stately Theatre in the Hay-Market,[352] by Sir John Vanbrugh, for which he raised a Subscription of thirty Persons of Quality, at one hundred Pounds each, in Consideration whereof every Subscriber, for his own Life, was to be admitted to whatever Entertainments should be publickly perform'd there, without farther Payment for his Entrance. Of this Theatre I saw the first Stone laid, on which was inscrib'd The little Whig, in Honour to a Lady of extraordinary Beauty, then the celebrated Toast and Pride of that Party.[353]

In the Year 1706,[354] when this House was finish'd, Betterton and his Co-partners dissolved their own Agreement, and threw themselves under the Direction of Sir John Vanbrugh and Mr. Congreve, imagining, perhaps, that the Conduct of two such eminent Authors might give a more prosperous Turn to their Condition; that the Plays it would now be their Interest to write for them would soon recover the Town to a true Taste, and be an Advantage that no other Company could hope for; that in the Interim, till such Plays could be written, the Grandeur of their House, as it was a new Spectacle, might allure the Crowd to support them: But if these were their Views, we shall see that their Dependence upon them was too sanguine. As to their Prospect of new Plays, I doubt it was not enough consider'd that good ones were Plants of a slow Growth; and tho' Sir John Vanbrugh had a very quick Pen, yet Mr. Congreve was too judicious a Writer to let any thing come hastily out of his Hands: As to their other Dependence, the House, they had not yet discover'd that almost every proper Quality and Convenience of a good Theatre had been sacrificed or neglected to shew the Spectator a vast triumphal Piece of Architecture! And that the best Play, for the Reasons I am going to offer, could not but be under great Disadvantages, and be less capable of delighting the Auditor here than it could have been in the plain Theatre they came from. For what could their vast Columns, their gilded Cornices, their immoderate high Roofs avail, when scarce one Word in ten could be distinctly heard in it? Nor had it then the Form it now stands in, which Necessity, two or three Years after, reduced it to: At the first opening it, the flat Ceiling that is now over the Orchestre was then a Semi-oval Arch that sprung fifteen Feet higher from above the Cornice: The Ceiling over the Pit, too, was still more raised, being one level Line from the highest back part of the upper Gallery to the Front of the Stage: The Front-boxes were a continued Semicircle to the bare Walls of the House on each Side: This extraordinary and superfluous Space occasion'd such an Undulation from the Voice of every Actor, that generally what they said sounded like the Gabbling of so many People in the lofty Isles in a Cathedral—The Tone of a Trumpet, or the Swell of an Eunuch's holding Note, 'tis true, might be sweeten'd by it, but the articulate Sounds of a speaking Voice were drown'd by the hollow Reverberations of one Word upon another. To this Inconvenience, why may we not add that of its Situation; for at that time it had not the Advantage of almost a large City, which has since been built in its Neighbourhood: Those costly Spaces of Hanover, Grosvenor, and Cavendish Squares, with the many and great adjacent Streets about them, were then all but so many green Fields of Pasture, from whence they could draw little or no Sustenance, unless it were that of a Milk-Diet. The City, the Inns of Court, and the middle Part of the Town, which were the most constant Support of a Theatre, and chiefly to be relied on, were now too far out of the Reach of an easy Walk, and Coach-hire is often too hard a Tax upon the Pit and Gallery.[355] But from the vast Increase of the Buildings I have mention'd, the Situation of that Theatre has since that Time received considerable Advantages; a new World of People of Condition are nearer to it than formerly, and I am of Opinion that if the auditory Part were a little more reduced to the Model of that in Drury-Lane, an excellent Company of Actors would now find a better Account in it than in any other House in this populous City.[356] Let me not be mistaken, I say an excellent Company, and such as might be able to do Justice to the best of Plays, and throw out those latent Beauties in them which only excellent Actors can discover and give Life to. If such a Company were now there, they would meet with a quite different Set of Auditors than other Theatres have lately been used to: Polite Hearers would be content with polite Entertainments; and I remember the time when Plays, without the Aid of Farce or Pantomime, were as decently attended as Opera's or private Assemblies, where a noisy Sloven would have past his time as uneasily in a Front-box as in a Drawing-room; when a Hat upon a Man's Head there would have been look'd upon as a sure Mark of a Brute or a Booby: But of all this I have seen, too, the Reverse, where in the Presence of Ladies at a Play common Civility has been set at defiance, and the Privilege of being a rude Clown, even to a Nusance, has in a manner been demanded as one of the Rights of English Liberty: Now, though I grant that Liberty is so precious a Jewel that we ought not to suffer the least Ray of its Lustre to be diminish'd, yet methinks the Liberty of seeing a Play in quiet has as laudable a Claim to Protection as the Privilege of not suffering you to do it has to Impunity. But since we are so happy as not to have a certain Power among us, which in another Country is call'd the Police, let us rather bear this Insult than buy its Remedy at too dear a Rate; and let it be the Punishment of such wrong-headed Savages, that they never will or can know the true Value of that Liberty which they so stupidly abuse: Such vulgar Minds possess their Liberty as profligate Husbands do fine Wives, only to disgrace them. In a Word, when Liberty boils over, such is the Scum of it. But to our new erected Theatre.

Not long before this Time the Italian Opera began first to steal into England,[357] but in as rude a disguise and unlike it self as possible; in a lame, hobling Translation into our own Language, with false Quantities, or Metre out of Measure to its original Notes, sung by our own unskilful Voices, with Graces misapply'd to almost every Sentiment, and with Action lifeless and unmeaning through every Character: The first Italian Performer that made any distinguish'd Figure in it was Valentini, a true sensible Singer at that time, but of a Throat too weak to sustain those melodious Warblings for which the fairer Sex have since idoliz'd his Successors. However, this Defect was so well supply'd by his Action, that his Hearers bore with the Absurdity of his singing his first Part of Turnus in Camilla all in Italian, while every other Character was sung and recited to him in English.[358] This I have mention'd to shew not only our Tramontane Taste, but that the crowded Audiences which follow'd it to Drury-Lane might be another Occasion of their growing thinner in Lincolns-Inn-Fields.

To strike in, therefore, with this prevailing Novelty, Sir John Vanbrugh and Mr. Congreve open'd their new Hay-Market Theatre with a translated Opera to Italian Musick, called the Triumph of Love, but this not having in it the Charms of Camilla, either from the Inequality of the Musick or Voices, had but a cold Reception, being perform'd but three Days, and those not crowded. Immediately upon the Failure of this Opera, Sir John Vanbrugh produced his Comedy call'd the Confederacy,[359] taken (but greatly improv'd) from the Bourgeois à la mode of Dancour: Though the Fate of this Play was something better, yet I thought it was not equal to its Merit:[360] For it is written with an uncommon Vein of Wit and Humour; which confirms me in my former Observation, that the difficulty of hearing distinctly in that then wide Theatre was no small Impediment to the Applause that might have followed the same Actors in it upon every other Stage; and indeed every Play acted there before the House was alter'd seemed to suffer from the same Inconvenience: In a Word, the Prospect of Profits from this Theatre was so very barren, that Mr. Congreve in a few Months gave up his Share and Interest in the Government of it wholly to Sir John Vanbrugh.[361] But Sir John, being sole Proprietor of the House, was at all Events oblig'd to do his utmost to support it. As he had a happier Talent of throwing the English Spirit into his Translation of French Plays than any former Author who had borrowed from them, he in the same Season gave the Publick three more of that kind, call'd the Cuckold in Conceit, from the Cocu imaginaire of Moliere;[362] Squire Trelooby, from his Monsieur de Pourceaugnac, and the Mistake, from the Dépit Amoureux of the same Author.[363] Yet all these, however well executed, came to the Ear in the same undistinguish'd Utterance by which almost all their Plays had equally suffered: For what few could plainly hear, it was not likely a great many could applaud.

It must farther be consider'd, too, that this Company were not now what they had been when they first revolted from the Patentees in Drury-Lane, and became their own Masters in Lincolns-Inn-Fields. Several of them, excellent in their different Talents, were now dead; as Smith, Kynaston, Sandford, and Leigh: Mrs. Betterton and Underhil being, at this time, also superannuated Pensioners whose Places were generally but ill supply'd: Nor could it be expected that Betterton himself, at past seventy, could retain his former Force and Spirit; though he was yet far distant from any Competitor. Thus, then, were these Remains of the best Set of Actors that I believe were ever known at once in England, by Time, Death, and the Satiety of their Hearers, mould'ring to decay.

It was now the Town-talk that nothing but a Union of the two Companies could recover the Stage to its former Reputation,[364] which Opinion was certainly true: One would have thought, too, that the Patentee of Drury-Lane could not have fail'd to close with it, he being then on the Prosperous Side of the Question, having no Relief to ask for himself, and little more to do in the matter than to consider what he might safely grant: But it seems this was not his way of counting; he had other Persons who had great Claims to Shares in the Profits of this Stage, which Profits, by a Union, he foresaw would be too visible to be doubted of, and might raise up a new Spirit in those Adventurers to revive their Suits at Law with him; for he had led them a Chace in Chancery several Years,[365] and when they had driven him into a Contempt of that Court, he conjur'd up a Spirit, in the Shape of Six and eight Pence a-day, that constantly struck the Tipstaff blind whenever he came near him: He knew the intrinsick Value of Delay, and was resolv'd to stick to it as the surest way to give the Plaintiffs enough on't. And by this Expedient our good Master had long walk'd about at his Leisure, cool and contented as a Fox when the Hounds were drawn off and gone home from him. But whether I am right or not in my Conjectures, certain it is that this close Master of Drury-Lane had no Inclination to a Union, as will appear by the Sequel.[366]

Sir John Vanbrugh knew, too, that to make a Union worth his while he must not seem too hasty for it; he therefore found himself under a Necessity, in the mean time, of letting his whole Theatrical Farm to some industrious Tenant that might put it into better Condition. This is that Crisis, as I observed in the Eighth Chapter, when the Royal Licence for acting Plays, &c. was judg'd of so little Value as not to have one Suitor for it. At this time, then, the Master of Drury-Lane happen'd to have a sort of primier Agent in his Stage-Affairs, that seem'd in Appearance as much to govern the Master as the Master himself did to govern his Actors: But this Person was under no Stipulation or Sallary for the Service he render'd, but had gradually wrought himself into the Master's extraordinary Confidence and Trust, from an habitual Intimacy, a cheerful Humour, and an indefatigable Zeal for his Interest. If I should farther say, that this Person has been well known in almost every Metropolis in Europe; that few private Men have, with so little Reproach, run through more various Turns of Fortune; that, on the wrong side of Three-score, he has yet the open Spirit of a hale young Fellow of five and twenty; that though he still chuses to speak what he thinks to his best Friends with an undisguis'd Freedom, he is, notwithstanding, acceptable to many Persons of the first Rank and Condition; that any one of them (provided he likes them) may now send him, for their Service, to Constantinople at half a Day's Warning; that Time has not yet been able to make a visible Change in any Part of him but the Colour of his Hair, from a fierce coal-black to that of a milder milk-white: When I have taken this Liberty with him, methinks it cannot be taking a much greater if I at once should tell you that this Person was Mr. Owen Swiney,[367] and that it was to him Sir John Vanbrugh, in this Exigence of his Theatrical Affairs, made an Offer of his Actors, under such Agreements of Sallary as might be made with them; and of his House, Cloaths, and Scenes, with the Queen's License to employ them, upon Payment of only the casual Rent of five Pounds upon every acting Day, and not to exceed 700l. in the Year. Of this Proposal Mr. Swiney desir'd a Day or two to consider; for, however he might like it, he would not meddle in any sort without the Consent and Approbation of his Friend and Patron, the Master of Drury Lane. Having given the Reasons why this Patentee was averse to a Union, it may now seem less a Wonder why he immediately consented that Swiney should take the Hay-Market House, &c. and continue that Company to act against him; but the real Truth was, that he had a mind both Companies should be clandestinely under one and the same Interest, and yet in so loose a manner that he might declare his Verbal Agreement with Swiney good, or null and void, as he might best find his Account in either. What flatter'd him that he had this wholesome Project, and Swiney to execute it, both in his Power, was that at this time Swiney happen'd to stand in his Books Debtor to Cash upwards of Two Hundred Pounds: But here, we shall find, he over-rated his Security. However, Swiney as yet follow'd his Orders; he took the Hay-Market Theatre, and had, farther, the private Consent of the Patentee to take such of his Actors from Drury-Lane as either from Inclination or Discontent, might be willing to come over to him in the Hay-Market. The only one he made an Exception of, was myself: For tho' he chiefly depended upon his Singers and Dancers,[368] he said it would be necessary to keep some one tolerable Actor with him, that might enable him to set those Machines a going. Under this Limitation of not entertaining me, Swiney seem'd to acquiesce 'till after he had open'd with the so recruited Company in the Hay-Market: the Actors that came to him from Drury-Lane were Wilks, Estcourt,[369] Mills, Keen,[370] Johnson, Bullock, Mrs. Oldfield, Mrs. Rogers, and some few others of less note: But I must here let you know that this Project was form'd and put in Execution all in very few Days, in the Summer-Season, when no Theatre was open. To all which I was entirely a Stranger, being at this time at a Gentleman's House in Gloucestershire, scribbling, if I mistake not, the Wife's Resentment.[371]

The first Word I heard of this Transaction was by a Letter from Swiney, inviting me to make One in the Hay-Market Company, whom he hop'd I could not but now think the stronger Party. But I confess I was not a little alarm'd at this Revolution: For I consider'd, that I knew of no visible Fund to support these Actors but their own Industry; that all his Recruits from Drury-Lane would want new Cloathing; and that the warmest Industry would be always labouring up Hill under so necessary an Expence, so bad a Situation, and so inconvenient a Theatre. I was always of opinion, too, that in changing Sides, in most Conditions, there generally were discovered more unforeseen Inconveniencies than visible Advantages; and that at worst there would always some sort of Merit remain with Fidelity, tho' unsuccessful. Upon these Considerations I was only thankful for the Offers made me from the Hay-Market, without accepting them, and soon after came to Town towards the usual time of their beginning to act, to offer my Service to our old Master. But I found our Company so thinn'd that it was almost impracticable to bring any one tolerable Play upon the Stage.[372] When I ask'd him where were his Actors, and in what manner he intended to proceed? he reply'd, Don't you trouble yourself, come along, and I'll shew you. He then led me about all the By-places in the House, and shew'd me fifty little Back-doors, dark Closets, and narrow Passages; in Alterations and Contrivances of which kind he had busied his Head most part of the Vacation; for he was scarce ever without some notable Joyner, or a Bricklayer extraordinary, in pay, for twenty Years. And there are so many odd obscure Places about a Theatre, that his Genius in Nook-building was never out of Employment; nor could the most vain-headed Author be more deaf to an Interruption in reciting his Works, than our wise Master was while entertaining me with the Improvements he had made in his invisible Architecture; all which, without thinking any one Part of it necessary, tho' I seem'd to approve, I could not help now and then breaking in upon his Delight with the impertinent Question of
——But, Master, where are your Actors? But it
seems I had taken a wrong time for this sort of Enquiry; his Head was full of Matters of more moment, and (as you find) I was to come another time for an Answer: A very hopeful Condition I found myself in, under the Conduct of so profound a Vertuoso and so considerate a Master! But to speak of him seriously, and to account for this Disregard to his Actors, his Notion was that Singing and Dancing, or any sort of Exotick Entertainments, would make an ordinary Company of Actors too hard for the best Set who had only plain Plays to subsist on. Now, though I am afraid too much might be said in favour of this Opinion, yet I thought he laid more Stress upon that sort of Merit than it would bear; as I therefore found myself of so little Value with him, I could not help setting a little more upon myself, and was resolv'd to come to a short Explanation with him. I told him I came to serve him at a time when many of his best Actors had deserted him; that he might now have the Refusal of me; but I could not afford to carry the Compliment so far as to lessen my Income by it; that I therefore expected either my casual Pay to be advanced, or the Payment of my former Sallary made certain for as many Days as we had acted the Year before.—No, he was not willing to alter his former Method; but I might chuse whatever Parts I had a mind to act of theirs who had left him. When I found him, as I thought, so insensible or impregnable, I look'd gravely in his Face, and told him—He knew upon what Terms I was willing to serve him, and took my leave. By this time the Hay-Market Company had begun acting to Audiences something better than usual, and were all paid their full Sallaries, a Blessing they had not felt in some Years in either House before. Upon this Success Swiney press'd the Patentee to execute the Articles they had as yet only verbally agreed on, which were in Substance, That Swiney should take the Hay-Market House in his own Name, and have what Actors he thought necessary from Drury-Lane, and after all Payments punctually made, the Profits should be equally divided between these two Undertakers. But soft and fair! Rashness was a Fault that had never yet been imputed to the Patentee; certain Payments were Methods he had not of a long, long time been us'd to; that Point still wanted time for Consideration. But Swiney was as hasty as the other was slow, and was resolv'd to know what he had to trust to before they parted; and to keep him the closer to his Bargain, he stood upon his Right of having Me added to that Company if I was willing to come into it. But this was a Point as absolutely refus'd on one side as insisted on on the other. In this Contest high Words were exchang'd on both sides, 'till, in the end, this their last private Meeting came to an open Rupture: But before it was publickly known, Swiney, by fairly letting me into the whole Transaction, took effectual means to secure me in his Interest. When the Mystery of the Patentee's Indifference to me was unfolded, and that his slighting me was owing to the Security he rely'd on of Swiney's not daring to engage me, I could have no further Debate with my self which side of the Question I should adhere to. To conclude, I agreed, in two Words, to act with Swiney,[373] and from this time every Change that happen'd in the Theatrical Government was a nearer Step to that twenty Years of Prosperity which Actors, under the Menagement of Actors, not long afterwards enjoy'd. What was the immediate Consequence of this last Desertion from Drury-Lane shall be the Subject of another Chapter.

INDEX.

END OF VOL. I.

CHISWICK PRESS:—C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TOOKS COURT,
CHANCERY LANE.

FOOTNOTES

[ [1] Colley Cibber's "brazen brainless brothers." According to Horace Walpole, "one of the Statues was the portrait of Oliver Cromwell's porter, then in Bedlam."

