Download GENTLE RIOTS? - Bibliothèque et Archives Canada

GENTLE RIOTS?
THEATRE RIOTS IN LONDON, 1730-1780
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
by
RICHARD GORRIE
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
November , 20 00
O Richard Gorrie, 2000
1*1
National Library
Bibliothbque nationale
du Canada
A uisitions and
~ F b i o ~ r s ~Services
hic
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
395, rue Wellington
oi Canada
385 Weiiington Street
Ottawa ON K lA ON4
Canade
OttewaON K 1 A W
Canada
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence dowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or seli
copies of this thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
Biblioth*que nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfichelfilm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celie-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
ABSTRACT
GENTLE RIOTS? THEATRE RIOTS IN LONDON, 1730-1780
Richard Gorrie
University of Guelph, 2000
Unlike
most
Advisor :
Professor Donna T. Andrew
studies
that
treat
theatre
riots
as
an
anomalous form of audience behaviour, this study contends that
riots were an integral part of the total eighteenth-century
theatrical experience.
London theatre during the eighteenth
century was the site of a highly interactive and wide ranging
cultural activity and the theatre riot was a prominent, and not
unexpected, part of that encounter.
The
thesis
begins
by
noting
the
similarities
and
differences between theatre riots and riots out-of-doors. While
both types of riots were subject to the same legal strictures on
riots and both could become extremely violent, there were subtle
yet notable differences.
Theatre riots generally
featured
different groups of participants from outdoor riots; they were
carried on in a cultural setting where public participation and
expression were expected; and moreover, they never met with a
thorough officia1 response.
After exploring their spatial, cultural and temporal
contexts, theatre riots are classified according to four themes.
First the thesis explores riots related to the management issues.
These included disputes over changes in ticket prices, concerns
about seating arrangements, and deliberations about how the
theatres were actually managed.
individuals and
Riots based on disputes between
the parties of
individuals are examined next.
people
who
supported
This was one of
those
the most
prevalent types of theatre riot in the eighteenth century and
attests to the growth of London's theatres during the eighteenth
century, as well as the competition between individuals in the
theatre business.
riot.
The thesis will then explore the political
While riots of this nature were comparatively infrequent,
when they did occur, they were both violent and destructive, in
keeping with various tensions that were present in London and the
nation at large at mid-century. The final category of theatrical
disturbance to be examined is the riot about the content of the
material that appeared onstage.
Although these were the most
common type of theatre riot, they are the hardest to discern, as
they were in keeping with normally expressed audience responses.
However, riots based on content reflect major divides in British
Society and mark significant changes in public standards of
morality and taste.
Table of Contente
Chapter 1 Introduction and Historiography
Chapter 2 Background Contexts
1
59
2a Spaces and Places
62
2b Theatre and Print Culture
85
2c Making Riot - The Historical Context
99
Chapter 3 Riots Over Management Issues
118
Chapter 4 Riots Involving Personalities and Their Parties
177
Chapter 5 Political Riots
222
Chapter 6 Riots over Content
262
Chapter 7 Conclusion
284
Bibliography
292
Illustrations
327
Appendix - List of Riots
334
~lïuetrations (Pages 327-3331
1. Map of area surrounding Covent Garden and Drury Lane theatre.
2. a. View of the Piazza beside Covent Garden looking east.
b. Ground plan of Covent Garden.
3. Ground plan of Drury Lane theatre after Robert Adams, 1775.
4. a. Garrick and Pritchard in Macbeth, by Zoffany, 1769.
b. View of the gallery.
5.
"The Overflowing of the Pitttt,
after S.H. Grimm, 1771.
6. a. ItBritanniaDisturbtd,or An Invasion by French Vagrants,"
1749.
b. Half-Price Riots, Covent Garden, 1763.
7. a. Bla~m-~,
b. Old Price Riots, 1809.
1776.
Chapter 1
--
Introduction and Historiography
Monday 9. Was a great Disturbance at the New Theatre
in the ,
where some French Players newly
arrivld from Paris, attempting to act the Comedy of
J,IFdes RI-,
met with such rude Treatment,
and were so interrupted with hissing, catcalling,
ringing small Bells, knocking out the Candles,
pelting, &. notwithstanding the Guard of three Files
of Musqueteers that they were forced at last to quit
the Stage with Precipitation. The French Ambassador
left the House at the Beginning of the disturbance;
was full of People, and the Mob in the
the -et
Street broke the Windows of the House al1 to Pieces.
Wednesday 11.
Being the King's Coronation, at the
Bonfire in -side,
the Mob were guilty of great
Outrages, and much abused the City Marshall in
executing his Office, by throwing Squibs, etcL for
which Offence two were secured, and carried to the Sun
but
the
Mob
~resentl~
Alehouse, poster-J m ;
assembled, broke the Windows, pulled down the Sign,
[and rescutd their Companions.
