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