[ [2] Till the 25 Year of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen had not any Players; but in that Year 12 of the best of all those who belonged to several Lords, were chosen & sworn her Servants, as Grooms of the Chamber. Stow's Annals, p. 698.

[ [3] The Right Honourable Henry Pelham. Davies ("Life of Garrick," ii. 377) says that the "Apology" was dedicated to "that wise and honest minister," Pelham. John Taylor ("Records of my Life," i. 263) writes: "The name of the person to whom the Dedication to the 'Apology' was addressed is not mentioned, but the late Mr. John Kemble assured me that he had authority for saying it was Mr. Pelham, brother to the Duke of Newcastle." From the internal evidence it seems quite clear that this is so. In the Verses to Cibber quoted in "The Egotist," p. 69, the authoress writes:—

"Some praise a Patron and reveal him:

You paint so true, you can't conceal him.

Their gaudy Praise undue but shames him,

While your's by Likeness only names him."

[ [4] Cibber, in Chapter ix., mentions that he is writing his Apology at Bath, and Fielding, in the mock trial of "Col. Apol." given in "The Champion" of 17th May, 1740, indicts the Prisoner "for that you, not having the Fear of Grammar before your Eyes, on the —— of —— at a certain Place, called the Bath, in the County of Somerset, in Knights-Bridge, in the County of Middlesex, in and upon the English Language an Assault did make, and then and there, with a certain Weapon called a Goose-quill, value one Farthing, which you in your left Hand then held, several very broad Wounds but of no Depth at all, on the said English Language did make, and so you the said Col. Apol. the said English Language did murder."

[ [5] This seems to be a favourite argument of Cibber. In his "Letter" to Pope, 1742, he answers Pope's line, "And has not Colley still his Lord and Whore?" at great length, one of his arguments being that the latter accusation, "without some particular Circumstances to aggravate the Vice, is the flattest Piece of Satyr that ever fell from the formidable Pen of Mr. Pope: because (defendit numerus) take the first ten thousand Men you meet, and I believe, you would be no Loser, if you betted ten to one that every single Sinner of them, one with another, had been guilty of the same Frailty."—p. 46.

[ [6] Cibber's "Apology" must have been a very profitable book. It was published in one volume quarto in 1740, and in the same year the second edition, one volume octavo, was issued. A third edition appeared in 1750, also in one volume octavo. Davies ("Dramatic Miscellanies," iii. 506) says: "Cibber must have raised considerable contributions on the public by his works. To say nothing of the sums accumulated by dedications, benefits, and the sale of his plays singly, his dramatic works, in quarto, by subscription, published 1721, produced him a considerable sum of money. It is computed that he gained, by the excellent Apology for his Life, no less than the sum of £1,500." "The Laureat" (1740) is perhaps Davies's authority for his computation. "Ingenious indeed, who from such a Pile of indigested incoherent Ideas huddled together by the Misnomer of a History, could raise a Contribution on the Town (if Fame says true) of Fifteen hundred Pounds."—"Laureat," p. 96.

Cibber no doubt kept the copyright of the first and second editions in his own hands. In 1750 he sold his copyright to Robert Dodsley for the sum of fifty guineas. The original assignment, which bears the date "March ye 24th, 1749/50," is in the collection of Mr. Julian Marshall.

[ [7] Of Mrs. Oldfield there was a volume of "Authentick Memoirs" published in 1730, the year she died; and in 1731 appeared Egerton's "Faithful Memoirs," and "The Lover's Miscellany," in which latter are memoirs of Mrs. Oldfield's "Life and Amours." Three memoirs of Wilks immediately followed his death, the third of which was written by Curll, who denounces the other two as frauds. Benjamin Victor wrote a memoir of Booth which was published in the year of his death, and there was one unauthorized memoir issued in the same year. Bellchambers instances the Life of Congreve as another imposition.

[ [8] From this expression it appears that Cibber did not contemplate again returning to the stage. He did, however, make a few final appearances, his last being to support his own adaptation of Shakespeare's "King John," which he called "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John," and which was produced at Covent Garden on 15th February, 1745.

[ [9] "The Rehearsal," act iii. sc. 4.

[ [10] The christening of Colley Cibber is recorded in the Baptismal Register of the Church of St. Giles-in-the-Fields. The entry reads:—

"November 1671 Christnings
20. Colly sonne of Caius Gabriell Sibber and Jane ux"

[ [11] Mr. Laurence Hutton, in his "Literary Landmarks of London," page 52, says: "Southampton House, afterwards Bedford House, taken down in the beginning of the present century, occupied the north side of Bloomsbury Square. Evelyn speaks of it in his Diary, October, 1664, as in course of construction. Another and an earlier Southampton House in Holborn, 'a little above Holborn Bars,' was removed some twenty years before Cibber's birth. He was, therefore, probably born at the upper or north end of Southampton Street, facing Bloomsbury Square, where now are comparatively modern buildings, and not in Southampton Street, Strand, as is generally supposed."

[ [12] Caius Gabriel Cibber, born at Flensborg in Holstein in 1630; married, as his second wife, Jane Colley, on 24th November, 1670; died in 1700. He was, as Colley Cibber states, a sculptor of some note.

[ [13]

"Where o'er the gates, by his fam'd father's hand,

Great Cibber's brazen, brainless brothers stand."

(Final edition of "The Dunciad," i. verses 31-2.)

Bellchambers notes that these figures were removed to the New Hospital in St. George's Fields. They are now in South Kensington Museum.

[ [14] "It was found by office taken in the 13th year of H. 8. that John Colly deceased, held the Mannour and Advowson of Glaiston of Edward Duke of Buckingham, as of his Castle of Okeham by knights service."—Wright's "History and Antiquities of the County of Rutland," p. 64.

"In the 26. Car. I. (1640) Sir Anthony Colly Knight, then Lord of this Mannor, joyned with his Son and Heir apparent, William Colly Esquire, in a Conveyance of divers parcels of Land in Glaiston, together with the Advowson of the Church there, to Edward Andrews of Bisbroke in this County, Esquire: Which Advowson is since conveyed over to Peterhouse in Cambridge."—Ibid. p. 65.

[ [15] Fielding ("Joseph Andrews," chap. iii.), writing of Parson Adams, says: "Simplicity was his characteristic: he did, no more than Mr. Colley Cibber, apprehend any such passions as malice and envy to exist in mankind; which was indeed less remarkable in a country parson, than in a gentleman who has passed his life behind the scenes—a place which has been seldom thought the school of innocence."

[ [16] Glout is an obsolete word signifying "to pout, to look sullen."

[ [17] Bellchambers suggests that these two persons were the Earl of Chesterfield and "Bubb Doddington." As to the former he is no doubt correct, but I cannot see a single feature of resemblance between the second portrait and Lord Melcombe. "The Laureat" says (p. 18) that the portraits were "L——d C——d and Mr. E——e" [probably Erskine]. Bellchambers seems to have supposed that "Bubb" was a nickname.

[ [18] "Set the table on a roar."—"Hamlet," act v. sc. 1.

[ [19] Ter. Eun. i. 1, 18.

[ [20] Ars Poetica, 126.

[ [21] In William Byrd's collection, entitled "Psalmes, Sonets, & songs of sadnes and pietie," 1588, 4to., is the song to which Cibber probably refers:—

"My Minde to me a Kingdome is."

Mr. Bullen, in his "Lyrics from Elizabethan Song-books" (p. 78), quotes it.

[ [22]

"And so many a time,

When I have spoke of you dispraisingly,

Hath ta'en your part."—"Othello," act iii. sc. 3.

[ [23] This is Gibber's first allusion to Pope's enmity. It was after the publication of the "Apology" that Pope's attacks became more bitter.

[ [24] Horace, Epis. ii. 2, 126.

[ [25] Charles II.'s flight from his Scottish Presbyterian subjects, at the end of 1650, to take refuge among his wild Highland supporters, was caused by the insolent invectives of the rigid Presbyterian clergymen, who preached long sermons at him, on his own wickedness and that of his father and mother, and made his life generally a burden.

[ [26] Hor. Od. iv. 12, 28.

[ [27] "Os homini sublime dedit."—Ovid, Met. i. 85.

[ [28] Cibber is pardonably vain throughout at the society he moved in. His greatest social distinction was his election as a member of White's. His admission to such society was of course the subject of lampoons, such as the following:—

"The Buffoon, An Epigram.

Don't boast, prithee Cibber, so much of thy State,

That like Pope you are blest with the smiles of the Great;

With both they Converse, but for different Ends,

And 'tis easy to know their Buffoons from their Friends."

[ [29] Arlington did not, however, die till the 28th July, 1685, surviving Charles II. by nearly six months.

[ [30] Cibber was appointed Poet-Laureate on the death of Eusden. His appointment was dated 3rd December, 1730.

[ [31] "Forsan et hæc olim meminisse juvabit."—Virg. Æneid, i. 207.

[ [32] As Laureate, and as author of "The Nonjuror," Cibber is bound to be extremely loyal to the Protestant dynasty.

[ [33] Curiously enough, Cibber's praise of his deceased companion-actors has been attributed to something of this motive.

[ [34] Bellchambers prints these words thus: "Lick at the Laureat," as if Cibber had referred to the title of a book; and notes: "This is the title of a pamphlet in which some of Mr. Cibber's peculiarities have been severely handled." But I doubt this, for there is nothing in Cibber's arrangement of the words to denote that they represent the title of a book; and, besides, I know no work with such a title published before 1740. Bellchambers, in a note on page 114, represents that he quotes from "Lick at the Laureat, 1730;" but I find the quotation he gives in "The Laureat," 1740 (p. 31), almost verbatim. As it stands in the latter there is no hint that it is quoted from a previous work, nor, indeed, do the terms of it permit of such an interpretation. I can, therefore, only suppose that Bellchambers is wrong in attributing the sentence to a work called "A Lick at the Laureat."

[ [35] The principal allusions to Cibber which, up to the time of the publication of the "Apology," Pope had made, were in the "Dunciad":—

"How, with less reading than makes felons 'scape,

Less human genius than God gives an ape,

Small thanks to France and none to Rome or Greece,

A past, vamp'd, future, old, reviv'd, new piece,

'Twixt Plautus, Fletcher, Congreve, and Corneille,

Can make a Cibber, Johnson, or Ozell."

Second edition, Book i. 235-240.

"Beneath his reign, shall Eusden wear the bays,

Cibber preside, Lord-Chancellor of Plays."

Second edition, Book iii. 319, 320.

In the "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot" there were one or two passing allusions to Cibber, one of them being the line:—

"And has not Colley still his Lord and whore?"

for which Cibber retaliated in his "Letter" of 1742.

In the "First Epistle of the Second Book of Horace" (1737), Cibber is scurvily treated. In it occur the lines:—

"And idle Cibber, how he breaks the laws,

To make poor Pinkey eat with vast applause!"

[ [36] Cibber's Odes were a fruitful subject of banter. Fielding in "Pasquin," act ii. sc. 1, has the following passage:—

"2nd Voter. My Lord, I should like a Place at Court too; I don't much care what it is, provided I wear fine Cloaths, and have something to do in the Kitchen, or the Cellar; I own I should like the Cellar, for I am a divilish Lover of Sack.

Lord Place. Sack, say you? Odso, you shall be Poet-Laureat.

2nd Voter. Poet! no, my Lord, I am no Poet, I can't make verses.

Lord Place. No Matter for that—you'll be able to make Odes.

2nd Voter. Odes, my Lord! what are those?

Lord Place. Faith, Sir, I can't tell well what they are; but I know you may be qualified for the Place without being a Poet."

Boswell ("Life of Johnson," i. 402) reports that Johnson said, "His [Cibber's] friends give out that he intended his birth-day Odes should be bad: but that was not the case, Sir; for he kept them many months by him, and a few years before he died he shewed me one of them, with great solicitude to render it as perfect as might be."

In "The Egotist" (p. 63) Cibber is made to say: "As bad Verses are the Devil, and good ones I can't get up to——"

[ [37] "Champion," 29th April, 1740: "When he says (Fol. 23) Satire is angrily particular, every Dunce of a Reader knows that he means angry with a particular Person."

[ [38] Cibber's allusion to Pope's treatment of Addison is a fair hit.

[ [39] Juvenal, i. 79.

[ [40] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 511) says: "If we except the remarks on plays and players by the authors of the Tatler and Spectator, the theatrical observations in those days were coarse and illiberal, when compared to what we read in our present daily and other periodical papers."

[ [41] "Frankly. Is it not commendable in a Man of Parts, to be warmly concerned for his Reputation?

Author [Cibber]. In what regards his Honesty or Honour, I will make you some Allowances: But for the Reputation of his Parts, not one Tittle!"—"The Egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber," p. 13.

Bellchambers notes here: "When Cibber was charged with moral offences of a deeper dye, he thought himself at liberty, I presume, to relinquish his indifference, and bring the libeller to account. On a future page will be found the public advertisement in which he offered a reward of ten pounds for the detection of Dennis."

[ [42] "Frankly. It will be always natural for Authors to defend their Works.

Author [Cibber]. And would it not be as well, if their Works defended themselves?"—"The Egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber," p. 15.

[ [43] In his "Letter to Pope," 1742, p. 7, Cibber says: "After near twenty years having been libell'd by our Daily-paper Scriblers, I never was so hurt, as to give them one single Answer."

[ [44] Frankly. I am afraid you will discover yourself; and your Philosophical Air will come out at last meer Vanity in Masquerade.

Author [Cibber]. O! if there be Vanity in keeping one's Temper; with all my Heart."—"The Egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber," p. 13.

[ [45] In his "Letter to Pope," 1742, p. 9, Cibber says: "I would not have even your merited Fame in Poetry, if it were to be attended with half the fretful Solicitude you seem to have lain under to maintain it."

[ [46] The best epigram is that which Cibber ("Letter," 1742, p. 39) attributes to Pope:—

"In merry Old England, it once was a Rule,

The King had his Poet, and also his Fool.

But now we're so frugal, I'd have you to know it,

That Cibber can serve both for Fool and for Poet."

Dr. Johnson also wrote an epigram, of which he seems to have been somewhat proud:—

"Augustus still survives in Maro's strain,

And Spenser's verse prolongs Eliza's reign;

Great George's acts let tuneful Cibber sing;

For Nature form'd the Poet for the King."

Boswell, i. 149.

In "Certain Epigrams, in Laud and Praise of the Gentlemen of the Dunciad," p. 8, is:—

Epigram XVI.
A Question by Anonymus.

"Tell, if you can, which did the worse,

Caligula, or Gr—n's [Grafton's] Gr—ce?

That made a Consul of a Horse,

And this a Laureate of an Ass."

In "The Egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber," p. 49, Cibber is made to say: "An Ode is a Butt, that a whole Quiver of Wit is let fly at every Year!"

[ [47] "The Laureat" says: "The Things he calls Verses, carry the most evident Marks of their Parent Colley."—p. 24.

[ [48] A Line in the Epilogue to the Nonjuror.

[ [49] This allusion to time shows that Cibber began his "Apology" about 1737.

[ [50] Fielding has many extremely good attacks on Cibber's style and language. For instance:—

"I shall here only obviate a flying Report ... that whatever Language it was writ in, it certainly could not be English.... Now I shall prove it to be English in the following Manner. Whatever Book is writ in no other Language, is writ in English. This Book is writ in no other Language, Ergo, It is writ in English."—"Champion," 22nd April, 1740.

Again ("Joseph Andrews," book iii. chap. vi.), addressing the Muse or Genius that presides over Biography, he says: "Thou, who, without the assistance of the least spice of literature, and even against his inclination, hast, in some pages of his book, forced Colley Cibber to write English."

[ [51] In later editions the expression was changed to "She here outdid her usual excellence."

[ [52] "Decies repetita placebit."—Horace, Ars Poetica, 365.

[ [53]

"For instance: when you rashly think,

No rhymer can like Welsted sink,

His merits balanc'd, you shall find,

The laureat leaves him far behind."

Swift, On Poetry: a Rhapsody, l. 393.

[ [54] "Frankly. Then for your Reputation, if you won't bustle about it, and now and then give it these little Helps of Art, how can you hope to raise it?

Author [Cibber]. If it can't live upon simple Nature, let it die, and be damn'd! I shall give myself no further Trouble about it."—"The Egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber," p. 9.

[ [55] Young's second "Epistle to Mr. Pope."

[ [56] Indirectly surely, William of Wykeham being a priest.

[ [57] I am indebted to the courtesy of the Head Master of Winchester College, the Rev. Dr. Fearon, for the information that this statue, a finely designed and well-executed work, still stands over the door of the big school. A Latin inscription states that it was presented by Caius Gabriel Cibber in 1697.

[ [58] Bellchambers finds in this sentence "a levity, which accords with the charges so often brought against Cibber of impiety and irreligion;" and he quotes from Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 506) two stories—one, that Cibber spat at a picture of our Saviour; and the other, that he endeavoured to enter into discussion with "honest Mr. William Whiston" with the intention of insulting him. Both anecdotes seem to me rather foolish. I do not suppose Cibber was in any sense a religious man, but his works are far from giving any offence to religion; and, as a paid supporter of a Protestant succession, I think he was too prudent to be an open scoffer. A sentence in one of Victor's "Letters" (i. 72), written from Tunbridge, would seem to show that Cibber at least preserved appearances. He says, "Every one complies with what is called the fashion—Cibber goes constantly to prayers—and the Curate (to return the compliment) as constantly, when prayers are over, to the Gaming table!"

[ [59] By the kindness of a friend at Cambridge I am enabled to give the following interesting extracts from a letter written by Mr. William White, of Trinity College Library, regarding the statues here referred to: "They occupy the four piers, subdividing the balustrade on the east side of the Library, overlooking Neville's Court. The four Statues represent Divinity, Law, Physic, and Mathematics. That these were executed by Mr. Gabriel Cibber our books will prove. I will give you two or three extracts from Grumbold's Account Book, kept in the Library. He was Foreman of the Works when the Library was built. I think Cibber cut the Statues here. It is quite certain he and his men were here some time: no doubt they superintended the placing of them in their positions, at so great a height.

'Payd for the Carridg of a Larg Block Stone Given by John Manning to ye Coll. for one of ye Figures 01:00:00.'