Gentleman'ç, October, 1738
These two accounts of public disturbances in London, which
appear one above the other in the monthly almanac section of the
Gent for October 1738, provide an appropriate
beginning
riots.
for an investigation of
eighteenth-century theatre
On the one hand we have an annual coronation day
celebration that got out of hand, while on the other, we have a
riotous reaction to the appearance of a Company of French actors.
The juxtaposition of these two items on the page serves to
introduce a key consideration that will lurk in the background
throughout the course of this study: we cannot, nor should we,
consider theatre riots during the eighteenth century without
comparing
them
to
outdoor
riots.
The
study
of
public
disturbances has added immeasurably to Our understanding of
British history during this period. Whether food riots, rough
justice, or a loyalist demonstration gone awry, riots have been
shown to be a complex expression of public power, consisting of a
variety of actions and responses.
With the examination of riots
and popular protest, scholars have put faces on the crowd, traced
the workings of a moral versus a market economy, and shown how
violent public display, or the threat of violent public display,
could be a form of collective bargaining.'
Given
the
importance
of
popular
protest
to
Our
understanding of social and political relationships in eighteenth
century Britain, one would think that there would be much to be
gained from the study of events as common as theatre riots.
However, to date, few historians have paid much attention to
them. While there have been some fascinating individual studies,
particularly of the Old Price Riots at Covent Garden theatre in
1809, no attempts have been made to look at theatre riots over an
extended period of time, or within a general assessment of public
disturbances.
Surprisingly, the foremost historians of eighteenth-century
public disturbances have largely ignored theatre riots.
true of
This is
several major studies, and where theatre riots are
mentioned, as in John Stevenson's mid-1970s survey, it is the
1749
French
Strollers
riot
at
the
Little
Theatre
in
the
Haymarket, which had political connections that were just too
strong to i g n ~ r e . ~
The implication of this neglect is that while
outdoor riots had political importance and provide numerous
insights into how power relationships were contested in the
eighteenth century, theatre riots were only rowdy disturbances at
a somewhat frivolous public entertainment, and were not much
different in essence from the theatrical material presented on
the stage.
Even to contemporaries, there seemed to be a significant
division between the two types of public
disorder.
In the
accounts cited at the top of the chapter, a different sort of
people were associated with the theatrical disturbance than were
associated with the disturbance in the street.
Granted, both of
the notices refer to participation by the nmob,m a contemporary
term applied to the general populace, used to denote both a
social rank in eighteenth-century British society, as well as a
reference to an amorphous group of London citizens for whom the
streets of the city were a public f~rurn.~However, in the first
description, the disturbance inside the theatre seems to have
been started by a group of individuals within the building and
was only later taken up by the Londoners "in the Street." If the
initial rioters were not the people of the street we so often
associate with public protest, who were then the instigators?
They appear to have come well-prepared for their protest, and
although they were armed nith only catcall whistles and "small
bells," they managed to force the retreat of a troop of British
soldiers, three rows deep.
The following study will examine
these theatrical protesters, and others like them, as well as the
campaigns they fought in order to answer some of these questions.
As it turns out eighteenth century London theatre-goers
campaigned quite frequently.
Depending upon one's definition of
a,
there
were thirty-six major disturbances in London' s three
major theatres between the years 1730-1780, or more than one
every two years .'
This rate of occurrence did not exist either
before this period, or occur again after.
The early nineteenth
century witnessed the Old Price Riots at Covent Garden in 1809, a
67 day extravaganza of protest, and in 1859 Vauxhall Gardens was
closed d o m due to rowdy audiences.
But, as Michael Booth has
noted, through the nineteenth century Ilreports of disorders in
the pit and missiles hurled from the gallery dwindle away to
almost nothing.~~In the late seventeenth century, prior to Our
period, there were violent episodes in London theatres, including
many duels, unprovoked attacks on audience members, and patrons
forcing their way into the theatre, but there were few concerted
displays of show-stopping public resolution such as the ones we
will examine in this study.
In addition the eighteenth century theatre audience rioted
over a surprisingly large number of different issues.
occasions
the
altercations
were
predominantly
On most
related
to
theatrical concerns, including raised ticket prices, changed
seating arrangements, or problems with the content of a play.
A
numbér of times the disturbances were the final stages of a
public quarrel between theatrical personalities, backed up by
their respective supporters.
broader
social,
economic,
However, occasionally issues of
and
political
concern
were
also
contested, including opposition to party hacks, the failure to
meet contractual expectations, the venting of wartime tensions,
the expression of xenophobia, arguments over taste and public
morality, as well as concerns about the nation's relationship to
French culture.
Not only were the actions of the rioters varied, but very
often they were successful, if not always in quite as dramatic a
fashion
as
in
the
1738
Haymarket
account
cited
above.
Nevertheless, in the majority of cases the rioters achieved their
goal, even if that was only satisfying their desire to make
mischief on the first night of a new play.7
On most occasions
however, the rewards were far more lasting, and amongst their
successes audience members were able to send companies of French
actors back to the continent penniless, enjoy long term success
in having seating innovations rescinded, and often have a very
strong influence on the theatrical repertoire.