'May 7, 1681. Pd to Mr Gabriell Cibber for cutting four statues 80:00:00.' '27 June. Pd to ye Widdo Bats for Mr Gabriel Cibbers and his mens diatt 05: 18: 11. Pd to Mr Martin [for the same] 12: 03: 03.'"

In connection with these statues an amusing practical joke was played while Byron was an undergraduate, which was attributed to him—unjustly, however, I believe.

[ [60] 5th November, 1688.

[ [61] Fielding, in "Joseph Andrews," book i. chap. I: "How artfully does the former [Cibber] by insinuating that he escaped being promoted to the highest stations in the Church and State, teach us a contempt of worldly grandeur! how strongly does he inculcate an absolute submission to our Superiors!"

[ [62] Fielding ("Champion," 6th May, 1740): "Not to mention our Author's Comparisons of himself to King James, the Prince of Orange, Alexander the Great, Charles the XIIth, and Harry IV. of France, his favourite Simile is a Lion, thus page 39, we have a SATISFIED PRESUMPTION, that to drive England into slavery is like teaching AN OLD LION TO DANCE. 104. Our new critics are like Lions Whelps that dash down the Bowls of Milk &c. besides a third Allusion to the same Animal: and this brings into my Mind a Story which I once heard from Booth, that our Biographer had, in one of his Plays in a Local Simile, introduced this generous Beast in some Island or Country where Lions did not grow; of which being informed by the learned Booth, the Biographer replied, Prithee tell me then, where there is a Lion, for God's Curse, if there be a Lion in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, I will not lose my simile."

[ [63] Lucretius, i. 102.

[ [64] John Dennis, in an advertisement to "The Invader of his Country," 1720, says, "'tis as easy for Mr. Cibber at this time of Day to make a Bounce with his Loyalty, as 'tis for a Bully at Sea, who had lain hid in the Hold all the time of the Fight, to come up and swagger upon the Deck after the Danger is over."

[ [65] "Champion," 29th April, 1740: "When in page 42, we read, Beauty Shines into equal Warmth the Peasant and the Courtier, do we not know what he means though he hath made a Verb active of Shine, as in Page 117, he hath of Regret, nothing could more painfully regret a judicious Spectator."

[ [66] One of the commonest imputations made against Cibber was that he was of a cowardly temper. In "Common Sense" for 11th June, 1737, a paper attributed to Lord Chesterfield, there is a dissertation on kicking as a humorous incident on the stage. The writer adds: "Of all the Comedians who have appeared upon the Stage within my Memory, no one has taking (sic) a Kicking with so much Humour as our present most excellent Laureat, and I am inform'd his Son does not fall much short of him in this Excellence; I am very glad of it, for as I have a Kindness for the young Man, I hope to see him as well kick'd as his Father was before him."

I confess that I am not quite sure how far this sentence is ironically meant, but Bellchambers refers to it as conveying a serious accusation of cowardice. He also quotes from Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 487), who relates, on the authority of Victor, that Cibber, having reduced Bickerstaffe's salary by one-half, was waited upon by that actor, who "flatly told him, that as he could not subsist on the small sum to which he had reduced his salary, he must call the author of his distress to an account, for that it would be easier for him to lose his life than to starve. The affrighted Cibber told him, he should receive an answer from him on Saturday next. Bickerstaffe found, on that day, his usual income was continued." This story rests only on Victor's authority, but is, of course, not improbable. There is also a vague report that Gay, in revenge for Cibber's banter of "Three Hours after Marriage," personally chastised him, but I know no good authority for the story.

[ [67] Cibber (1st ed.) wrote: "new Honours of Duke of Devonshire, Lord Steward," &c. He corrected his blunder in 2nd ed.

[ [68] See Macaulay ("History," 1858, vol. ii. p. 251).

[ [69] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 444) says: "Cibber and Verbruggen were two dissipated young fellows, who determined, in opposition to the advice of friends, to become great actors. Much about the same time, they were constant attendants upon Downes, the prompter of Drury-Lane, in expectation of employment."

[ [70] "The Laureat" states that Miss Santlow (afterwards Mrs. Barton Booth) was the actress referred to; that Captain Montague was her assailant, and Mr. Secretary Craggs her defender.

[ [71] See memoir of William Smith at end of second volume.

[ [72] See memoir.

[ [73]

"As where's that palace whereinto foul things

Sometimes intrude not?"—"Othello," act iii. sc. 3.

[ [74] Captain Griffin was, no doubt, the Griffin who is mentioned by Downes as entering the King's Company "after they had begun at Drury Lane." This is of course very indefinite as regards time. Drury Lane was opened in 1663, but the first character for which we can find Griffin's name mentioned, is that of Varnish in "The Plain-Dealer," which was produced in 1674. At the Union in 1682, Griffin took a good position in the amalgamated company, and continued on the stage till about 1688, when his name disappears from the bills. During this time he is not called Captain, but in 1701 the name of Captain Griffin appears among the Drury Lane actors. Genest says it is more probable that this should be Griffin returned to the stage after thirteen years spent in the army, than that Captain Griffin should have gone on the stage without having previously been connected with it. In this Genest is quite correct, for the anecdote of Goodman and Griffin, which Cibber tells in Chap. XII. shows conclusively that Captain Griffin was an actor during Goodman's stage-career, which ended certainly before 1690. He appears to have finally retired about the beginning of 1708. Downes says "Mr. Griffin so Excell'd in Surly. Sir Edward Belfond, The Plain Dealer, none succeeding in the 2 former have Equall'd him, [nor any] except his Predecessor Mr. Hart in the latter" (p. 40). I have ventured to supply the two words "nor any" to make clear what Downes must have meant.

[ [75] The "Biographia Dramatica" (i. 87) gives an account of James Carlile. He was a native of Lancashire, and in his youth was an actor; but he left the stage for the army, and was killed at the battle of Aughrim, 11th July, 1691. Nothing practically is known of his stage career. Downes (p. 39) notes that at the Union of the Patents in 1682, "Mr. Monfort and Mr. Carlile, were grown to the Maturity of good Actors." I cannot trace Carlile's name in the bills any later than 1685.

[ [76] Wiltshire seems to have been a very useful actor of the second rank. In 1685 he also appears for the last time.

[ [77] That Ben Jonson was an unsuccessful actor is gravely doubted by Gifford and by his latest editor, Lieut.-Col. Cunningham, who give excellent reasons in support of their view. See memoir prefixed to edition of Jonson, 1870, i. xi.

[ [78] Sir William Davenant was the son of a vintner and innkeeper at Oxford. It was said that Shakespeare used frequently to stay at the inn, and a story accordingly was manufactured that William Davenant was in fact the son of the poet through an amour with Mrs. Davenant. But of this there is no shadow of proof. Davenant went to Oxford, but made no special figure as a scholar, winning fame, however, as a poet and dramatist. On the death of Ben Jonson in 1637 he was appointed Poet-Laureate, and in 1639 received a licence from Charles I. to get together a company of players. In the Civil War he greatly distinguished himself, and was knighted by the King for his bravery. Before the Restoration Davenant was permitted by Cromwell to perform some sort of theatrical pieces at Rutland House, in Charter-House Yard, where "The Siege of Rhodes" was played about 1656. At the Restoration a Patent was granted to him in August, 1660, and he engaged Rhodes's company of Players, including Betterton, Kynaston, Underhill, and Nokes. Another Patent was granted to him, dated 15th January, 1663, (see copy of Patent given ante,) under which he managed the theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields till his death in 1668. Davenant's company were called the Duke's Players. The changes which were made in the conduct of the stage during Davenant's career, such as the introduction of elaborate scenery and the first appearance of women in plays, make it one of the first interest and importance. (See Mr. Joseph Knight's Preface to his recent edition of the "Roscius Anglicanus.")

[ [79] Thomas Killigrew (not "Henry" Killigrew, as Cibber erroneously writes) was a very noted and daring humorist. He was a faithful adherent of King Charles I., and at the Restoration was made a Groom of the Bedchamber. He also received a Patent, dated 25th April, 1662, to raise a company of actors to be called the King's Players. These acted at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. Killigrew survived the Union of the two Companies in 1682, dying on the 19th of March, 1683. He cannot be said to have made much mark in theatrical history. The best anecdote of Killigrew is that related by Granger, how he waited on Charles II. one day dressed like a Pilgrim bound on a long journey. When the King asked him whither he was going, he replied, "To Hell, to fetch back Oliver Cromwell to take care of England, for his successor takes none at all."

[ [80] It is curious to note that this theatre, which occupied the same site as the present Drury Lane, was sometimes described as Drury Lane, sometimes as Covent Garden.

[ [81] Should be Lincoln's Inn Fields. Dorset Garden, which was situated in Salisbury Court, Fleet Street, was not opened till 1671.

[ [82] Genest (ii. 302) remarks on this: "How long this lasted does not appear—it appears however that it lasted to Queen Anne's time, as the alteration of 'Wit without Money' is dedicated to Thomas Newman, Servant to her Majesty, one of the Gentlemen of the Great Chamber, and Book-keeper and Prompter to her Majesty's Company of Comedians in the Haymarket." Dr. Doran in his "Their Majesties' Servants" (1888 edition, iii. 419), says that he was informed by Benjamin Webster that Baddeley was the last actor who wore the uniform of scarlet and gold prescribed for the Gentlemen of the Household, who were patented actors.

[ [83] The question of the identity of the first English actress is a very intricate one. Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, in his "New History of the English Stage," seems to incline to favour Anne Marshall, while Mr. Joseph Knight, in his edition of the "Roscius Anglicanus," pronounces for Mrs. Coleman. Davies says positively that "the first woman actress was the mother of Norris, commonly called Jubilee Dicky." Thomas Jordan wrote a Prologue "to introduce the first woman that came to act on the stage," but as the lady's name is not given, this does not help us. The distinction is also claimed for Mrs. Saunderson (afterwards Mrs. Betterton) and Margaret Hughes. But since Mr. Knight has shown that the performances in 1656 at Rutland House, where Mrs. Coleman appeared, were for money, I do not see that we can escape from the conclusion that this lady was the first English professional actress. Who the first actress after the Restoration was is as yet unsettled.

[ [84] Meaning, no doubt, Nell Gwyn and Moll Davis.

[ [85] Genest points out (i. 404) that Cibber is not quite accurate here. Shakespeare's and Fletcher's plays may have been shared; Jonson's certainly were not.

[ [86] See memoir of Hart at end of second volume.

[ [87] Genest says that this regulation "might be very proper at the first restoration of the stage; but as a perpetual rule it was absurd. Cibber approves of it, not considering that Betterton could never have acted Othello, Brutus, or Hotspur (the very parts for which Cibber praises him so much) if there had not been a junction of the companies." Bellchambers, in a long note, also contests Cibber's opinion.

[ [88] In the season 1735-6, in addition to the two Patent Theatres, Drury Lane and Covent Garden, Giffard was playing at Goodman's Fields Theatre, and Fielding, with his Great Mogul's Company of Comedians, occupied the Haymarket. In 1736-7 Giffard played at the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields Theatre, and Goodman's Fields was unused. The Licensing Act of 1737 closed the two irregular houses, leaving only Drury Lane and Covent Garden open.

[ [89] Cibber here refers to the Pantomimes, which he deals with at some length in Chapter XV.

[ [90] Fielding ("Champion," 6th May, 1740): "Another Observation which I have made on our Author's Similies is, that they generally have an Eye towards the Kitchen. Thus, page 56, Two Play-Houses are like two Puddings or two Legs of Mutton. 224. To plant young Actors is not so easy as to plant Cabbages. To which let me add a Metaphor in page 57, where unprofitable Praise can hardly give Truth a Soup Maigre."

[ [91] "Dramatic Operas" seem to have been first produced about 1672. In 1673 "The Tempest," made into an opera by Shadwell, was played at Dorset Garden; "Pysche" followed in the next year, and "Circe" in 1677. "Macbeth," as altered by Davenant, was produced in 1672, "in the nature of an Opera," as Downes phrases it.

[ [92] Dryden, in his "Prologue on the Opening of the New House" in 1674, writes:—

"'Twere folly now a stately pile to raise,

To build a playhouse while you throw down plays;

While scenes, machines, and empty operas reign——"

and the Prologue concludes with the lines:—

"'Tis to be feared——

That, as a fire the former house o'erthrew,

Machines and Tempests will destroy the new."

The allusion in the last line is to the opera of "The Tempest," which I have mentioned in the previous note.

[ [93]

"Probitas laudatur et alget."

Juvenal, i. 74.

[ [94] In the Prologue to "The Emperor of the Moon," 1687, the line occurred: "There's nothing lasting but the Puppet-show."

[ [95]

"Ita populus studio stupidus in funambulo

Animum occuparat."

Terence, Prol. to "Hecyra," line 4.

[ [96] See memoir of Michael Mohun at end of second volume.

[ [97] See memoir of Cardell Goodman at end of second volume.

[ [98] Of Clark very little is known. The earliest play in which his name is given by Downes is "The Plain-Dealer," which was produced at the Theatre Royal in 1674, Clark playing Novel, a part of secondary importance. His name appears to Massina in "Sophonisba," Hephestion in "Alexander the Great," Dolabella in "All for Love," Aquitius in "Mythridates," and (his last recorded part) the Earl of Essex, the principal character in "The Unhappy Favourite," Theatre Royal, 1682. After the Union of the Companies in 1682 his name does not occur. Bellchambers has several trifling errors in the memoir he gives of this actor.

[ [99] Curll ("History of the English Stage," p. 9) says: "The Feuds and Animosities of the King's Company were so well improved, as to produce an Union betwixt the two Patents."

[ [100] Cibber gives the year as 1684, but this is so obviously a slip that I venture to correct the text.

[ [101] Genest (ii. 62) remarks: "The theatre in Dorset Garden had been built by subscription—the subscribers were called Adventurers—of this Cibber seems totally ignorant—that there were any new Adventurers, added to the original number, rests solely on his authority, and in all probability he is not correct."

[ [102] Cibber afterwards relates the connection of Owen Swiney, William Collier, M.P., and Sir Richard Steele, with himself and his actor-partners.

[ [103] The only one of Cibber's contemporaries of any note who was alive when the "Apology" was published, was Benjamin Johnson. This admirable comedian died in August, 1742, in his seventy-seventh year, having played as late as the end of May of that year.

[ [104] The actor pointed at is, no doubt, Wilks. In the last chapter of this work Cibber, in giving the theatrical character of Wilks, says of his Hamlet: "I own the Half of what he spoke was as painful to my Ear, as every Line that came from Betterton was charming."

[ [105] Barton Booth, who was probably as great in the part of the Ghost as Betterton was in Hamlet, said, "When I acted the Ghost with Betterton, instead of my awing him, he terrified me. But divinity hung round that man!"—"Dram. Misc.," iii. 32.

[ [106] "The Laureat" repeats the eulogium of a gentleman who had seen Betterton play Hamlet, and adds: "And yet, the same Gentleman assured me, he has seen Mr. Betterton, more than once, play this Character to an Audience of twenty Pounds, or under" (p. 32).

[ [107] Ars Poetica, 102. This is the much discussed question of Diderot's "Paradoxe sur le Comédien," which has recently been revived by Mr. Henry Irving and M. Coquelin, and has formed the subject of some interesting studies by Mr. William Archer.

[ [108] This is doubtless directed at Booth, who was naturally of an indolent disposition, and seems to have been, on occasions, apt to drag through a part.

[ [109] Ausonius, II, 8 (Epigram, xi.).

[ [110] "Alexander the Great; or, the Rival Queens," act ii. sc. 1.

[ [111] Bellchambers notes on this passage: "The criticisms of Cibber upon a literary subject are hardly worth the trouble of confuting, and yet it may be mentioned that Bishop Warburton adduced these lines as containing not only the most sublime, but the most judicious imagery that poetry can conceive. If Le Brun, or any other artist, could not succeed in pourtraying the terrors of fortune, it conveys, perhaps, the highest possible compliment to the powers of Lee, to admit that he has mastered a difficulty beyond the most daring aspirations of an accomplished painter." With all respect to Warburton and Bellchambers, I cannot help remarking that this last sentence seems to me perilously like nonsense.

[ [112] I can find no record of this revival, nor am I aware that any other authority than Cibber mentions it. I am unable therefore even to guess at a date.

[ [113] In 1706, in Betterton's own company at the Haymarket, Verbruggen played Alexander. At Drury Lane, in 1704, Wilks had played the part.

[ [114] Anthony Aston says that his voice "enforced universal attention even from the Fops and Orange girls."

[ [115] Anthony Aston says of Mrs. Barry: "Neither she, nor any of the Actors of those Times, had any Tone in their Speaking, (too much, lately, in Use.)" But the line of criticism which Cibber takes up here would lead to the conclusion that Aston is not strictly accurate; and, moreover, I can scarcely imagine how, if these older actors used no "tone," the employment of it should have been so general as it certainly was a few years after Betterton's death. Victor ("History," ii. 164) writes of "the good old Manner of singing and quavering out their tragic Notes," and on the same page mentions Cibber's "quavering Tragedy Tones." My view, also, is confirmed by the facts that in the preface to "The Fairy Queen," 1692, it is said: "he must be a very ignorant Player, who knows not there is a Musical Cadence in speaking; and that a Man may as well speak out of Tune, as sing out of Tune;" and that Aaron Hill, in his dedication of "The Fatal Vision," 1716, reprobates the "affected, vicious, and unnatural tone of voice, so common on the stage at that time." See Genest, iv. 16-17. An admirable description of this method of reciting is given by Cumberland ("Memoirs," 2nd edition, i. 80): "Mrs. Cibber in a key, high-pitched but sweet withal, sung, or rather recitatived Rowe's harmonious strain, something in the manner of the Improvisatories: it was so extremely wanting in contrast, that, though it did not wound the ear, it wearied it." Cumberland is writing of Mrs. Cibber in the earlier part of her career (1746), when the teaching of her husband's father, Colley Cibber, influenced her acting: no doubt Garrick, who exploded the old way of speaking, made her ultimately modify her style. Yet as she was, even in 1746, a very distinguished pathetic actress, we are forced to the conclusion that the old style must have been more effective than we are disposed to believe.

[ [116] As Dr. Johnson puts it in his famous Prologue (1747):—

"Ah! let no Censure term our Fate our Choice,

The Stage but echoes back the public Voice;

The Drama's Laws the Drama's Patrons give,

For we, that live to please, must please to live."

[ [117] "Amphytrion" was played in 1690. The Dedication is dated 24th October, 1690.

[ [118] Downes ("Roscius Anglicanus," p. 34) relates Lee's misadventure, which he attributes to stage-fright. He says of Otway the poet, that on his first appearance "the full House put him to such a Sweat and Tremendous Agony, being dash't, spoilt him for an Actor. Mr. Nat. Lee, had the same Fate in Acting Duncan in Macbeth, ruin'd him for an Actor too."

[ [119] See memoir of Estcourt at end of second volume.

[ [120] It will be remembered that the Elder Mathews, the most extraordinary mimic of modern times, had this same power in great perfection. See his "Memoirs," iii. 153-156.

[ [121] Cibber has been charged with gross unfairness to Estcourt, and his unfavourable estimate of him has been attributed to envy; but Estcourt's ability seems to have been at least questionable. This matter will be found treated at some length in the memoir of Estcourt in the Appendix to this work.

[ [122] "His voice was low and grumbling."—Anthony Aston.

[ [123] In Otway's tragedy of "The Orphan," produced at Dorset Garden in 1680, Betterton was the original Castalio.

[ [124] See memoir of Betterton at end of second volume.

[ [125] 13th April, 1710.

[ [126] In the "Tatler," No. 167, in which the famous criticism of Betterton's excellencies is given, his funeral is stated to have taken place on 2nd May, 1710.

[ [127] I do not know whether Cibber in making this remark had in view Gildon's Life of Betterton, in which there are twenty pages of memoir to one hundred and fifty of dissertation on acting.

[ [128] This seems to have been done to a very limited extent. The first unquestionable date on which, after 1660, women appeared is 3rd January, 1661, when Pepys saw "The Beggar's Bush" at the Theatre, that is, Killigrew's house, and notes, "and here the first time that ever I saw women come upon the stage." At the same theatre he had seen the same play on 20th November, 1660, the female parts being then played by men. Thomas Jordan wrote "A Prologue, to introduce the first woman that came to act on the stage, in the tragedy called The Moor of Venice" (quoted by Malone, "Shakespeare," 1821, iii. 128), and Malone supposes justly as I think, that this was on 8th December, 1660; on which date, in all probability, the first woman appeared on the stage after the Restoration. Who she was we do not know. See ante, p. 90. On 7th January, 1661, Kynaston played Epicœne in "The Silent Woman," and on 12th January, 1661, Pepys saw "The Scornful Lady," "now done by a woman." On the 4th of the same month Pepys had seen the latter play with a man in the chief part, so that it is almost certain that the "boy-actresses" disappeared about the beginning of 1661.

[ [129] "The Laureat" (p. 33): "I am of Opinion, Booth was not wrong in this. There are many of the Sentiments in this Character, where Nature and common Sense are outraged; and an Actor, who shou'd give the full comic Utterance to them in his Delivery, would raise what they call a Horse-Laugh, and turn it into Burlesque."

On the other hand, Theophilus Cibber, in his Life of Booth, p. 72, supports his father's opinion, saying:—

"The Remark is just—Mr. Booth would sometimes slur over such bold Sentiments, so flightily delivered by the Poet. As he was good-natured—and would 'hear each Man's Censure, yet reserve his Judgment,'—I once took the Liberty of observing, that he had neglected (as I thought) giving that kind of spirited Turn in the afore-mentioned Character—He told me I was mistaken; it was not Negligence, but Design made him so slightly pass them over:—For though, added he, in these places one might raise a Laugh of Approbation in a few,—yet there is nothing more unsafe than exciting the Laugh of Simpletons, who never know when or where to stop; and, as the Majority are not always the wisest Part of an Audience,—I don't chuse to run the hazard."

[ [130] A long account of the production of "Cato" is given by Cibber in Chap. XIV. From the cast quoted in a note, it will be seen that Cibber himself was the original Syphax.

[ [131] "The Laureat" (p. 33): "I have seen the Original Syphax in Cato, use many ridiculous Distortions, crack in his Voice, and wreathe his Muscles and his Limbs, which created not a Smile of Approbation, but a loud Laugh of Contempt and Ridicule on the Actor." On page 34: "In my Opinion, the Part of Syphax, as it was originally play'd, was the only Part in Cato not tolerably executed."

[ [132] Bellchambers on this passage has one of those aggravating notes, in which he seems to try to blacken Cibber as much as possible. I confess that I can see nothing of the "venom" he resents so vigorously. He says:—

"Theophilus Cibber, in the tract already quoted, expressly states, that Booth 'was not so scrupulously nice or timerous' in this character, as in that to which our author has invidiously referred. I shall give the passage, for its powerful antidote to Colley's venom:—

"Mr. Booth, in this part, though he gave full Scope to the Humour, never dropped the Dignity of the Character—You laughed at Henry, but lost not your Respect for him.—When he appeared most familiar, he was by no means vulgar.—The People most about him felt the Ease they enjoyed was owing to his Condescension.—He maintained the Monarch.—Hans Holbein never gave a higher Picture of him than did the actor (Booth) in his Representation. When angry, his Eye spoke majestic Terror; the noblest and the bravest of his Courtiers were awe-struck—He gave you the full Idea of that arbitrary Prince, who thought himself born to be obeyed;—the boldest dared not to dispute his Commands:—He appeared to claim a Right Divine to exert the Power he imperiously assumed.' (p. 75)."

[ [133]

"Spirat Tragicum satis et feliciter audet."

Hor. Epis. ii. I, 166.

[ [134] "Aurenge-Zebe; or, the Great Mogul," act iv.

[ [135] Kynaston was the original Morat at the Theatre Royal in 1675; Hart the Aurenge-Zebe.

[ [136] "King Henry IV.," First Part, act i. sc. 3.

[ [137] See memoir of Kynaston at end of second volume.

[ [138] Downes spells Mountfort's name Monfort and Mounfort.

[ [139] "Spanish Friar," act ii. sc. 1.

[ [140] Willmore, in Mrs. Behn's "Rover," of which Smith was the original representative.

[ [141] In Crowne's "Sir Courtly Nice," produced at the Theatre Royal in 1685.

[ [142] William Mountfort was born in 1659 or 1660. He became a member of the Duke's Company as a boy, and Downes says that in 1682 he had grown to the maturity of a good actor. In the "Counterfeits," licensed 29th August, 1678, the Boy is played by Young Mumford, and in "The Revenge," produced in 1680, the same name stands to the part of Jack, the Barber's Boy. After the Union in 1682 he made rapid progress, for he played his great character of Sir Courtly Nice as early as 1685. In this Cibber gives him the highest praise; and Downes says, "Sir Courtly was so nicely Perform'd, that not any succeeding, but Mr. Cyber has Equall'd him." Mountfort was killed by one Captain Hill, aided, it is supposed, by the Lord Mohun who died in that terrible duel with the Duke of Hamilton, in 1712, in which they hacked each other to death. Whether Hill murdered Mountfort or killed him in fair fight is a doubtful point. (See Doran's "Their Majesties' Servants," 1888 edition, i. 169-172; see also memoir at end of second volume.)

[ [143] Creon (Dryden and Lee's "Œdipus"); Malignii (Porter's "Villain"); Machiavil (Lee's "Cæsar Borgia").

[ [144] The "Tatler," No. 134: "I must own, there is something very horrid in the publick Executions of an English Tragedy. Stabbing and Poisoning, which are performed behind the Scenes in other Nations, must be done openly among us to gratify the Audience.

When poor Sandford was upon the Stage, I have seen him groaning upon a Wheel, stuck with Daggers, impaled alive, calling his Executioners, with a dying Voice, Cruel Dogs, and Villains! And all this to please his judicious Spectators, who were wonderfully delighted with seeing a Man in Torment so well acted."

[ [145] Bellchambers notes: "This anecdote has more vivacity than truth, for the audience were too much accustomed to see Sandford in parts of even a comic nature, to testify the impatience or disappointment which Mr. Cibber has described." I may add that I have been unable to discover any play to which the circumstances mentioned by Cibber would apply. But it must not be forgotten that, if the play were damned as completely as Cibber says, it would probably not be printed, and we should thus in all probability have no record of it.

[ [146] Probably the Earl of Shaftesbury.

[ [147] Macready seems to have held something like this view regarding "villains." At the present time we have no such prejudices, for one of the most popular of English actors, Mr. E. S. Willard, owes his reputation chiefly to his wonderfully vivid presentation of villainy.

[ [148] The play in question is "The Triumphs of Virtue," produced at Drury Lane in 1697, and the actress is Mrs. Rogers, who afterwards lived with Wilks. The lines in the Epilogue are:—

"I'll pay this duteous gratitude; I'll do

That which the play has done—I'll copy you.

At your own virtue's shrine my vows I'll pay,

Study to live the character I play."

[ [149] Chetwood gives a short memoir of this "first-born," who became the wife of Christopher Bullock, and died in 1739. Mrs. Dyer was the only child of Mrs. Bullock's mentioned by Chetwood.

[ [150] See memoir of Sandford at end of second volume.

[ [151] It is a very common mistake to state that Cibber founded his playing of Richard III. on that of Sandford. He merely says that he tried to act the part as he knew Sandford would have played it.

[ [152] Cibber's adaptation, which has held the stage ever since its production, was first played at Drury Lane in 1700. Genest (ii. 195-219) gives an exhaustive account of Cibber's mutilation. His opinion of it may be gathered from these sentences: "One has no wish to disturb Cibber's own Tragedies in their tranquil graves, but while our indignation continues to be excited by the frequent representation of Richard the 3d in so disgraceful a state, there can be no peace between the friends of unsophisticated Shakspeare and Cibber." "To the advocates for Cibber's Richard I only wish to make one request—that they would never say a syllable in favour of Shakspeare."

[ [153] "The Laureat" (p. 35): "This same Mender of Shakespear chose the principal Part, viz. the King, for himself; and accordingly being invested with the purple Robe, he screamed thro' four Acts without Dignity or Decency. The Audience ill-pleas'd with the Farce, accompany'd him with a smile of Contempt, but in the fifth Act, he degenerated all at once into Sir Novelty; and when in the Heat of the Battle at Bosworth Field, the King is dismounted, our Comic-Tragedian came on the Stage, really breathless, and in a seeming Panick, screaming out this Line thus—A Harse, a Harse, my Kingdom for a Harse. This highly delighted some, and disgusted others of his Auditors; and when he was kill'd by Richmond, one might plainly perceive that the good People were not better pleas'd that so execrable a Tyrant was destroy'd, than that so execrable an Actor was silent."

[ [154] James Noke, or Nokes—not Robert, as Bellchambers states. Of Robert Nokes little is known. Downes mentions both actors among Rhodes's original Company, Robert playing male characters, and James being one of the "boy-actresses." Downes does not distinguish between them at all, simply mentioning "Mr. Nokes" as playing particular parts. Robert Nokes died about 1673, so that we are certain that the famous brother was James.

[ [155] "The Comical Revenge; or, Love in a Tub."

[ [156] Of these plays, "The Spanish Friar," "The Soldier's Fortune," and "Amphytrion" were produced after Robert Nokes's death.

[ [157] See memoir of James Nokes at end of second volume.

[ [158] "Coligni, the character alluded to, at the original representation of this play, was sustained, says Downs, 'by that inimitable sprightly actor, Mr. Price,—especially in this part.' Joseph Price joined D'Avenant's company on Rhodes's resignation, being one of 'the new actors,' according to the 'Roscius Anglicanus,' who were 'taken in to complete' it. He is first mentioned for Guildenstern, in 'Hamlet;' and, in succession, for Leonel, in D'Avenant's 'Love and Honour,' on which occasion the Earl of Oxford gave him his coronation-suit; for Paris, in 'Romeo and Juliet;' the Corregidor, in Tuke's 'Adventures of five hours;' and Coligni, as already recorded. In the year 1663, by speaking a 'short comical prologue' to the 'Rivals,' introducing some 'very diverting dances,' Mr. Price 'gained him an universal applause of the town.' The versatility of this actor must have been great, or the necessities of the company imperious, as we next find him set down for Lord Sands, in 'King Henry the Eighth.' He then performed Will, in the 'Cutter of Coleman-street,' and is mentioned by Downs as being dead, in the year 1673."

The above is Bellchambers's note. He is wrong in stating that Price played the Corregidor in Tuke's "Adventures of Five Hours;" his part was Silvio. He omits, too, to mention one of Price's best parts, Dufoy, in "Love in a Tub," in which Downes specially commends him in this queer couplet:—

"Sir Nich'las, Sir Fred'rick; Widow and Dufoy,

Were not by any so well done, Mafoy."

Price does not seem to have acted after May, 1665, when the theatres closed for the Plague, for his name is never mentioned by Downes after the theatres re-opened in November, 1666, after the Plague and Fire.

[ [159] "Sir Solomon; or, the Cautious Coxcomb," by John Caryll.

[ [160] By Otway.

[ [161] By Shadwell.

[ [162] "Rest" is a term used in tennis, and seems to have meant a quick and continued returning of the ball from one player to the other—what is in lawn tennis called a "rally."

Cibber uses the word in his "Careless Husband," act iv. sc. 1.

"Lady Betty [to Lord Morelove]. Nay, my lord, there's no standing against two of you.

Lord Foppington. No, faith, that's odds at tennis, my lord: not but if your ladyship pleases, I'll endeavour to keep your back-hand a little; though upon my soul you may safely set me up at the line: for, knock me down, if ever I saw a rest of wit better played, than that last, in my life."

In the only dictionary in which I have found this word "Rest," it is given as "A match, a game;" but, as I think I have shown, this is a defective explanation. I may add that, since writing the above, I have been favoured with the opinion of Mr. Julian Marshall, the distinguished authority on tennis, who confirms my view.

[ [163] By Durfey.

[ [164] Bartoline. Genest suggests that this character was intended for the Whig lawyer, Serjeant Maynard. The play was written by Crowne.

[ [165] See memoir of Pinkethman at end of second volume.

[ [166] In this farce, written by Mrs. Behn, and produced in 1687, Jevon was the original Harlequin. Pinkethman played the part in 1702, and played it without the mask on 18th September, 1702. The "Daily Courant" of that date contains an advertisement in which it is stated that "At the Desire of some Persons of Quality ... will be presented a Comedy, call'd, The Emperor of the Moon, wherein Mr. Penkethman acts the part of Harlequin without a Masque, for the Entertainment of an African Prince lately arrived here."

[ [167] This refers to "Art and Nature," a comedy by James Miller, produced at Drury Lane 16th February, 1738. The principal character in "Harlequin Sauvage" was introduced into it and played by Theophilus Cibber. The piece was damned the first night, but it must not be forgotten that the Templars damned everything of Miller's on account of his supposed insult to them in his farce of "The Coffee House." Bellchambers says the piece referred to by Cibber was "The Savage," 8vo, 1736; but this does not seem ever to have been acted.

[ [168] This probably refers to the incident related by Davies in his "Dramatic Miscellanies":—"In the play of the 'Recruiting Officer,' Wilks was the Captain Plume, and Pinkethman one of the recruits. The captain, when he enlisted him, asked his name: instead of answering as he ought, Pinkey replied, 'Why! don't you know my name, Bob? I thought every fool had known that!' Wilks, in rage, whispered to him the name of the recruit, Thomas Appletree. The other retorted aloud, 'Thomas Appletree? Thomas Devil! my name is Will Pinkethman:' and, immediately addressing an inhabitant of the upper regions, he said 'Hark you, friend; don't you know my name?'—'Yes, Master Pinkey,' said a respondent, 'we know it very well.' The play-house was now in an uproar: the audience, at first, enjoyed the petulant folly of Pinkethman, and the distress of Wilks; but, in the progress of the joke, it grew tiresome, and Pinkey met with his deserts, a very severe reprimand in a hiss; and this mark of displeasure he changed into applause, by crying out, with a countenance as melancholy as he could make it, in a loud and nasal twang, 'Odso! I fear I am wrong'" (iii. 89).

[ [169] See memoir of Leigh at end of second volume.

[ [170] By Shadwell.

[ [171] Underhill seems to have partially retired about the beginning of 1707. He played Sir Joslin Jolley on 5th December, 1706, but Bullock played it on 9th January, 1707, and, two days after, Johnson played Underhill's part of the First Gravedigger. Underhill, however, played in "The Rover" on 20th January, 1707. The benefit Cibber refers to took place on 3rd June, 1709. Underhill played the Gravedigger again on 23rd February, 1710, and on 12th May, 1710, for his benefit, he played Trincalo in "The Tempest." Genest says he acted at Greenwich on 26th August, 1710. The advertisement in the "Tatler" (26th May, 1709) runs: "Mr. Cave Underhill, the famous Comedian in the Reigns of K. Charles ii. K. James ii. K. William and Q. Mary, and her present Majesty Q. Anne; but now not able to perform so often as heretofore in the Play-house, and having had losses to the value of near £2,500, is to have the Tragedy of Hamlet acted for his Benefit, on Friday the third of June next, at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane, in which he is to perform his Original Part, the Grave-Maker. Tickets may be had at the Mitre-Tavern in Fleet-Street." See also memoir of Underhill at end of second volume.

[ [172] See memoir of Powel at end of second volume.

[ [173] John Verbruggen, whose name Downes spells "Vanbruggen," "Vantbrugg," and "Verbruggen," is first recorded as having played Termagant in "The Squire of Alsatia," at the Theatre Royal, in 1688. His name last appears in August, 1707, and he must have died not long after. On 26th April, 1708, a benefit was announced for "a young orphan child of the late Mr. and Mrs. Verbruggen." He seems to have been an actor of great natural power, but inartistic in method. See what Anthony Aston says of him. Cibber unfairly, as we must think, seems carefully to avoid mentioning him as of any importance. "The Laureat," p. 58, says: "I wonder, considering our Author's Particularity of Memory, that he hardly ever mentions Mr. Verbruggen, who was in many Characters an excellent Actor.... I cannot conceive why Verbruggen is left out of the Number of his excellent Actors; whether some latent Grudge, alta Mente repostum, has robb'd him of his Immortality in this Work." See also memoir of Verbruggen at end of second volume.

[ [174] See memoir of Williams at end of second volume.

[ [175] Produced at the Theatre Royal in 1692.