Above al1 else, eighteenth-century theatre riots were an
integral part of the total theatrical experience, representing
only the most vivid possibility from a wide spectrum of potential
public responses and collective displays that were peculiar to
the playhouse.
London theatre during the eighteenth century was
the site of a highly interactive and wide ranging cultural
activity and the theatre riot can be seen as a prominent, and not
unexpected, part of that enccunter.
occurrence to
the
total
number
of
When we compare their
performances
they
were
certainly not the rule, but they were always a possibility.
Even
when audience disapproval rernained civil and non-violent, the
threat of riot was still present.
As such theatre riots had an
overriding potential presence that helped to characterize the
eighteenth century theatre experience.
At the same time as they represent the most exuberant end
of a wide range of audience response, theatre riots were also an
expression of greater social tensions and concerns in the culture
of Britain at large.
Studying theatre riots allows us to track
important concerns as they shift in focus during the period
according to the context of eighteenth-century events and ideas.
We can see this in the rhetoric surrounding several riots over
management
issues
during
the
administration's final years.
turmoil
of
the
Walpole
Riots over issues of national
identity during the mid-century wars provide examples of the
complex relationship Britonsl had with French cultural influence.
Riots over the content of plays during the period demonstrate the
moral self-searching of the middling classes that went on during
the 1760s and beyond.
While theatre riots may not feature the
life and death situations associated with struggles in the
Street, such as the Wilkesite demonstrations or the Porteous
riots,' they are, nevertheless, hi.ghly illustrative indicators of
eighteenth century life.
Before considering theatre riots further, we might do well
to review and compare the fields of battle between the tneatre
and the outdoor riot with an examination of how riots have been
regarded by historians.
Riot historiography
Most
historians would
agree that
the
study of
public
protest and riots has added immeasurably to Our understanding of
social relationships and the negotiation of power in eighteenth-
century Britain.
It has contributed to the "history from belowM
adding voices and faces to such crowds and giving meaning to
their
action^.^
Based to some degree on approaches to the French
Revolution developed by French scholars, British historians in
the 1950s began to suggest that public disturbances from the
early
eighteenth
to
the
early
nineteenth
centuries
were
traditional forms of cultural activity, often expressions of
popular politics.1° With his influential economic and comparative
studies, Eric Hobsbawm pointed out
that the destruction of
property and machine wrecking by disgruntled workers could be
seen as a form of
llcollectivebargaining by riot."11
Thompson suggested that
eighteenth
century
food
E.P.
riots were
grounded in the widely held notion of a Ilmoral economy.I1 This
was
"a
consistent
traditional
view
of
social
norms
and
obligations, of the proper economic functions of several parties
within the communityN which was at odds with the workings of the
sez-faire market economy.12
George Rudé also explored the
motives behind the social protests of "the 'preindustriall crowdM
looking at the m q - c u l o t t ~ sof Revolutionary Paris and rioters
in Hanoverian London.
Using court records and newspaper accounts
he was able to show that supporters of John Wilkes, who rioted in
the 1760s, as well as the Gordon rioters in 1780, represented a
cross-section of the working population, including even a few
professional
people,
and
that
the
protestors
often
acted
according to a set of traditional belief S.l3
Thompson, Hobsbawm and Rudé found voices in the crowd and
suggested cogent, often sympathetic reasons for the actions of
"the
mob."
Their
initial
studies
showed
that
public
demonstrations were a chance for the expression of opinion on the
part of those who didn't have the means to express themselves
through the regular channels of legitimized power.
They showed
that there was often method in the crowdls seeming madness and
that,
in
fact,
their
behaviour
was
neither
anarchic
nor
irrational, but was often symbolic or reasonable. These three
scholars also established the basis for a number of important
theories about crowd behaviour that have served as the starting
points for further discussion, including cultural explanations
for crime, considerations as to the revolutionary nature of crowd
behaviour, and important questions about the nature of noninstitutional politics.
Their studies also set the groundwork
for further study and discussion.
In a comprehensive study of public disturbances during the
last half of the eighteenth century and up to the Reform Act of
1832,
Charles Tilly brings to light some troublesome issues
involved with looking at riots as voices from below. Tilly's
social scientific approach presents an ambitious over-view of
popular contention, again considering the struggles of ordinary
people, and how publicly expressed contention changed hetween
1758 and 1832. l4
However, as sometimes happens when historians
link the eighteenth century to the nineteenth century, the work
becomes dangerously teleological, looking at the behaviour in
question in the context of what it was becoming rather than what
it was.
certainly
This might help make sense of the latter period, but
not
the
earlier
period.
It
also
makes
for
classifications that are somewhat anachronistic, ignoring the
unique situations that existed.