[ [176] In Chapter IX. of this work Cibber gives an elaborate account of Mrs. Oldfield. He remarks there that, after her joining the company, "she remain'd about a Twelvemonth almost a Mute, and unheeded."

[ [177] See memoir of Mrs. Barry at end of second volume.

[ [178] In "The Orphan," produced at Dorset Garden in 1680, and in "Venice Preserved," produced at the same theatre in 1682.

[ [179] In "The Rival Queens." Mrs. Marshall was the original Roxana, at the Theatre Royal in 1677. So far as we know, Mrs. Barry had not played Cleopatra (Dryden's "All for Love") when Dryden wrote the eulogy Cibber quotes. Mrs. Boutell originally acted the part, Theatre Royal, 1678.

[ [180] Bellchambers contradicts Cibber, saying that the Agreement of 14th October, 1681 [see Memoir of Hart], shows that benefits existed then. The words referred to are, "the day the young men or young women play for their own profit only." But this day set aside for the young people playing was, I think, quite a different matter from a benefit to a particular performer. Pepys (21st March, 1667) says, "The young men and women of the house ... having liberty to act for their own profit on Wednesdays and Fridays this Lent." These were evidently "scratch" performances on "off" nights; and it is to these, I think, that the agreement quoted refers.

[ [181] As Dr. Doran points out ("Their Majesties' Servants," 1888 edition, i. 160) this does not settle the question so easily as Cibber supposes. Twelve Tory peers were created by Queen Anne in the last few days of 1711, and Mrs. Barry did not die till the end of 1713.

[ [182] See memoir of Mrs. Betterton at end of second volume.

[ [183] Downes includes Mrs. Leigh among the recruits to the Duke's Company about 1670. He does not give her maiden name, but Genest supposes she may have been the daughter of Dixon, one of Rhodes's Company. As there are two actresses of the name of Mrs. Leigh, and one Mrs. Lee, and as no reliance can be placed on the spelling of names in the casts of plays, it is practically impossible to decide accurately the parts each played. This Mrs. Leigh seems to have been Elizabeth, and her name does not appear after 1707, the Eli. Leigh who signed the petition to Queen Anne in 1709 being probably a younger woman. Bellchambers has a most inaccurate note regarding Mrs. Leigh, stating that she "is probably not a distinct person from Mrs. Mary Lee."

[ [184] Mrs. Charlotte Butler is mentioned by Downes as entering the Duke's Company about the year 1673. By 1691 she occupied an important position as an actress, and in 1692 her name appears to the part of La Pupsey in Durfey's "Marriage-Hater Matched." This piece must have been produced early in the year, for Ashbury, by whom, as Cibber relates, she was engaged for Dublin, opened his season on 23rd March, 1692. Hitchcock, in his "View of the Irish Stage," describes her as "an actress of great repute, and a prodigious favourite with King Charles the Second" (i. 21).

[ [185] Chetwood gives a long account of Joseph Ashbury. He was born in 1638, and served for some years in the army. By the favour of the Duke of Ormond, then Lord Lieutenant, Ashbury was appointed successively Deputy-Master and Master of the Revels in Ireland. The latter appointment he seems to have received in 1682, though Hitchcock says "1672." Ashbury managed the Dublin Theatre with propriety and success, and was considered not only the principal actor in his time there, but the best teacher of acting in the three kingdoms. Chetwood, who saw him in his extreme old age, pronounced him admirable both in Tragedy and Comedy. He died in 1720, at the great age of eighty-two.

[ [186] This artistic sense was shown also by Margaret Woffington. Davies ("Life of Garrick," 4th edition, i. 315) writes: "in Mrs. Day, in the Committee, she made no scruple to disguise her beautiful countenance, by drawing on it the lines of deformity and the wrinkles of old age, and to put on the tawdry habiliments and vulgar manners of an old hypocritical city vixen."

[ [187] In "The Scornful Lady."

[ [188] "The Bath; or, the Western Lass," produced at Drury Lane in 1701.

[ [189] It is curious to compare with this Anthony Aston's outspoken criticism on Mrs. Mountfort's personal appearance.

[ [190] Anthony Aston says "Melantha was her Master-piece." Dryden's comedy was produced at the Theatre Royal in 1672, when Mrs. Boutell played Melantha.

[ [191] Act ii. scene 1.

[ [192] Mrs. Mountfort, originally Mrs. (that is Miss) Percival, and afterwards Mrs. Verbruggen, is first mentioned as the representative of Winifrid, a young Welsh jilt, in "Sir Barnaby Whigg," a comedy produced at the Theatre Royal in 1681. As Diana, in "The Lucky Chance" (1687), Genest gives her name as Mrs. Mountfort, late Mrs. Percival; so that her marriage with Mountfort must have taken place about the end of 1686 or beginning of 1687. Mountfort was killed in 1692, and in 1694 the part of Mary the Buxom, in "Don Quixote," part first, is recorded by Genest as played by Mrs. Verbruggen, late Mrs. Mountfort. In 1702, in the "Comparison between the Two Stages," Gildon pronounces her "a miracle." In 1703 she died. She was the original representative of, among other characters, Nell, in "Devil of a Wife;" Belinda, in "The Old Bachelor;" Lady Froth, in "The Double Dealer;" Charlott Welldon, in "Oroonoko;" Berinthia, in "Relapse;" Lady Lurewell; Lady Brumpton, in "The Funeral;" Hypolita, in "She Would and She Would Not;" and Hillaria, in "Tunbridge Walks."

[ [193] Bellchambers has here a most uncharitable note, which I quote as curious, though I must add that there is not a shadow of proof of the truth of it.

"Mrs. Bracegirdle was decidedly not 'unguarded' in her conduct, for though the object of general suspicion, no proof of positive unchastity was ever brought against her. Her intrigue with Mountfort, who lost his life in consequence of it,{A} is hardly to be disputed, and there is pretty ample evidence that Congreve was honoured with a gratification of his amorous desires.{B}

{A} "'We had not parted with him as many minutes as a man may beget his likeness in, but who should we meet but Mountfort the player, looking as pale as a ghost, sailing forward as gently as a caterpillar 'cross a sycamore leaf, gaping for a little air, like a sinner just come out of the powdering-tub, crying out as he crept towards us, "O my back! Confound 'em for a pack of brimstones: O my back!"—"How now, Sir Courtly," said I, "what the devil makes thee in this pickle?"—"O, gentlemen," says he, "I am glad to see you; but I am troubled with such a weakness in my back, that it makes me bend like a superannuated fornicator." "Some strain," said I, "got in the other world, with overheaving yourself."—"What matters it how 'twas got," says he; "can you tell me anything that's good for it?" "Yes," said I; "get a warm girdle and tie round you; 'tis an excellent corroborative to strengthen the loins."—"Pox on you," says he, "for a bantering dog! how can a single girdle do me good, when a Brace was my destruction?"'—Brown's 'Letters from the Dead to the Living' [1744, ii. 186].

{B} "In one of those infamous collections known by the name of 'Poems on State Affairs' [iv. 49], there are several obvious, though coarse and detestable, hints of this connexion. Collier's severity against the stage is thus sarcastically deprecated, in a short piece called the 'Benefits of a Theatre.'

Shall a place be put down, when we see it affords

Fit wives for great poets, and whores for great lords?

Since Angelica, bless'd with a singular grace,

Had, by her fine acting, preserv'd all his plays,

In an amorous rapture, young Valentine said,

One so fit for his plays might be fit for his bed.

"The allusion to Congreve and Mrs. Bracegirdle wants, of course, no corroboration; but the hint at their marriage, broached in the half line I have italicised, is a curious though unauthorized fact. From the verses I shall continue to quote, it will appear that this marriage between the parties, though thought to be private, was currently believed; it is an expedient that has often been used, in similar cases, to cover the nakedness of outrageous lust.

He warmly pursues her, she yielded her charms,

And bless'd the kind youngster in her kinder arms:

But at length the poor nymph did for justice implore,

And he's married her now, though he'd —— her before.

"On a subsequent page of the same precious miscellany, there is a most offensive statement of the cause which detached our great comic writer from the object of his passion. The thing is too filthy to be even described."

[ [194] Rowe and Congreve.

[ [195] In Congreve's "Way of the World."

[ [196] Cibber's chronology is a little shaky here. Mrs. Bracegirdle's name appeared for the last time in the bill of 20th February, 1707. Betterton's benefit, for which she returned to the stage for one night, took place on 7th April, 1709.

[ [197] Mrs. Anne Bracegirdle made her first appearance on the stage as a very young child. In the cast of Otway's "Orphan," 1680, the part of Cordelio, Polydore's Page, is said to be played by "the little girl," who, Curll ("History," p. 26) informs us, was Anne Bracegirdle, then less than six years of age. In 1688 her name appears to the part of Lucia in "The Squire of Alsatia;" but it is not till 1691 that she can be said to have regularly entered upon her career as an actress. She was the original representative of some of the most famous heroines in comedy: Araminta, in "The Old Bachelor;" Cynthia, in "The Double Dealer;" Angelica, in "Love for Love;" Belinda, in "The Provoked Wife;" Millamant; Flippanta, in "The Confederacy," and many others. Mrs. Bracegirdle appears to have been a good and excellent woman, as well as a great actress. All the scandal about her seems to have had no further foundation than, to quote Genest, "the extreme difficulty with which an actress at this period of the stage must have preserved her chastity." Genest goes on to remark, with delicious naïveté, "Mrs. Bracegirdle was perhaps a woman of a cold constitution." Her retirement from the stage when not much over thirty is accounted for by Curll, by a story of a competition between her and Mrs. Oldfield in the part of Mrs. Brittle in "The Amorous Widow," in which the latter was the more applauded. He says that they played the part on two successive nights; but I have carefully examined Dr. Burney's MSS. in the British Museum for the season 1706-7, and "The Amorous Widow" was certainly not played twice successively. I doubt the story altogether. That Mrs. Bracegirdle retired because Mrs. Oldfield was excelling her in popular estimation is most likely, but I can find no confirmation whatever for Curll's story. "The Laureat," p. 36, attributes her retirement to Mrs. Oldfield's being "preferr'd to some Parts before her, by our very Apologist"; but though the reason thus given is probably accurate, the person blamed is as probably guiltless; for I do not think Cibber could have sufficient authority to distribute parts in 1706-7. Mrs. Bracegirdle died September, 1748, but was dead to the stage from 1709. Cibber's remark on p. 99 had therefore no reference to her.

[ [198] Cibber writes here with feeling; for, after his "Nonjuror" abused the Jacobites and Nonjurors, that party took every opportunity of revenging themselves on him by maltreating his plays.

[ [199] See ante, p. 63, for an allusion to this passage by Fielding in "The Champion."

[ [200] Æneid, i. 630.

[ [201] This is a curious statement, and has never, so far as I know, been commented on; the cause of Cibber's retirement having always been considered mysterious. I suppose this reference to ill-treatment must be held as confirming Davies's statement that the public lost patience at Cibber's continually playing tragic parts, and fairly hissed him off the stage. Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 471) relates the following incident: "When Thomson's Sophonisba was read to the actors, Cibber laid his hand upon Scipio, a character, which, though it appears only in the last act, is of great dignity and importance. For two nights successively, Cibber was as much exploded as any bad actor could be. Williams, by desire of Wilks, made himself master of the part; but he, marching slowly, in great military distinction, from the upper part of the stage, and wearing the same dress as Cibber, was mistaken for him, and met with repeated hisses, joined to the music of cat-cals; but, as soon as the audience were undeceived, they converted their groans and hisses to loud and long continued applause."

[ [202] Cibber retired in May, 1733. The reappearance he refers to was not that he made in 1738, as Bellchambers states. He no doubt alludes to his performances in 1734-35, when he played Bayes, Lord Foppington, Sir John Brute, and other comedy parts. On the nights he played, the compliment was paid him of putting no name in the bill but his own.

[ [203] The original holders of the Patents, Sir William Davenant and Thomas Killigrew, were dead in 1690; and their successors, Alexander Davenant, to whom Charles Davenant had assigned his interest, and Charles Killigrew, seem to have taken little active interest in the management; for Christopher Rich, who acquired Davenant's share in 1691, seems at once to have become managing proprietor.

[ [204] Davies ("Dramatic Miscellanies," iii. 444) gives the following account of Cibber's first salary: "But Mr. Richard Cross, late prompter of Drury-lane theatre, gave me the following history of Colley Cibber's first establishment as a hired actor. He was known only, for some years, by the name of Master Colley. After waiting impatiently a long time for the prompter's notice, by good fortune he obtained the honour of carrying a message on the stage, in some play, to Betterton. Whatever was the cause, Master Colley was so terrified, that the scene was disconcerted by him. Betterton asked, in some anger, who the young fellow was that had committed the blunder. Downes replied, 'Master Colley.'—'Master Colley! then forfeit him.'—'Why, sir,' said the prompter, 'he has no salary.'—'No!' said the old man; 'why then put him down ten shillings a week, and forfeit him 5s.'"

[ [205] Complexion is a point of no importance now, and this allusion suggests a theory to me which I give with all diffidence. We know that actresses painted in Pepys's time ("1667, Oct. 5. But, Lord! To see how they [Nell Gwynne and Mrs. Knipp] were both painted would make a man mad, and did make me loathe them"), and we also know that Dogget was famous for the painting of his face to represent old age. If, then, complexion was a point of importance for a lover, as Cibber states, it suggests that young actors playing juvenile parts did not use any "make-up" or paint, but went on the stage in their natural complexion. The lighting of the stage was of course much less brilliant than it afterwards became, so that "make-up" was not so necessary.

[ [206] "The Laureat" (p. 103) describes Cibber's person thus:—

"He was in Stature of the middle Size, his Complexion fair, inclinable to the Sandy, his Legs somewhat of the thickest, his Shape a little clumsy, not irregular, and his Voice rather shrill than loud or articulate, and crack'd extremely, when he endeavour'd to raise it. He was in his younger Days so lean, as to be known by the Name of Hatchet Face."

[ [207] Bellchambers notes that this part was originally played by Percival, who came into the Duke's Company about 1673.

[ [208] Of Cibber's wife there is little record. In 1695 the name of "Mrs. Cibbars" appears to the part of Galatea in "Philaster," and she was the original Hillaria in Cibber's "Love's Last Shift" in 1696; but she never made any great name or played any famous part. She was a Miss Shore, sister of John Shore, "Sergeant-trumpet" of England. The "Biographia Dramatica" (i. 117) says that Miss Shore's father was extremely angry at her marriage, and spent that portion of his fortune which he had intended for her in building a retreat on the Thames which was called Shore's Folly.

[ [209] "The Double Dealer," 1693, was not very successful, and when played at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 18th October, 1718, was announced as not having been acted for fifteen years; so that this incident no doubt occurred in the course of the first few nights of the play, which, Malone says, was produced in November, 1693.

[ [210] "The Prophetess," now supposed to be mostly Fletcher's work (see Ward's "English Dramatic Literature," ii. 218), was made into an opera by Betterton, the music by Purcell. It was produced in 1690, with a Prologue written by Dryden, which, for political reasons, was forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain after the first night.

[ [211] "King Arthur; or, the British Worthy," a Dramatic Opera, as Dryden entitles it, was produced in 1691. In his Dedication to the Marquis of Halifax, Dryden says: "This Poem was the last Piece of Service, which I had the Honour to do, for my Gracious Master, King Charles the Second." Downes says "'twas very Gainful to the Company," but Cibber declares it was not so successful as it appeared to be.

[ [212] End of 1692.

[ [213] Betterton seems to have been a very politic person. In the "Comparison between the two Stages" (p. 41) he is called, though not in reference to this particular matter, "a cunning old Fox."

[ [214] This is no doubt a hit at Wilks, whose temper was extremely impetuous.

[ [215] "The Laureat," p. 39: "He (Cibber) was always against raising, or rewarding, or by any means encouraging Merit of any kind." He had "many Disputes with Wilks on this Account, who was impatient, when Justice required it, to reward the Meritorious."

[ [216] This is a reference to the secession of seven or eight actors in 1714, caused, according to Cibber, by Wilks's overbearing temper. See Chapter XV.

[ [217] Downes and Davies give the following accounts of the transaction:—

"Some time after, a difference happening between the United Patentees, and the chief Actors: As Mr. Betterton; Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle; the latter complaining of Oppression from the former; they for Redress, Appeal'd to my Lord of Dorset, then Lord Chamberlain, for Justice; who Espousing the Cause of the Actors, with the assistance of Sir Robert Howard, finding their Complaints just, procur'd from King William, a Seperate License for Mr. Congreve, Mr. Betterton, Mrs. Bracegirdle and Mrs. Barry, and others, to set up a new Company, calling it the New Theatre in Lincolns-Inn-Fields."—"Roscius Anglicanus," p. 43.

"The nobility, and all persons of eminence, favoured the cause of the comedians; the generous Dorset introduced Betterton, Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Bracegirdle, and others, to the King, who granted them an audience.... William, who had freed all the subjects of England from slavery, except the inhabitants of the mimical world, rescued them also from the insolence and tyranny of their oppressors."—"Dram. Miscellanies," iii. 419.

[ [218] 28th December, 1694.

[ [219] The "Comparison between the two Stages" says (p. 7): "'twas almost impossible in Drury-Lane, to muster up a sufficient number to take in all the Parts of any Play."

[ [220] See memoir of Johnson at end of second volume.

[ [221] See memoir of Bullock at end of second volume.

[ [222] I do not think that the date of this Licence has ever been stated. It was 25th March, 1695.

[ [223] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 12: "We know what importuning and dunning the Noblemen there was, what flattering, and what promising there was, till at length, the incouragement they received by liberal Contributions set 'em in a Condition to go on." This theatre was the theatre in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields. See further details in Chap. XIII.

[ [224] No doubt, Rich.

[ [225] Downes says (p. 43), "the House being fitted up from a Tennis-Court, they Open'd it the last Day of April, 1695."

[ [226] It will be noticed that Downes in the passage quoted by me (p. 192, note 1) mentions Congreve as if he had been an original sharer in the Licence; but the statement is probably loosely made.

[ [227] Bellchambers has here the following notes, the entire substance of which will be found in Malone ("Shakespeare," 1821, iii. 170, et seq.): "In Shakspeare's time the nightly expenses for lights, supernumeraries, etc., was but forty-five shillings, and having deducted this charge, the clear emoluments were divided into shares, (supposed to be forty in number,) between the proprietors, and principal actors. In the year 1666, the whole profit arising from acting plays, masques, etc., at the King's theatre, was divided into twelve shares and three quarters, of which Mr. Killegrew, the manager, had two shares and three quarters, each share computed to produce about £250, net, per annum. In Sir William D'Avenant's company, from the time their new theatre was opened in Portugal-row, the total receipt, after deducting the nightly expenses, was divided into fifteen shares, of which it was agreed that ten should belong to D'Avenant, for various purposes, and the remainder be divided among the male members of his troops according to their rank and merit. I cannot relate the arrangement adopted by Betterton in Lincoln's-inn-fields, but the share accepted by Congreve was, doubtless, presumed to be of considerable value.

"Dryden had a share and a quarter in the king's company, for which he bound himself to furnish not two, but three plays every season. The following paper, which, after remaining long in the Killegrew family, came into the hands of the late Mr. Reed, and was published by Mr. Malone in his 'Historical Account of the English Stage,' incontestably proves the practice alluded to. The superscription is lost, but it was probably addressed to the lord-chamberlain, or the king, about the year 1678, 'Œdipus,' the ground of complaint, being printed in 1679:

"'Whereas upon Mr. Dryden's binding himself to write three playes a yeere, hee the said Mr. Dryden was admitted and continued as a sharer in the king's playhouse for diverse years, and received for his share and a quarter three or four hundred pounds, communibus annis; but though he received the moneys, we received not the playes, not one in a yeare. After which, the house being burnt, the company in building another, contracted great debts, so that shares fell much short of what they were formerly. Thereupon Mr. Dryden complaining to the company of his want of proffit, the company was so kind to him that they not only did not presse him for the playes which he so engaged to write for them, and for which he was paid beforehand, but they did also at his earnest request give him a third day for his last new play called All for Love; and at the receipt of the money of the said third day, he acknowledged it as a guift, and a particular kindnesse of the company. Yet notwithstanding this kind proceeding, Mr. Dryden has now, jointly with Mr. Lee, (who was in pension with us to the last day of our playing, and shall continue,) written a play called Oedipus, and given it to the Duke's company, contrary to his said agreement, his promise, and all gratitude, to the great prejudice and almost undoing of the company, they being the only poets remaining to us. Mr. Crowne, being under the like agreement with the duke's house, writt a play called The Destruction of Jerusalem, and being forced by their refusall of it, to bring it to us, the said company compelled us, after the studying of it, and a vast expence in scenes and cloaths, to buy off their clayme, by paying all the pension he had received from them, amounting to one hundred and twelve pounds paid by the king's company, besides near forty pounds he the said Mr. Crowne paid out of his owne pocket.

"'These things considered, if notwithstanding Mr. Dryden's said agreement, promise, and moneys freely giving him for his said last new play, and the many titles we have to his writings, this play be judged away from us, we must submit. be judged away from us, we must submit.

(Signed) "'Charles Killigrew.
"'Charles Hart.
"'Rich. Burt.
"'Cardell Goodman.
"'Mic. Mohun.'"

[ [228] The interval between the two plays cannot have been quite three years. The first was produced in April, 1695, the second some time in 1697.

[ [229] Produced early in 1700.

[ [230] Mrs. Mountfort was now Mrs. Verbruggen.

[ [231] The passage is:—

"The Freedom man was born to, you've restor'd,

And to our World such Plenty you afford,

It seems, like Eden, fruitful of its own accord.

But since, in Paradise, frail Flesh gave Way,

And when but two were made, both went astray;

Forbear your Wonder, and the Fault forgive,

If, in our larger Family, we grieve

One falling Adam, and one tempted Eve."

[ [232] In his Preface to "Woman's Wit," Cibber says, "But however a Fort is in a very poor Condition, that (in a Time of General War) has but a Handful of raw young Fellows to maintain it." He also talks of himself and his companions as "an uncertain Company."

[ [233] Bellchambers has here this note: "Mr. Cibber's usage of the verb regret here, may be said to confirm the censure of Fielding, who urged, in reviewing some other of his inadvertencies, that it was 'needless for a great writer to understand his grammar.'" See note 1 on page 69.

[ [234] Genest (ii. 65) has the following criticism of Cibber's statement: "There can be no doubt but that the acting at the Theatre Royal was miserably inferiour to what it had been—but perhaps Cibber's account is a little exaggerated—he had evidently a personal dislike to Powell—everything therefore that he says, directly or indirectly, against him must be received with some grains of allowance—Powell seems to have been eager to exhibit himself in some of Betterton's best parts, whereas a more diffident actor would have wished to avoid comparisons—we know from the Spectator that Powell was too apt to tear a passion to tatters, but still he must have been an actor of considerable reputation at this time, or he would not have been cast for several good parts before the division of the Company."

[ [235] "Old Bachelor," act iv. sc. 4:—

"Fondlewife. Come kiss Nykin once more, and then get you in—So—Get
you in, get you in. By by.

Lætitia. By, Nykin.
Fondlewife. By, Cocky.
Lætitia. By, Nykin.
Fondlewife. By, Cocky, by, by."

[ [236] Regarding Powell's playing in imitation of Betterton, Chetwood ("History of the Stage," p. 155) says: "Mr. George Powel, a reputable Actor, with many Excellencies, gave out, that he would perform the part of Sir John Falstaff in the manner of that very excellent English Roscius, Mr. Betterton. He certainly hit his Manner, and Tone of Voice, yet to make the Picture more like, he mimic'd the Infirmities of Distemper, old Age, and the afflicting Pains of the Gout, which that great Man was often seiz'd with."

[ [237]

"Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas,

Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli."

Juvenal, i. 85.

[ [238] That is, January, 1696. The cast was:—

"Love's last Shift; or, the Fool in Fashion."
Sir William Wisewoud Mr. Johnson.
Loveless Mr. Verbruggen.
Sir Novelty Fashion Mr. Cibber.
Elder Worthy Mr. Williams.
Young Worthy Mr. Horden.
Snap Mr. Penkethman.
Sly Mr. Bullock.
Lawyer Mr. Mills.
Amanda Mrs. Rogers.
Narcissa Mrs. Verbruggen.
Hillaria Mrs. Cibber.
Mrs. Flareit Mrs. Kent.
Amanda's Woman Mrs. Lucas.

[ [239] In the Dedication to this play Cibber says that "Mr. Southern's Good-nature (whose own Works best recommend his Judgment) engaged his Reputation for the Success."

[ [240] Gildon praises this play highly in the "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 25:—

"Ramble. Ay, marry, that Play was the Philosopher's Stone; I think it did wonders.

Sullen. It did so, and very deservedly; there being few Comedies that came up to't for purity of Plot, Manners and Moral: It's often acted now a daies, and by the help of the Author's own good action, it pleases to this Day."

[ [241] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 437) says: "So little was hoped from the genius of Cibber, that the critics reproached him with stealing his play. To his censurers he makes a serious defence of himself, in his dedication to Richard Norton, Esq., of Southwick, a gentleman who was so fond of stage-plays and players, that he has been accused of turning his chapel into a theatre. The furious John Dennis, who hated Cibber for obstructing, as he imagined, the progress of his tragedy called the Invader of his Country, in very passionate terms denies his claim to this comedy: 'When the Fool in Fashion was first acted (says the critic) Cibber was hardly twenty years of age—how could he, at the age of twenty, write a comedy with a just design, distinguished characters, and a proper dialogue, who now, at forty, treats us with Hibernian sense and Hibernian English?'"

[ [242] This same accusation was made against Cibber on other occasions. Dr. Johnson, referring to one of these, said: "There was no reason to believe that the Careless Husband was not written by himself."—Boswell's Johnson, ii. 340.

[ [243] "The Relapse; or, Virtue in Danger," was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. Cibber's part in it, Lord Foppington, became one of his most famous characters. The "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 32, says: "Oronoko, Æsop, and Relapse are Master-pieces, and subsisted Drury-lane House, the first two or three Years."

[ [244] "The Provoked Wife" was produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1697; and, as Cibber states, "Æsop" was played at Drury Lane in the same year. It seems (see Prologue to "The Confederacy") that Vanbrugh gave his first three plays as presents to the Companies.

[ [245] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 12: "In the meantime the Mushrooms in Drury-Lane shoot up from such a desolate Fortune into a considerable Name; and not only grappled with their Rivals, but almost eclipst 'em."

[ [246] The last performance of this comedy which Genest indexes was at Covent Garden, 14th February, 1763.

[ [247] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 469) says: "The truth is, Cibber was endured, in this and other tragic parts, on account of his general merit in comedy;" and the author of "The Laureat," p. 41, remarks: "I have often heard him blamed as a Trifler in that Part; he was rarely perfect, and, abating for the Badness of his Voice and the Insignificancy and Meanness of his Action, he did not seem to understand either what he said or what he was about."

[ [248] "The Laureat," p. 44: "Whatever the Actors appear"d upon the Stage, they were most of them Barbarians off on't, few of them having had the Education, or whose Fortunes could admit them to the Conversation of Gentlemen."

[ [249] Davies praises Cibber in Fondlewife, saying that he "was much and justly admired and applauded" ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 391); and in the same work (i. 306) he gives an admirable sketch of Cibber as Justice Shallow:—

"Whether he was a copy or an original in Shallow, it is certain no audience was ever more fixed in deep attention, at his first appearance, or more shaken with laughter in the progress of the scene, than at Colley Cibber's exhibition of this ridiculous justice of peace. Some years after he had left the stage, he acted Shallow for his son's benefit. I believe in 1737, when Quin was the Falstaff, and Milward the King. Whether it was owing to the pleasure the spectators felt on seeing their old friend return to them again, though for that night only, after an absence of some years, I know not; but, surely, no actor or audience were better pleased with each other. His manner was so perfectly simple, his look so vacant, when he questioned his cousin Silence about the price of ewes, and lamented, in the same breath, with silly surprise, the death of Old Double, that it will be impossible for any surviving spectator not to smile at the remembrance of it. The want of ideas occasions Shallow to repeat almost every thing he says. Cibber's transition, from asking the price of bullocks, to trite, but grave reflections on mortality, was so natural, and attended with such an unmeaning roll of his small pigs-eyes, accompanied with an important utterance of tick! tick! tick! not much louder than the balance of a watch, that I question if any actor was ever superior in the conception or expression of such solemn insignificancy."

[ [250] I presume Cibber means 1695. The Company was self-governed from its commencement in 1695, and the disintegration seems to have begun in the next season. See what Cibber says of Dogget's defection a few pages on.

[ [251] In Lee's tragedy of "Cæsar Borgia," originally played at Dorset Garden in 1680. Borgia was Betterton's part, and was evidently one of those which Powell laid violent hands on.

[ [252] Among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is a curious Decision, dated 26 Oct. 1696, regarding this desertion. By it, Dogget, who is stated to have been seduced from Lincoln's Inn Fields, is permitted to act where he likes.

[ [253] Genest's list of Dogget's characters shows that he was apparently not engaged 1698 to 1700, both inclusive; for the seasons 1706-7 and 1707-8; and for the season 1708-9. This would make the three occasions mentioned by Cibber.

[ [254] Dryden, in his Address to Granville on his tragedy of "Heroic Love" in 1698, says of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company:—

"Their setting sun still shoots a glimmering ray,

Like ancient Rome, majestic in decay;

And better gleanings their worn soil can boast,

Than the crab-vintage of the neighbouring coast."

[ [255] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 13: "But this [the success of 'Love for Love'] like other things of that kind, being only nine Days wonder, and the Audiences, being in a little time sated with the Novelty of the New-house, return in Shoals to the Old."

[ [256] Cibber says nothing of his having been a member of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company. But he was, for he writes in his Preface to "Woman's Wit": "during the Time of my writing the two first Acts I was entertain'd at the New Theatre.... In the Middle of my Writing the Third Act, not liking my Station there, I return'd again to the Theatre Royal." Cibber must have joined Betterton, I should think, about the end of 1696. It is curious that he should in his "Apology" have entirely suppressed this incident. It almost suggests that there was something in it of which he was in later years somewhat ashamed.

[ [257] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 14: "The Town ... chang'd their Inclinations for the two Houses, as they found 'emselves inclin'd to Comedy or Tragedy: If they desir'd a Tragedy, they went to Lincolns-Inn-Fields; if to Comedy, they flockt to Drury-lane."

[ [258] Christopher Rich, of whom the "Comparison between the two Stages" says (p. 15): "Critick. In the other House there's an old snarling Lawyer Master and Sovereign; a waspish, ignorant, pettifogger in Law and Poetry; one who understands Poetry no more than Algebra; he wou'd sooner have the Grace of God than do everybody Justice."

[ [259] This privilege seems to have been granted about 1697 or 1698. It was not abolished till 1737. On 5th May, 1737, footmen having been deprived of their privilege, 300 of them broke into Drury Lane and did great damage. Many were, however, arrested, and no attempt was made to renew hostilities.

[ [260] Queen Anne issued several Edicts forbidding persons to be admitted behind the scenes, and in the advertisements of both theatres there appeared the announcement, "By Her Majesty's Command no Persons are to be admitted behind the Scenes." Cibber here, no doubt, refers to the Sign Manual of 13 Nov. 1711, a copy of which is among the Chamberlain's Papers.

[ [261] Cibber is probably incorrect here. It seems certain from the bills that Wilks did not re-appear in London before 1698.

[ [262] See note on page 235.

[ [263] "The Laureat," p. 44: "Wilks, in this Part of Palamede, behav'd with a modest Diffidence, and yet maintain'd the Spirit of his Part." The author says, on the same page, that Powel never could appear a Gentleman. "His Conversation, his Manners, his Dress, neither on nor off the Stage, bore any Similitude to that Character."

[ [264] "The Laureat," p. 44: "I believe he (Wilks) was obliged to fight the Heroic George Powel, as well as one or two others, who were piqued at his being so highly encouraged by the Town, and their Rival, before he cou'd be quiet."

[ [265] Powell seems to have been at Lincoln's Inn Fields for two seasons, those of 1702 and 1703, and for part of a third, 1703-4. He returned to Drury Lane about June, 1704. For the arbitrary conduct of the Lord Chamberlain, in allowing him to desert to Lincoln's Inn Fields (or the Haymarket), but arresting him when he deserted back again to Drury Lane, see after, in Chap. X.

[ [266] Cibber is here somewhat in the position of Satan reproving sin, if Davies's statements ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 480) are accurate. He says:—

"This attention to the gaming-table would not, we may be assured, render him [Cibber] fitter for his business of the stage. After many an unlucky run at Tom's Coffee-house [in Russell Street], he has arrived at the playhouse in great tranquillity; and then, humming over an opera-tune, he has walked on the stage not well prepared in the part he was to act. Cibber should not have reprehended Powell so severely for neglect and imperfect representation: I have seen him at fault where it was least expected; in parts which he had acted a hundred times, and particularly in Sir Courtly Nice; but Colley dexterously supplied the deficiency of his memory by prolonging his ceremonious bow to the lady, and drawling out 'Your humble servant, madam,' to an extraordinary length; then taking a pinch of snuff, and strutting deliberately across the stage, he has gravely asked the prompter, what is next?"

[ [267] "The Laureat," p. 45: "I have known him (Wilks) lay a Wager and win it, that he wou'd repeat the Part of Truewitt in the Silent Woman, which consists of thirty Lengths of Paper, as they call 'em, (that is, one Quarter of a Sheet on both Sides to a Length) without misplacing a single Word, or missing an (and) or an (or)."

[ [268] Alexander in "The Rival Queens."

[ [269] In "The Man of the Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter."

[ [270] Produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 29th January, 1728.

[ [271] "Love in a Riddle." A Pastoral. Produced at Drury Lane, 7th January, 1729.

ArcasMr. Mills.
ÆgonMr. Harper.
AmyntasMr. Williams.
IphisMrs. Thurmond.
Philautus, a conceited Corinthian courtier Mr. Cibber.
CorydonMr. Griffin.
CimonMr. Miller.
MopsusMr. Oates.
DamonMr. Ray.
Ianthe, daughter to ArcasMrs. Cibber.
Pastora, daughter to ÆgonMrs. Lindar.
Phillida, daughter to CorydonMrs. Raftor.

Mrs. Raftor (at this time Miss was not generally used) was afterwards the famous Mrs. Clive. Chetwood, in his "History of the Stage," 1749 (p. 128), says: "I remember the first night of Love in a Riddle (which was murder'd in the same Year) a Pastoral Opera wrote by the Laureat, which the Hydra-headed Multitude resolv'd to worry without hearing, a Custom with Authors of Merit, when Miss Raftor came on in the part of Phillida, the monstrous Roar subsided. A Person in the Stage-Box, next to my Post, called out to his Companion in the following elegant Style—'Zounds! Tom! take Care! or this charming little Devil will save all.'" Chetwood's "Post" was that of Prompter.

[ [272] Martial, xiii. 2, 8.

[ [273] Cibber should have written Catiline.

[ [274] This second part was called "Polly." In his Preface Gay gives an account of its being vetoed. The prohibition undoubtedly was in revenge for the political satire in "The Beggar's Opera." "Polly" was published by subscription, and probably brought the author more in that way than its production would have done. It was played for the first time at the Haymarket, 19th June, 1777. It is, as Genest says, miserably inferior to the first part.

[ [275] "Polly" was officially prohibited on 12th December, 1728.

[ [276] I know only one case in which a new piece is said to have been prohibited because the other house was going to play one on the same subject. This is Swiney's "Quacks; or, Love's the Physician," produced at Drury Lane on 18th March, 1705, after being twice vetoed. Swiney in his Preface gives the above as the reason for the prohibition.

[ [277] Cibber afterwards formed the best scenes of "Love in a Riddle" into a Ballad Opera, called "Damon and Phillida."

[ [278] Bellchambers notes that this was probably Mrs. Oldfield. But I think this more than doubtful, for this lady not only was fair, but also, as Touchstone says, "had the gift to know it." It is, of course, impossible to say decidedly to whom Cibber referred; but I fancy that Mrs. Barry is the actress who best fulfils the conditions, though, of course, I must admit that her having been dead for a quarter of a century weakens my case.