Looking
at
eighteenth-century
provides
chronological direction
Starting
his
examination
disturbances early
in
of
a
riots
more
eighteenth
the period
with
a
from
the
other
satisfactory
view.
century
popular
study of
popular
Jacobitism during the first years of the Hanoverian succession,
and continuing through to the Queen Caroline affair of 1820,
Nicholas Rogers has added a number of dimensions to the behaviour
of crowds that provide us with a clearer understanding of the
eighteenth century riot .15
One extremely important aspect of
Rogers' work has been his exploration of popular disturbances and
displays in the context of eighteenth century urban
ri tain.^^
Furthermore he puts riotous behaviour into political context by
outlining how it contributed to a significant amount of public
involvement in political affairs.
Rogers reminds us that in the
middle decades of the century most English cities and large t o m s
operated as open constituencies and were independent of the
ruling Whig oligarchy.
He goes on to show that contrary to the
ideas of a quiescent electorate and arranged elections, there
were often vigoroüs contests fought arûund national and local
issues and in opposition to the administration, an idea well in
keeping with work done by Frank OtGorman on an active political
electorate.17
This was particularly the case after the Excise
Crisis in 1734 and the continued opposition to Sir Robert Walpole
until his fa11 in 1742, but also arose around popular support for
William Pitt during the period of the Seven Yearsl War.
In the
world
of
eighteenth century politics, popular
protest
both
influenced and reflected the nation at large.
Rogers also points out the element of the carnivalesque in
public disturbances and reminds us that we must recognize the
complex ltculturaldirnensionsI1 of crowd behaviour, as borne out
for example, in public demonstrations.18
In the realm of
political behaviour he shows that there were many different ways
in which extra parliamentary activity was carried on in the urban
environment, embodied not only in petitions and Instructions to
Members,
but
also
in
ceremonies,
festivals
and
disturbances, or what he calls !Ifestive politics . "19
public
Moreover,
through most of the century, riots and public disturbances were
not necessarily the action of a particular class or single sector
of society, but often a much more vertically integrated movement
than a class mode1 of riot analysis would suggest or allow.
Especially within the cities, politics involved the participation
of al1 levels of society with allegiances across class.
A criticism of the study of riots is that it provides a
somewhat
distorted
view
of
history,
focusing
on
societal
dissension and not on more socially integrative factors.* @ T h i s
potsntial drawback is overcome by scholars like Linda Colley and
Kathleen Wilson, who have shown how, in some cases, popular
disturbances
contributed
identity.21
In F r i t ~ ~ i Colley
~,
explored
Britishness,~~~~
focusing
to
on
the
the
formation
of
a
national
"the invention of
three-pronged
impact
of
Protestantism, the prolonged series of wars with France, and the
acquisition of Empire, as contributing to the allegiance of the
masses.
While
Colley
has
stressed
the
importance
of
Protestantism amongst these three considerations, Wilson in her
work
has
focused on
the
latter
factor, imperialism, as
formative component of national identity.
a
Furthermore, it is
important to keep in mind the imperial component of middling and
plebian
consciousness
politics and public
when
considering
extra-parliamentary
dis turban ce^.^^
Robert Shoemaker, in his study of the London "mob" in the
early eighteenth century reminds us that public disturbances were
not
just forms of non-institutional politics, but
also the
enforcement of popular n o m s , both moral and economic.
As he
points out, the former was partly a result of the decline in the
power of the ecclesiastical courts.
And whereas the elite and
the middling orders formed Societies for the Reformation of
Manners to prosecute cases of "lewd and disorderly" behaviour,
the
general
public
held
demonstrations against
trial
in
the
streets with
alleged mi~behavers.'~
public
In eighteenth
century London citizens were expected to take a large role in the
prosecution
of
crime.
He also
suggests that
there was
a
significant increase in the nurnber of women involved in rioting.
Both of these factors will corne into play in Our discussions of
management riots and riots about content.
While this account has been by no means a comprehensive
rendition of riot historiography, we have tried to isolate a
number of useful considerations to be taken with this study.
We
can see that riots gave a voice of public expression to a group
of people not normally heard from, nor considered to be important
in earlier
histories.
By
looking
for
'meaning' in
their
behaviour we are able to learn something both about the makeup of
the general populace and about the way they communicated with
those in power.
part
of
One implication is that the flow of power on the
the elite was not
one-way.
It was
negotiated and manipulated in many directions.
always being
Outside of out-
and-out tyranny, there was always some sort of give-and-take
between rulers and ruled.
If the study of public disturbances
has added to a more complete social history of eighteenth century
Britain, it only makes sense that the study of theatre riots will
add further insights.
To begin this study requires that we look
at both theatre historiography and theatre riot historiography.
Theatre historiography
Earlier, we asked why historians have taken so little
account of theatre riots in their studies of eighteenth century
public disturbances. We might just as easily have asked, why has
theatre history itself been of so little interest.
has
been
a
historians,
great
some
deal
of
of
which
valuable
we
will
work
done
examine
While there
by
below,
theatre
social
historians have only recently begun to study this important
institution of eighteenth century life.
The
theatre
answer lies not
history
and
only
social
in the
history,
discipline of theatre history itself.
relationship between
but
also
within
the
The problem partially
stems from theatre history's long and uneasy affiliation with the
study of English literature.