[ [279] A "bite" is what we now term a "sell." In "The Spectator," Nos. 47 and 504, some account of "Biters" is given: "a Race of Men that are perpetually employed in laughing at those Mistakes which are of their own Production."

[ [280] This is a capital sketch of Christopher Rich.

[ [281] Cibber's hint of Rich's weakness for the fair sex is corroborated by the "Comparison between the two Stages," page 16: "Critick. He is Monarch of the Stage, tho' he knows not how to govern one Province in his Dominion, but that of Signing, Sealing, and something else, that shall be nameless."

[ [282] "The Laureat," p. 48: "If Minister Wilks was now alive to hear thee prate thus, Mr. Bayes, I would not give one Half-penny for thy Ears; but if he were alive, thou durst not for thy Ears rattle on in this affected Matchiavilian stile."

[ [283] Characters in Ben Jonson's "Silent Woman."

[ [284] "The Laureat," p. 49: "Did you not, by your general Misbehaviour towards Authors and Actors, bring an Odium on your Brother Menagers, as well as yourself; and were not these, with many others, the Reasons, that sometimes gave Occasion to Wilks, to chastise you, with his Tongue only."

[ [285] See memoir of John Mills at end of second volume.

[ [286] John Mills, in the advertisement issued by Rich, in 1709, in the course of a dispute with his actors, is stated to have a salary of "£4 a week for himself, and £1 a week for his wife, for little or nothing." This advertisement is quoted by me in Chap. XII. Mills's salary was the same as Betterton's. No doubt Cibber, Wilks, Dogget, and Booth had ultimately larger salaries, but they, of course, were managers as well as actors.

[ [287] Booth seems to have joined the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company in 1700.

[ [288] Steele's comedy was produced at Drury Lane in 1702. Cibber played Lord Hardy.

[ [289] The play was called "Woman's Wit; or, the Lady in Fashion." It was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. It must have been in the early months of that year, for in his Preface Cibber says, to excuse its failure, that it was hurriedly written, and that "rather than lose a Winter" he forced himself to invent a fable. "The Laureat," p. 50, stupidly says that the name of the play was "Perolla and Isadora." The cast was:—

Lord LovemoreMr. Harland.
LongvilleMr. Penkethman.
Jack RakishMr. Powel.
Mass Johnny, Lady Manlove's Son, a schoolboy. Mr. Dogget.
Father BenedicMr. Smeaton.
Lady ManloveMrs. Powel.
LeonoraMrs. Knight.
EmiliaMrs. Rogers.
OliviaMrs. Cibber.
LetticeMrs. Kent.

[ [290]

"Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae."

Hor. Ars Poetica, 333.

[ [291]

"Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci."

Hor. Ars Poetica, 343.

[ [292] Pepys (12th June, 1663) records that the Lady Mary Cromwell at the Theatre, "when the House began to fill, put on her vizard, and so kept it on all the play; which of late is become a great fashion among the ladies, which hides their whole face." Very soon, however, ladies gave up the use of the mask, and "Vizard-mask" became a synonym for "Prostitute." In this sense it is frequently used in Dryden's Prologues and Epilogues.

[ [293] Compare with Cibber's condemnation Genest's opinion of this play. He says (i. 365): "If it be the province of Comedy, not to retail morality to a yawning pit, but to make the audience laugh, and to keep them in good humour, this play must be allowed to be one of the best comedies in the English language."

[ [294] To "The Pilgrim," revived in 1700, as Cibber states, Dryden's "Secular Masque" was attached. Whether the revival took place before or after Dryden's death (1st May, 1700) is a moot point. See Genest, ii. 179, for an admirable account of the matter. He thinks it probable that the date of production was 25th March, 1700. Cibber is scarcely accurate in stating that "The Pilgrim" was revived for Dryden's benefit. It seems, rather, that Vanbrugh, who revised the play, stipulated that, in consideration of Dryden's writing "The Secular Masque," and also the Prologue and Epilogue, he should have the usual author's third night. The B. M. copy of "The Pilgrim" is dated, in an old handwriting, "Monday, the 5 of May."

[ [295] Jeremy Collier.

[ [296] Genest notes (ii. 181) that in the original play the Servant in the 2nd act did not stutter.

[ [297] Collier's famous work, which was entitled "A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage: together with the sense of Antiquity upon this Argument," was published in 1698. Collier was a Nonjuring clergyman. He was born on 23rd September, 1650, and died in 1726. The circumstance to which Cibber alludes in the second paragraph from the present, was Collier's attending to the scaffold Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins, who were executed for complicity in plots against King William in 1696.

[ [298] The facetious Joe Haines was an actor of great popularity, and seems to have excelled in the delivery of Prologues and Epilogues, especially of those written by himself. He was on the stage from about 1672 to 1700 or 1701, in which latter year (on the 4th of April) he died. He was the original Sparkish in Wycherley's "Country Wife," Lord Plausible in the same author's "Plain Dealer," and Tom Errand in Farquhar's "Constant Couple." Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 284) tells, on Quin's authority, an anecdote of Haines's pretended conversion to Romanism during James the Second's reign. He declared that the Virgin Mary appeared to him in a vision. "Lord Sunderland sent for Joe, and asked him about the truth of his conversion, and whether he had really seen the Virgin?—Yes, my Lord, I assure you it is a fact.—How was it, pray?—Why, as I was lying in my bed, the Virgin appeared to me, and said, Arise, Joe!—You lie, you rogue, said the Earl; for, if it had really been the Virgin herself, she would have said Joseph, if it had been only out of respect to her husband." For an account of Haines, see also Anthony Aston.

[ [299] "The Laureat" (p. 53) states that soon after the publication of Collier's book, informers were placed in different parts of the theatres, on whose information several players were charged with uttering immoral words. Queen Anne, however, satisfied that the informers were not actuated by zeal for morality, stopped the inquisition. These informers were paid by the Society for the Reformation of Manners.

[ [300] Congreve's answer to Collier was entitled "Amendments of Mr. Collier's false and imperfect Citations, &c. from the Old Batchelour, Double Dealer, Love for Love, Mourning Bride. By the Author of those Plays." Vanbrugh called his reply, "A Short Vindication of the Relapse and the Provok'd Wife, from Immorality and Prophaneness. By the Author." Davies says, regarding Congreve ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 401): "Congreve's pride was hurt by Collier's attack on plays which all the world had admired and commended; and no hypocrite showed more rancour and resentment, when unmasked, than this author, so greatly celebrated for sweetness of temper and elegance of manners."

[ [301] Charles Killigrew, who died in 1725, having held the office of Master of the Revels for over forty years.

[ [302] Produced at Drury Lane in 1700. For some account of Cibber's playing of Richard, see ante, pp. 139, 140.

[ [303] Chalmers ("Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare Papers," page 535) comments unfavourably on Cibber's method of stating this fact, saying, "Well might Pope cry out, modest Cibber!" But Chalmers is unjust to Colley, who is not expressing his own opinion of his play's importance, but merely reporting the opinion of Killigrew.

[ [304] Steele's name first appears in a License granted 18th October, 1714. His Patent was dated 19th January, 1715.

[ [305] Chalmers ("Apology for the Believers," page 536) says: "The patentees sent Colley Cibber, as envoy-extraordinary, to negotiate an amicable settlement with the Sovereign of the Revels. It is amusing to hear, how this flippant negotiator explained his own pretensions, and attempted to invalidate the right of his opponent; as if a subsequent charter, under the great seal, could supersede a preceding grant under the same authority. Charles Killigrew, who was now sixty-five years of age, seems to have been oppressed by the insolent civility of Colley Cibber." But this is an undeserved hit at Cibber, who had suffered the grossest injustice at Killigrew's hands regarding the licensing of "Richard III." See ante, p. 275. The dispute regarding fees must have occurred about 1715.

[ [306] The Licensing Act of 1737. This Act was passed by Sir Robert Walpole's government, and gave to the Lord Chamberlain the power to prohibit a piece from being acted at all, by making it necessary to have every play licensed. This power, however, had practically been exercised by the Chamberlain before, as in the case of Gay's "Polly," which Cibber has already mentioned. The immediate cause of this Act of 1737 was a piece called "The Golden Rump," which was so full of scurrility against the powers that were, that Giffard, the manager to whom it was submitted, carried it to Walpole. In spite of the opposition of Lord Chesterfield, who delivered a famous speech against it, the Bill was passed, 21st June, 1737. The "Biographia Dramatica" hints plainly that "The Golden Rump" was written at Walpole's instigation to afford an excuse for the Act. Bellchambers has the following note on this passage:—

"The Abbé Le Blanc,{A} who was in England at the time this law passed, has the following remarks upon it in his correspondence:—

"'This act occasioned an universal murmur in the nation, and was openly complained of in the public papers: in all the coffee-houses of London it was treated as an unjust law, and manifestly contrary to the liberties of the people of England. When winter came, and the play-houses were opened, that of Covent-garden began with three new pieces, which had been approved of by the Lord Chamberlain. There was a crowd of spectators present at the first, and among the number myself. The best play in the world would not have succeeded the first night.{B} There was a resolution to damn whatever might appear, the word hiss not being sufficiently expressive for the English. They always say, to damn a piece, to damn an author, &c. and, in reality, the word is not too strong to express the manner in which they receive a play which does not please them. The farce in question was damned indeed, without the least compassion: nor was that all, for the actors were driven off the stage, and happy was it for the author that he did not fall into the hands of this furious assembly.

"'As you are unacquainted with the customs of this country, you cannot easily devise who were the authors of all this disturbance. Perhaps you may think they were schoolboys, apprentices, clerks, or mechanics. No, sir, they were men of a very grave and genteel profession; they were lawyers, and please you; a body of gentlemen, perhaps less honoured, but certainly more feared here than they are in France. Most of them live in colleges,{C} where, conversing always with one another, they mutually preserve a spirit of independency through the body, and with great ease form cabals. These gentlemen, in the stage entertainments of London, behave much like our footboys, in those at a fair. With us, your party-coloured gentry are the most noisy; but here, men of the law have all the sway, if I may be permitted to call so those pretended professors of it, who are rather the organs of chicanery, than the interpreters of justice. At Paris the cabals of the pit are only among young fellows, whose years may excuse their folly, or persons of the meanest education and stamp; here they are the fruit of deliberations in a very grave body of people, who are not less formidable to the minister in place, than to the theatrical writers.

"'The players were not dismayed, but soon after stuck up bills for another new piece: there was the same crowding at Covent-garden, to which I again contributed. I was sure, at least, that if the piece advertised was not performed, I should have the pleasure of beholding some very extraordinary scene acted in the pit.

"'Half an hour before the play was to begin, the spectators gave notice of their dispositions by frightful hisses and outcries, equal, perhaps, to what were ever heard at a Roman amphitheatre. I could not have known, but by my eyes only, that I was among an assembly of beings who thought themselves to be reasonable. The author, who had foreseen this fury of the pit, took care to be armed against it. He knew what people he had to deal with, and, to make them easy, put in his prologue double the usual dose of incense that is offered to their vanity; for there is an established tax of this kind, from which no author is suffered to dispense himself. This author's wise precaution succeeded, and the men that were before so redoubtable grew calm; the charms of flattery, more strong than those of music, deprived them of all their fierceness.

"'You see, sir, that the pit is the same in all countries: it loves to be flattered, under the more genteel name of being complimented. If a man has tolerable address at panegyric, they swallow it greedily, and are easily quelled and intoxicated by the draught. Every one in particular thinks he merits the praise that is given to the whole in general; the illusion operates, and the prologue is good, only because it is artfully directed. Every one saves his own blush by the authority of the multitude he makes a part of, which is, perhaps, the only circumstance in which a man can think himself not obliged to be modest.

"'The author having, by flattery, begun to tame this wild audience, proceeded entirely to reconcile it by the first scene of his performance. Two actors came in, one dressed in the English manner very decently, and the other with black eyebrows, a ribbon of an ell long under his chin, a bag-peruke immoderately powdered, and his nose all bedaubed with snuff. What Englishman could not know a Frenchman by this ridiculous picture! The common people of London think we are indeed such sort of folks, and of their own accord, add to our real follies all that their authors are pleased to give us. But when it was found, that the man thus equipped, being also laced down every seam of his coat, was nothing but a cook, the spectators were equally charmed and surprised. The author had taken care to make him speak all the impertinencies he could devise, and for that reason, all the impertinencies of his farce were excused, and the merit of it immediately decided. There was a long criticism upon our manners, our customs, and above all, upon our cookery. The excellence and virtues of English beef were cried up, and the author maintained, that it was owing to the qualities of its juice, that the English were so courageous, and had such a solidity of understanding, which raised them above all the nations in Europe: he preferred the noble old English pudding beyond all the finest ragouts that were ever invented by the greatest geniuses that France has produced; and all these ingenious strokes were loudly clapped by the audience.

"'The pit, biassed by the abuse that was thrown on the French, forgot that they came to damn the play, and maintain the ancient liberty of the stage. They were friends with the players, and even with the court itself, and contented themselves with the privilege left them, of lashing our nation as much as they pleased, in the room of laughing at the expense of the minister. The license of authors did not seem to be too much restrained, since the court did not hinder them from saying all the ill they could of the French.

"'Intractable as the populace appear in this country, those who know how to take hold of their foibles, may easily carry their point. Thus is the liberty of the stage reduced to just bounds, and yet the English pit makes no farther attempt to oppose the new regulation. The law is executed without the least trouble, all the plays since having been quietly heard, and either succeeded, or not, according to their merit.'"

See article in Mr. Archer's "About the Theatre," p. 101, and Parliamentary Reports, 1832 and 1866.

{A} Mr. Garrick, when in Paris, refused to meet this writer, on account of the irreverence with which he had treated Shakspeare.

{B} The action was interrupted almost as soon as begun, in presence of a numerous assembly, by a cabal who had resolved to overthrow the first effect of this act of parliament, though it had been thought necessary for the regulation of the stage.

{C} Called here Inns of Court, as the two Temples, Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Doctor's Commons, &c.

[ [307] The theatre in Goodman's Fields was opened in October, 1729, by Thomas Odell, who was afterwards Deputy Licenser under the 1737 Act. Odell, having no theatrical experience, entrusted the management to Henry Giffard. Odell's theatre seems to have been in Leman Street.

[ [308] I can find no hint that plays were ever stopped at Odell's theatre. There is a pamphlet, published in 1730, with the following title: "A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Richard Brocas, Lord Mayor of London. By a Citizen," which demands the closing of the theatre, but I do not suppose any practical result followed. In 1733 an attempt by the Patentees of Drury Lane and Covent Garden to silence Giffard's Company, then playing at his new theatre in Goodman's Fields, was unsuccessful. This theatre was in Ayliffe Street.

[ [309] Half of Booth's share of the Patent was purchased by Highmore, who also bought the whole of Cibber's share. Giffard was the purchaser of the remainder of Booth's share.

[ [310] This was John Harper. Davies ("Life of Garrick," i. 40) says that "The reason of the Patentees fixing on Harper was in consequence of his natural timidity." His trial was on the 20th November, 1733. Harper was a low comedian of some ability, but of no great note.

[ [311] Cibber again alludes to this in Chap. XIII.

[ [312] Sir Francis Wronghead is a character in "The Provoked Husband," a country squire who comes to London to seek a place at Court. In Act iv. Sir Francis relates his interview with a certain great man: "Sir Francis, says my lord, pray what sort of a place may you ha' turned your thoughts upon? My lord, says I, beggars must not be chusers; but ony place, says I, about a thousand a-year, will be well enough to be doing with, till something better falls in—for I thowght it would not look well to stond haggling with him at first."

[ [313] Giffard seems to have retained his sixth part.

[ [314] Some account of the entire dispute between Highmore and his actors will be found in my Supplement to this book.

[ [315] This "broken Wit" was Henry Fielding, between whom and Cibber there was war to the knife, Fielding taking every opportunity of mocking at Colley and attacking his works.

Mr. Austin Dobson, in his "Fielding," page 66, writes: "When the Champion was rather more than a year old, Colley Cibber published his famous Apology. To the attacks made upon him by Fielding at different times he had hitherto printed no reply—perhaps he had no opportunity of doing so. But in his eighth chapter, when speaking of the causes which led to the Licensing Act, he takes occasion to refer to his assailant in terms which Fielding must have found exceedingly galling. He carefully abstained from mentioning his name, on the ground that it could do him no good, and was of no importance; but he described him as 'a broken Wit,'" &c.

Mr. Dobson, on page 69, gives his approval to the theory that "Fielding had openly expressed resentment at being described by Cibber as 'a broken wit,' without being mentioned by name."

[ [316] The use of "channel," meaning "gutter," is obsolete in England; but I am sure that I have heard it used in that sense in Scotland. Shakespeare in "King Henry the Sixth," third part, act ii. sc. 2, has,

"As if a channel should be called the sea."

And in Marlowe's "Edward the Second," act i. sc. 1, occur the lines:—

"Throw off his golden mitre, rend his stole,

And in the channel christen him anew."

[ [317] Juvenal, i. 73.

[ [318] Mr. Dobson ("Fielding," page 67) says: "He [Cibber] called him, either in allusion to his stature, or his pseudonym in the Champion, a 'Herculean Satyrist,' a 'Drawcansir in Wit.'"

[ [319] Fielding's political satires, in such pieces as "Pasquin" and "The Historical Register for 1736," contributed largely to the passing of the Act of 1737, although "The Golden Rump" was the ostensible cause.

[ [320] Fielding, in the "Champion" for Tuesday, April 22nd, 1740, says of Cibber's refusal to quote from "Pasquin"—"the good Parent seems to imagine that he hath produced, as well as my Lord Clarendon, a [Greek: Ktêma es aei]; for he refuses to quote anything out of Pasquin, lest he should give it a chance of being remembered."

Mr. Dobson ("Fielding," page 69) says Fielding "never seems to have wholly forgotten his animosity to the actor, to whom there are frequent references in Joseph Andrews; and, as late as 1749, he is still found harping on 'the withered laurel' in a letter to Lyttelton. Even in his last work, the Voyage to Lisbon, Cibber's name is mentioned. The origin of this protracted feud is obscure; but, apart from want of sympathy, it must probably be sought for in some early misunderstanding between the two in their capacities of manager and author."

[ [321] By Lord Chesterfield.

[ [322] Horace, Ars Poetica, 180.

[ [323] Guiscard's attack on Harley occurred in 1711.

[ [324] Genest (iii. 521) remarks, "If the power of the Licenser had been laid under proper regulations, all would have been right." The whole objection to the Licenser is simply that he is under no regulations whatever. He is a perfectly irresponsible authority, and one from whose decisions there is no appeal.

[ [325] Cibber received three thousand guineas from Highmore for his share in the Patent (See Victor's "History," i. 8).

[ [326] "The Laureat," page 72: "Indeed, Laureat, notwithstanding what thou may'st dream of the Immortality of this Work of thine, and bestowing the same on thy Favourites by recording them here; thou mayst, old as thou art, live to see thy precious Labours become the vile Wrappers of Pastry-Grocers and Chandlery Wares." The issue of the present edition of Cibber's "Apology" is sufficient commentary on "The Laureat's" ill-natured prophecy.

[ [327] Cibber prints 1684, repeating his former blunder. (See p. 96.)

[ [328] The first play acted by the United Company was "Hamlet." In this Estcourt is cast for the Gravedigger, so that if Cibber's anecdote is accurate, as no doubt it is, Estcourt must have "doubled" the Gravedigger and the speaker of the Prologue.

[ [329] The first edition reads "1708," and in the next chapter Cibber says 1708. In point of fact, the first performance by the United Company took place 15th January, 1708. This does not make Estcourt's "gag" incorrect, for though we now should not consider May, 1707, and the following January in the same year, yet up to 1752, when the style was changed in England, they were so.

[ [330] Southerne's "Oroonoko" was produced at Drury Lane in 1696.

[ [331] Of Horden we know little more than Cibber tells us. He seems to have been on the stage only for a year or two; and during 1696 only, at Drury Lane, does his name appear to important parts. Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 443) says Horden "was bred a Scholar: he complimented George Powell, in a Latin encomium on his Treacherous Brothers."

"The London News-Letter," 20th May, 1696, says: "On Monday Capt. Burges who kill'd Mr. Fane, and was found guilty of Manslaughter at the Old Baily, kill'd Mr. Harding a Comedian in a Quarrel at the Rose Tavern in Hatton [should be Covent] Garden, and is taken into custody."

In "Luttrell's Diary," on Tuesday, 19th May, 1696, is noted: "Captain Burgesse, convicted last sessions of manslaughter for killing Mr. Fane, is committed to the Gatehouse for killing Mr. Horden, of the Playhouse, last night in Covent Garden."

And on Tuesday, 30th November, 1697, "Captain Burgesse, who killed Mr. Horden the player, has obtained his majesties pardon."

[ [332] This tavern seems to have been very near Drury Lane Theatre, and to have been a favourite place of resort after the play. In the Epilogue to the "Constant Couple" the Rose Tavern is mentioned:—

"Now all depart, each his respective way,

To spend an evening's chat upon the play;

Some to Hippolito's; one homeward goes,

And one with loving she, retires to th' Rose."

In the "Comparison between the two Stages" one scene is laid in the Rose Tavern, and from it we gather that the house was of a very bad character:—

"Ramb. Defend us! what a hurry of Sin is in this House!

Sull. Drunkenness, which is the proper Iniquity of a Tavern, is here the most excusable Sin; so many other Sins over-run it, 'tis hardly seen in the crowd....

Sull. This House is the very Camp of Sin; the Devil sets up his black Standard in the Faces of these hungry Harlots, and to enter into their Trenches is going down to the Bottomless Pit according to the letter."—Comp., p. 140.

Pepys mentions the Rose more than once. On 18th May, 1668, the first day of Sedley's play, "The Mulberry Garden," the diarist, having secured his place in the pit, and feeling hungry, "did slip out, getting a boy to keep my place; and to the Rose Tavern, and there got half a breast of mutton, off the spit, and dined all alone. And so to the play again."

[ [333] Cibber's chronology cannot be reconciled with what we believe to be facts. Horden was killed in 1696; Wilks seems to have come to England not earlier than the end of 1698, while it is, I should say, certain that Estcourt did not appear before 1704. I can only suppose that Cibber, who is very reckless in his dates, is here particularly confused.

[ [334] For Leigh's playing of this character, see ante, p. 145.

[ [335] Curll, in his "Life of Mrs. Oldfield," says that the only part she played, previous to appearing as Alinda, was Candiope in "Secret Love." She played Alinda in 1700.

[ [336] In 1702, Gildon, in the "Comparison between the two Stages" (p. 200), includes Mrs. Oldfield among the "meer Rubbish that ought to be swept off the Stage with the Filth and Dust."

[ [337] "Miff," a colloquial expression signifying "a slight degree of resentment."

[ [338] Cibber is pleasantly candid in allowing that he had no share in Mrs. Oldfield's success. The temptation to assume some credit for teaching her something must have been great.

[ [339] Mrs. Anne Oldfield, born about 1683, was introduced to Vanbrugh by Farquhar, who accidentally heard her reading aloud, and was struck by her dramatic style. Cibber gives so full an account of her that it is only necessary to add that she made her last appearance on 28th April, 1730, at Drury Lane, and that she died on the 23rd October in the same year. It was of Mrs. Oldfield that Pope wrote the often-quoted lines ("Moral Essays," Epistle I., Part iii.):—

"Odious! in woollen! 'twould a saint provoke

(Were the last words that poor Narcissa spoke),

No, let a charming chintz and Brussels lace

Wrap my cold limbs, and shade my lifeless face:

One would not, sure, be frightful when one's dead—

And—Betty—give this cheek a little red."

I may note that, though Cibber enlarges chiefly on her comedy acting, she acted many parts in tragedy with the greatest success.

[ [340] Produced 7th December, 1704, at Drury Lane.

"The Careless Husband"
Lord Morelove Mr. Powel.
Lord Foppington Mr. Cibber.
Sir Charles Easy Mr. Wilks.
Lady Betty Modish Mrs. Oldfield.
Lady Easy Mrs. Knight.
Lady Graveairs Mrs. Moore.
Mrs. Edging Mrs. Lucas.

[ [341] Mrs. Oldfield played Lady Townly in the "Provoked Husband," 10th January, 1728. I presume that Cibber means that this was her last important original part, for she was the original representative of Sophonisba (by James Thomson) and other characters after January, 1728.

[ [342]

"The Provoked Husband"
Lord Townly Mr. Wilks.
Lady Townly Mrs. Oldfield.
Lady Grace Mrs. Porter.
Mr. Manley Mr. Mills, sen.
Sir Francis Wronghead Mr. Cibber, Sen.
Lady Wronghead Mrs. Thurmond.
Squire Richard Young Wetherelt.
Miss Jenny Mrs. Cibber.
John Moody Mr. Miller.
Count Basset Mr. Bridgewater.
Mrs. Motherly Mrs. Moore.
Myrtilla Mrs. Grace.
Mrs. Trusty Mrs. Mills.

Vanbrugh left behind him nearly four acts of a play entitled "A Journey to London," which Cibber completed, calling the finished work "The Provoked Husband." It was produced at Drury Lane on 10th January, 1728.

[ [343]

"Verum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis

Offendar maculis."—Horace, Ars Poetica, 351.

[ [344] "The Laureat," p. 57: "But I can see no Occasion you have to mention any Errors. She had fewer as an Actress than any; and neither you, nor I, have any Right to enquire into her Conduct any where else."

[ [345] The following is the passage referred to:—

"But there is no doing right to Mrs. Oldfield, without putting people in mind of what others, of great merit, have wanted to come near her—'Tis not enough to say, she here outdid her usual excellence. I might therefore justly leave her to the constant admiration of those spectators who have the pleasure of living while she is an actress. But as this is not the only time she has been the life of what I have given the public, so, perhaps, my saying a little more of so memorable an actress, may give this play a chance to be read when the people of this age shall be ancestors—May it therefore give emulation to our successors of the stage, to know, that to the ending of the year 1727, a cotemporary comedian relates, that Mrs. Oldfield was then in her highest excellence of action, happy in all the rarely found requisites that meet in one person to complete them for the stage. She was in stature just rising to that height, where the graceful can only begin to show itself; of a lively aspect, and a command in her mien, that like the principal figure in the finest painting, first seizes, and longest delights, the eye of the spectators. Her voice was sweet, strong, piercing, and melodious; her pronunciation voluble, distinct, and musical; and her emphasis always placed, where the spirit of the sense, in her periods, only demanded it. If she delighted more in the higher comic, than in the tragic strain, 'twas because the last is too often written in a lofty disregard of nature. But in characters of modern practised life, she found occasion to add the particular air and manner which distinguished the different humours she presented; whereas, in tragedy, the manner of speaking varies as little as the blank verse it is written in.—She had one peculiar happiness from nature, she looked and maintained the agreeable, at a time when other fine women only raise admirers by their understanding—The spectator was always as much informed by her eyes as her elocution; for the look is the only proof that an actor rightly conceives what he utters, there being scarce an instance, where the eyes do their part, that the elocution is known to be faulty. The qualities she had acquired, were the genteel and the elegant; the one in her air, and the other in her dress, never had her equal on the stage; and the ornaments she herself provided (particularly in this play) seemed in all respects the paraphernalia of a woman of quality. And of that sort were the characters she chiefly excelled in; but her natural good sense, and lively turn of conversation, made her way so easy to ladies of the highest rank, that it is a less wonder if, on the stage, she sometimes was, what might have become the finest woman in real life to have supported." [Bell's edition.]

[ [346] Mr. Julian Marshall, in his "Annals of Tennis," p. 34, describes the two different sorts of tennis courts—"that which was called Le Quarré, or the Square; and the other with the dedans, which is almost the same as that of the present day." Cibber is thus correct in mentioning that the court was one of the lesser sort.

[ [347] Interesting confirmation of Cibber's statement is furnished by an edict of the Lord Chamberlain, dated 11th November, 1700, by which Betterton is ordered "to take upon him ye sole management" of the Lincoln's Inn Fields company, there having been great disorders, "for want of sufficient authority to keep them to their duty." See David Craufurd's Preface to "Courtship à la Mode" (1700), for an account of the disorganized state of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company. He says that though Betterton did his best, some of the actors neither learned their parts nor attended rehearsals; and he therefore withdrew his comedy and took it to Drury Lane, where it was promptly produced.

[ [348] Mons. Castil-Blaze, in his "La Danse et les Ballets," 1832, p. 153, writes: "Ballon danse avec énergie et vivacité; mademoiselle de Subligny se fait généralement admirer pour sa danse noble et gracieuse." Madlle. Subligny was one of the first women who were dancers by profession. "La demoiselle Subligny parut peu de temps après la demoiselle Fontaine [1681], et fut aussi fort applaudie pour sa danse; mais elle quitta le théâtre, en 1705, et mourut après l'année 1736."—"Histoire de l'Opéra." Of Mons. L'Abbé I have been unable to discover any critical notice.

[ [349] Downes ("Roscius Anglicanus," p. 46) says: "In the space of 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 Exhorbitantly Expensive, produc'd small Profit to him and his Company, but vast Gain to themselves."

Gildon, in the "Comparison between the two Stages," alludes to some of these dancers:—

"Sull. The Town ran mad to see him [Balon], and the prizes were rais'd to an extravagant degree to bear the extravagant rate they allow'd him" (p. 49).

"Crit. There's another Toy now [Madame Subligny]—Gad, there's not a Year but some surprizing Monster lands: I wonder they don't first show her at Fleet-bridge with an old Drum and a crackt Trumpet" (p. 67).

[ [350] In the Prologue to "The Ambitious Stepmother," produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1701 (probably), Rowe writes:—

"The Stage would need no Farce, nor Song nor Dance,

Nor Capering Monsieur brought from Active France."

And in the Epilogue (not Prologue, as Cibber says):—

"Show but a Mimick Ape, or French Buffoon,

You to the other House in Shoals are gone,

And leave us here to Tune our Crowds alone.

Must Shakespear, Fletcher, and laborious Ben,

Be left for Scaramouch and Harlaquin?"

[ [351] In "The Constant Couple," and its sequel, "Sir Harry Wildair."

[ [352] This theatre, opened 9th April, 1705, was burnt down 17th June, 1788; rebuilt 1791; again burnt in 1867. During its existence it has borne the name of Queen's Theatre, Opera House, King's Theatre, and its present title of Her Majesty's Theatre.

[ [353] The beautiful Lady Sunderland. Mr. Percy Fitzgerald ("New History," i. 238) states that it was said that workmen, on 19th March, 1825, found a stone with the inscription: "April 18th, 1704. This corner-stone of the Queen's Theatre was laid by his Grace Charles Duke of Somerset."

[ [354] Should be 1705. Downes (p. 47) says: "About the end of 1704, Mr. Betterton Assign'd his License, and his whole Company over to Captain Vantbrugg to Act under HIS, at the Theatre in the Hay Market." Vanbrugh opened his theatre on 9th April, 1705.

[ [355] In Dryden's Prologue at the opening of Drury Lane in 1674, in comparing the situation of Drury Lane with that of Dorset Garden, which was at the east end of Fleet Street, he talks of

"...a cold bleak road,

Where bears in furs dare scarcely look abroad."

This is now the Strand and Fleet Street! No doubt the road westward to the Haymarket was equally wild.

[ [356] This experiment was never tried. From the time Cibber wrote, the house was used as an Opera House.

[ [357]

"to Court,

Her seat imperial Dulness shall transport.

Already Opera prepares the way,

The sure fore-runner of her gentle sway."

"Dunciad," iii. verses 301-303.

"When lo! a harlot form soft sliding by,

With mincing step, small voice, and languid eye;

Foreign her air, her robe's discordant pride

In patchwork fluttering, and her head aside;

By singing peers upheld on either hand,

She tripp'd and laugh'd, too pretty much to stand."

"Dunciad," iv. verses 45-50.

[ [358] Salvini, the great Italian actor, played in America with an English company, he speaking in Italian, they answering in English: I have myself seen a similar polyglot performance at the Edinburgh Lyceum Theatre, where the manager, Mr. J. B. Howard, acted Iago (in English), while Signor Salvini and his company played in Italian. I confess the effect was not so startling as I expected.

[ [359] "The Confederacy" was not produced till the following season—30th October, 1705.

[ [360] It was acted ten times.

[ [361] Genest (ii. 333) says that Congreve resigned his share at the close of the season 1704-5.

[ [362] Cibber should have said "The Confederacy." "The Cuckold in Conceit" has never been printed, and Genest doubts if it is by Vanbrugh. Besides, it was not produced till 22nd March, 1707.

[ [363] "The Mistake" was produced 27th December, 1705. "Squire Trelooby," which was first played in 1704, was revived 28th January, 1706, with a new second act.

[ [364] A junction of the companies seems to have been talked of as early as 1701. In the Prologue to "The Unhappy Penitent" (1701), the lines occur:—

"But now the peaceful tattle of the town,

Is how to join both houses into one."

[ [365] In "The Post-Boy Rob'd of his Mail," p. 342, some curious particulars of the negotiations for a Union are given. One of Rich's objections to it is that he has to consider the interests of his Partners, with some of whom he has already been compelled to go to law on monetary questions.

[ [366] In July, 1705, Rich was approached on behalf of Vanbrugh regarding a Union, and the Lord Chamberlain supported the latter's proposal. Rich, in declining, wrote: "I am concern'd with above forty Persons in number, either as Adventurers under the two Patents granted to Sir William Davenant, and Tho. Killigrew, Esq.; or as Renters of Covent-Garden and Dorset-Garden Theatres.... I am a purchaser under the Patents, to above the value of two Thousand Pounds (a great part of which was under the Marriage-Settlements of Dr. Davenant)."—"The Post-Boy Rob'd of his Mail," p. 344.

[ [367] Owen Swiney, or Mac Swiney, was an Irishman. As is related by Cibber in this and following chapters, he leased the Haymarket from Vanbrugh from the beginning of the season 1706-7. At the Union, 1707-8, the Haymarket was made over to him for the production of operas; and when, at the end of 1708-9, Rich was ordered to silence his company at Drury Lane, Swiney was allowed to engage the chief of Rich's actors to play at the Haymarket, where they opened September, 1709. At the beginning of season 1710-11, Swiney and his partners became managers of Drury Lane, but Swiney was forced at the end of that season to resume the management of the operas. After a year of the Opera-house (end of 1711-12), Swiney was ruined and had to go abroad. He remained abroad some twenty years. On 26th February, 1735, he had a benefit at Drury Lane, at which Cibber played for his old friend. The "Biographia Dramatica" says that he received a place in the Custom House, and was made Keeper of the King's Mews. He died 2nd October, 1754, leaving his property to Mrs. Woffington. Davies, in his "Dramatic Miscellanies" (i. 232), tells an idle tale of a scuffle between Swiney and Mrs. Clive's brother, which Bellchambers quotes at length, though it has no special reference to anything.

[ [368] At Drury Lane this season (1706-7) very few plays were acted, Rich relying chiefly on operas.

[ [369] Cibber seems to be wrong in including Estcourt in this list. His name appears in the Drury Lane bills for 1706-7, and his great part of Sergeant Kite ("Recruiting Officer") was played at the Haymarket by Pack. On 30th November, 1706, it was advertised that "the true Sergeant Kite is performed at Drury Lane."

[ [370] See memoir of Theophilus Keen at end of second volume.

[ [371] Downes (p. 50) gives the following account of the transaction:—

"In this Interval Captain Vantbrugg by Agreement with Mr. Swinny, and by the Concurrence of my Lord Chamberlain, Transferr'd and Invested his License and Government of the Theatre to Mr. Swinny; who brought with him from Mr. Rich, Mr. Wilks, Mr. Cyber, Mr. Mills, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Keene, Mr. Norris, Mr. Fairbank, Mrs. Oldfield and others; United them to the Old Company; Mr. Betterton and Mr. Underhill, being the only remains of the Duke of York's Servants, from 1662, till the Union in October 1706."

[ [372] The chief actors left at Drury Lane were Estcourt, Pinkethman, Powell, Capt. Griffin, Mrs. Tofts, Mrs. Mountfort (that is, the great Mrs. Mountfort's daughter), and Mrs. Cross: a miserably weak company.

[ [373] Swiney's company began to act at the Haymarket on 15th October, 1706. Cibber's first appearance seems to have been on 7th November, when he played Lord Foppington in "The Careless Husband."