Unfortunately this has meant that
the study of theatre history has focused too much on criticism of
the theatrical texts themselves, often dissolving into a battle
over the merits of the plays as literat~re.~'This canonical view
by scholars has meant that only a few British plays from the
period 1660-1800 were deemed to have any literary merit .26
so with no important plays, there was no significant history.
And
Or
rather there was no history that was not either dismissive or
apologetic.
While this point of view is still found in general works,27
fortunately this has not been the case at the level of the
specialist and for some years there have been a number of theatre
historians who have focused on the workings of the theatre and
its cultural context.
Early examples are scholars such as Sybil
Marion Rosenfeld with her work on theatre outside London, Richard
Southern on the physical workings of the playhouse, and George
Speaight on the unlikely topic of Puppet theatre .2e They helped
to wrest theatre history from the realms of
established
it as a
literature and
legitimate sub-discipline with
its own
concerns, topics, sources, and methodologies.
The 1960s saw the emergence of several key initiatives in
th2 study of eighteenth century British theatre history.
The
catalogue of performances associated with the creation of the
massive w o n Stase (1960-8)project provided a solid foundation
~ multi-volumed
for the next generation of detailed ~ t u d y . ~The
. .
Biosra&.ical Dictionau (1975) of eighteenth century stage people
provided an extensive biographical databa~e.~' This period also
saw increased interest in history of the lesser forms of drama
including work on the evolution of pantomime, the early history
of the circus, and even a detailed examination of the amazing
variety of non-theatrical entertainments available to eighteenth
and nineteenth century Londoners.)'
Another important development was that from the mid-1970s
scholars began to make a direct attack on the separation between
the "stage and pagev3' led very notably and vociferously by Robert
Hume for the Restoration period and early eighteenth century, but
including George Winchester Stone, Shirley Strum Kenny, and
others." Hume stressed the need for historians to bridge the gap
between what appeared in the text and the actual performance.
Yet even for Hume, the recovery of a play's context was desirable
~ ~
work
only to facilitate literary criticism of the ~ o r k .Kennyls
on the commercial side of theatre is worth noting, including the
fine collection of papers she edited, linking the theatre to the
other arts.
One key area worth considering is the work that has been
done on the theatre audience.
Both James Lynch and Cecil Price,
provide chapters on the audience in their overall accounts of
eighteenth-century British
theatre,
and
Karry
Pedicord
has
published a detâiled monograph and book section on the audience.3 5
However, the most significant study is
me
J k m l s P a t r a (1971)
by Leo ~ u g h e s .Using
~ ~ a wide range of contemporary sources, he
provides a detailed description of the audience including its
three part make-up with the gentry in the boxes, the middling
classes in the pit, and the lower orders high up in the gallery.
Hughes paints one of the most accurate pictures of the eighteenth
century London audience and points to an interesting dynamic - the audience's perceived right of public expression within the
playhouse."
However he does not sufficiently stress that this
was a right that was accompanied by a sense of responsibility on
the part of the audience. Instead, he posits it was more often a
"love of mischief and self-display," while at the same time "a
quieter, but actually far more important growth of tolerance for
what appeared intolerable to f~reigners."~'
While Hughes is right to point out the quality of selfdisplay in audience behaviour, his view of the audience's love of
"mischiefV is not overly helpful.
It is too much in the tone of
those who have tended to disparage and downplay al1 public
protest as "mischief" (or worse), who can't see that while there
is an element of reckless abandon in a playhouse riot, this
quality contributes to the potential for rioting to be used as an
instrument of policy.
The unpredictability and violence of the
behaviour increased its impact and its eventual effectiveness.
With much of the work we have cited thus fart we donlt
really get to see how the theatrical experience fits into the
audience's lives.
Instead
it
remains as
something apart,
something that happened after dark, somehow separate and not a
part of people's total cultural experience.
One of the most
insightful areas of research that has allowed theatre to escape
the confines of the building has been the study of Shakespeare's
impact in the eighteenth century.
Michael Dobson suggests that
many of Our modern ideas of Shakespeare were shaped during the
eighteenth century, and that the Bard of Avon was not simply re-
discovered during that period, but became a keystone of British
national ~haracter.'~
Shakespeare's characters and situations were
applied to public affairs, through verbal and visual reference .4 0
Moreover, championed at many levels, Shakespeare and his works
were the focus of a wide variety of commercial activity, ranging
from the publication of his plays to the marketing of his
birthplace, ~ t r a t f o r d . ~ ~
Another excellent study that takes the theatre beyond the
playhouse, is Gillian Russell's The Th-es
of War which traces
links between British military culture and the theatre during the
Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars .42
She looks at the theatrical
nature of various aspects of Britaintsmilitary life and also how
Britainls military was represented in the theatre. The theatre
was instrumental in establishing the national character of the
Jolly Jack Tar through plays and entertainments.
At the same
time sailors, soldiers, and officers were important members of
the audience.
Russell notes in particular their importance to
the dramatic growth of provincial theatre in the latter decades
of the century.
She also points out that this presence led to
numerous violent disputes and confrontations as the theatre was
uçed as a site to contest contentious issues."
Theatre Riot historiography
The topic of
contentious issues has been one of
some
controversy amongst theatre historians, who until only recently,
seem to be troubled with the notion of riots in the playhouse,
and who, with few exceptions, see a theatrc riot as an occasional
occurrence, something to be almost dismissively explained away .4 4
While they recognize the boisterous nature of the audience and
the commonplace occurrence of rioting, they over-simplify the
causes behind the riots and obscure the view of who was staging
the disturbance. Elizabeth Stein's description of the Half-Price
Riots of 1763 as "another such instance of mob-rule in the
theatrel' is not very helpful towards an understanding of the
issues in~olved.~' Even amongst more recent scholars, there is a
tendency to explain the behaviour with value-laden terms which
obscure what was happening.
While George Winchester
Stone
astutely pointed out that a riot could be initiated by any rank
in society, he still labeled them as "lords, commons, or m o b . ~ ' ~ ~
Sir St. Vincent Troubridge's view from the middle of the
century seems hard to shake, that although theatre rioters "have
been ready enough to protest that they were supporting every
noble cause from the rights of man down to an honest indignation
with mediocrity," his research told him "that they were more
truly actuated by the pleasure of tearing up the pit seats and
throwing them on the stage or throwing pennies at the chandeliers
from the gallery.
II 47
Sir Vincent ignores his own observations of
the complsx motives and voices that were part of a theatre riot
and instead substitutes his own script.
Closer to the mark are a number of theatre historians who
see the incidence of riot in the theatre as an indicator of
substantial changes in audience behaviour over time.
Comparing
the audience of 1770 to the audience of 1730, Allardyce Nicoll
suggests there was a trend towards decorum amongst theatre-goers
through those forty years, which he claims was due to the
influence of the middling classes.
Harry Pedicord claims that
just the opposite actually occurred.
Examining the incidence of
serious disturbances at Drury Lane, he notes that out of seven
major riots in a thirty-three year period, only one took place in
the earlier period.
In one sense Pedicord is probably right, the intensity of
theatre riots increased in the middle decades of the century;
however, that is not to Say that the audience didntt become
increasingly decorous at the same time.
Instead the movement to
decorum was a more punctuated development than he credits, more
aligned with the anxious social climate that existed during the
American revolutionary war and its aftermath. However, at the
same time Nicoll is right in suggesting an increase in decorum,
although this was not the result of middle-class values alone.
The growing size of the theatres and the increased focus on the
stage brought about by larger houses, more extravagant scenic
design, and new lighting technology, likely had as much impact in
changing the public's theatre experience.
It was a trend that
was delayed until the shape, physical layout, and number of
theatres could change tc meet the new class dynamics of a growing
urban population.4 9
As we have already noted, there have been some interesting
investigations of individual theatre riots.
For the eighteenth
century proper there are three short studies.
the
Half-Price Riots
in
1763, John
Whitty
In an account of
has
managed
to
carefully reconstruct the timing of these unique riots, which
occurred at both major houses over the same period.
He further
makes a good case for suggesting that the riots were about supply
and demand, as well as the more traditional interpretation of
persona1 revenge. Richard Klepac is not as successful at tying
together the two riots that plagued Drury Lane manager, Charles
Fleetwood, in the last years of his management of the theatre.50
The most intensely studied theatre riots of this period
have been the Old Price Riots at Covent Garden in 1809.
Taking
place over 67 nights, the riots were in protest to a number of
issues.
Named after only one of the contentious innovations by
the theatre managers, the privatizing of a row of box seats was
probably the most contentious issue, which led to more general
campaign against the notion of exclusion and privilege.
With an
extraordinary amount of print material related to the riots, and
their taking place in the midst of such dynamic times, it is not
surprising the Old Price Riots have received so much attention.
J. Anne Hone was the first to make note of their significance in
a political sense, amidst her work on radicalism in London during
the last and first decades of che eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Gillian Russell and Elaine Hadley looked at them with
çhorter çtudies which then became part o& àarger works.
However
the most extensive and authoritative account is Marc Baer's, who
has looked at the riots as an extensive example of popular
politics."
Baer suggests that the highly theatrical behaviour of
the rioters was modeled according to contemporary theatrical
conventions.
Moreover, he contends that recognizing the use of
theatrical behaviour by the general public outside of the theatre
can help to explain Britainls apparent stability during this
period of great social stress.
When we compare the work on theatre riots cited above, it
is notable that scholars conducting detailed accounts are able to
find so much significance in the events, while those taking a
wider view
of
the situation turn the riots
into anomalous
exceptions to an otherwise satisfied response.
degree,
the
explanation
of
this
difference
To a large
lies
in
the
disciplinary background of those who have focused on the single
events.
They are able to take these rich historical situations,
weigh the evidence, and see the individual significance of the
disturbances.
No doubt the approaches developed by historians
studying non-theatrical riots have also helped.
A
New View
Now
while
it
is true that
the number of
non-riotous
evenings at the theatre far outweigh the number with riots, it
must be kept in mind that vociferous, and sometimes violent,
reactions £rom the audience were characteristic of the eighteenth
century play-going experience, noted by foreign visitors and
English men and women alike.
The German visitor to London,
Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz, had some important insights into
the behaviour of the London audience. Archenholz observed the
boisterous nature of the theatre-goers, with their pockets filled
with oranges; but he also noted that "when the play begins, al1
noise and bombardment ceases, unless some especial provocation
gives rise to further disturbances; and one is bound to admire
the quiet attentiveness of such an estimable folk.1152Note here,
the
expression
disruption was
"especial provocation.'
there
if
the
The
possibility
conditions which
the
of
audience
expected werenlt met.
Moreover, there were a variety of reactions available. The
spectrum of possible response to the theatre was so wide, and the
gradient of difference so slight, that by considering riots as
the 'exception1we fail to see their influence and importance to
the theatrical experience, even as only a possibility.
Within
the study of riots in general, it has been observed that as
indicators of the makeup of the crowd, riots were episodic in a
way that was distorting.
Richard Cobb, in a criticism of George
Rudé, notes that "riots are only a series of peaks, sticking out
above the waters of a submerged, but discoverable, history of the
common people.n53
By
looking at
theatre
riots within
the
continuum of audience response as opposed to seeing them as a
form of aberrant audience behaviour, we are using Cobbls idea,
but turning it on its head.
There are two important considerations to keep in mind
throughout this work.
The first, that eighteenth century London
theatre was a commercial venture, largely dependent on ticket
sales, which meant that the audience as ticket buyers had a
significant Say in determining the material that was presented
onstage .
While
there were
shareholders
in
the
theatrical
enterprise, whose financing helped to pay annual expenses and
cover the initial investment cost of the venture, the continued
viabil ity of a theatre was dependent upon audience attendance.5 4
This gave the audience an enormous degree of power over the
theatre manager and the management of the theatre. Moreover, the
self-knowledge of this power on the part of the audience and
their expectations of its acknowledgement by the manager was
buttressed by traditional beliefs concerning liberty and rights,
as well developing ideas associated with buying and selling in a
commercial sense.
The commercial aspect of theatre-going evolved
into two perceived rights: one was the right of choice and
whether to buy a ticket or not, and the other was the expectation
to receive an appropriate value for the purchase.
Riot was
sometimes the outcome of disappointment in the latter.
We shall
show that the commercial nature of the theatre was an underlying
tension and an influential dynamic throughout the period.
A
second key consideration for this study is that it is
difficult to draw distinct lines around theatrical activities.
This was the case both inside and outside the theatre.
Theatres
were large interior public spaces and provided a venue for a
great number of social interactions, including many that were not
strictly related to the performance onstage.
People arrived mid-
afternoon, mingled amongst themselves, and eventually made their
way to thsir seats.
At six o'clock in the evening (the usual
time for the opening curtain through most of the eighteenth
century), a long and varied night of entertainment began, lasting
up to five hours or more, and eventually the audience drifted
home late at night through the local community of taverns,
coffee-houses, and bagnios which surrounded the theatres.
The
theatres themselves were warrens of segregated passages, lobbies,
and seating areas where one could meet and socialize, or barter
and sell, as well as watch a play.
Moreover, the affairs of the theatre made their way into
the community at large through a number of associated activities.
Perhaps the most active was the publishing industry and the media
of print, including: newspapers, journals, pamphlets, larger
works and playscripts.
Through these means theatre made an
impact on individuals well beyond those who were actually in
attendance.
institutions
circulating
This dissemination was further facilitated by social
such
as
reading
libraries, as
well
circles,
as
coffee
spouting
houses,
and
clubs, private
theatricals, and even as the subject of public debate.
This
somewhat fuzzy boundary to theatrical activity had a distinct
impact on theatre riots.
It meant that issues from outside the
theatre could surface in a theatre riot.
It also meant that
theatre riots could carry on beyond the theatre walls.
The Approach Outlined
This investigation of theatre riots in eighteenth-century
Britain will take the following form.
Immediately after this
study framework comes a cornparison of theatre riots and outdoor
riots according to several different parameters including: types
of officia1 reaction, the degree of violence involved, the role
of women, and the place of tradition.
We have already contended
that theatre riots were different from riots previously studied;
however, in this section we will see that they were also alike in
many ways. We will then look at what rnakes theatre riots unique.
In
Our
second
chapter, we
background contexts.
will
detail
a
number
of
We will begin with an examination of the
spatial dimensions of theatre riots, looking inside at the
theatre space, and then outside, at the place of theatre within
the larger geographical setting of eighteenth-century London.
Space was an important element of the theatre, whether it was the
relationship between performer and audience, or between the
different
sections
of
the
audience.
Of
course
this
had
implications for theatre riots as it determined the impact of the
riot and also leant an air of theatricality to riotous behaviour.
Next we will examine the theatre in its larger cultural
context, by focusing on theatre and the press.
One of the ways
theatre made an impact on the culture at large was through the
medium of print.
The importance of this to Our study is that
theatre riots were widely reported in the press, were carried on
with
the aid of various forms of printed media, and were
sometimes the results of disputes that first began in the press
and later made their way to the playhouse.
Our final context will be a historical one, tracing the
roots of theatrical disturbances through various transformations
in the latter part of the seventeenth century and into the early
part of the eighteenth century.
In particular we will look at
two kinds of disorder that were common at that time: persona1
quarrels that often ended in duels and disputes over access to
the theatre space.
Both these types of contention were later to
surface as causes for riotous behaviour in the playhouse during
the eighteenth century.
To study theatre riots in detail, we have divided them
according to four general causes.
This is a somewhat difficult
task, for while it is useful to identify separate themes that
could cause a theatrical disturbance, very often there were a
combination of
situation.
instigating factors at
work
in
any
riotous
Theatre historians generally tend to list a large
number of issues at play.
However, the disturbances can be
satisfactorily divided into a nurnber of thematic categories by
focusing on the most outstanding issue of the dispute.
devote a chapter to each category.
We will
Starting with chapter three,
we will look at riots over issues related to the management of
the theatre.
These included disputes over changes in ticket
prices, concerns about seating arrangements, and deliberations
about how the theatres were actually managed.
At the same time
this chapter will examine the idea of theatre management itself,
looking at it in the context of more general concerns about
political management.
Management, especially in light of Robert
Walpole s Whig administration, was a major preoccupation with
eighteenth-century
Robinocracy,
Britons.
For
llmanagement" denoted
most
people
partiality
during
and
the
corrupt
practices, and theatre managers were subject to the same sort of
criticism as politicians.
Chapter four will examine riots based on disputes between
individuals and the parties of people who supported them.
This
was the most prevalent type of theatre riot in the eighteenth
century.
Most often the personalities involved were connected
with the theatre in some way, as actors, as managers, or as
authors, writing for and about the theatre; however, on occasion
we find audience rnembers instigating disturbances, backed up in
turn by their own supporters.
To some extent the occurrence of
this type of riot was founded on the growth of London's theatres
during the eighteenth century, in size and profitability, if not
in number, and the competition between actors and manager, as
well as between the actors themselves. The situation was further
inflamed by the public's fascination with personalities.
Chapter five will explore the political riot.
riots
were
comparatively
infrequent,
in
While these
keeping
with
the
superficially non-political appearance of the theatre during the
period, they were both violent and destructive.
This was in
keeping with the tensions that were present in London and the
nation at large at mid-century, as Britain fought with France for
European and imperial domination.
Finally chapter six will look at riots about the content of
the material that appeared onstage. Although these were the most
common type of theatre riot during the eighteenth century, they
are in fact the hardest to discern, as they were in keeping with
normally expressed audience responses.
However, they reflect
major divides in British society and mark changes in public
standards of morality and taste.
Having outlined Our plan of study we will now conduct a
cornparison, examining a number of issues that theatre riots and
outdoor riots had in common, and then some aspects in which
theatre riots were unique.
Legal Definitions
A
good place to begin is with the legal definition of riot.
Perhaps most important in this regard is that just as with riots
out-of-doors, at the end of the day, theatre riots were also
subject to the legal strictures upon public assembly.
Britain
had a reputation for having an expressive populace, seen by some
from within the nation as a matter of pride, and others from
abroad with raised eyebrows.
And yet, while the possibility for
expression extended up to the right to petition the King, and was
sanctioned by the Bill of Rights, the law did not actually
protect the right of public assembly.
However, it did not deny
it either, so long as the assembly did not become a public
disturbance, riot or rebellion."
From the sixteenth century, under English Common Law, a
confrontational situation was considered a riot if three or more
individuals assembled on public or private property, acting
either lawfully or unlawfully, in such a way
that gave a
reasonable person fear that there would be a breach of the peace.
The offence was generally considered a misdemeanor, unless it
could be considered treasonous.'"
In 1715, during the unrest that marked the Hanoverian
monarchy's first year, the Riot Act, was passed, to deal with
High Church and Jacobite assemblies that got out of control.
This law could be applied to any group of twelve or more perçons
Munlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled togetherN.
The group was confronted by a state official reading out the act,
and the rioters were then given one hour to disperse.
After
that, troops could be sent in to quel1 the disturbance and the
remaining offenders arrested.
An offense which fell under the
terms of the Riot Act was more serious than one which met the
Common Law definition of riot, as the crime was an "adjudged
felony without benefit of clergyu with the penalty of death.57
The legislation created a procedure for delivering the
proclamation that was ominously ceremonial, and almost theatrical
in nature.
There was a set of instructions be closely followed
by officials along with a provided script, outlining "the order
and form of the proclamationu to be delivered.
The justice of
the peace or other person authorized by the act to make the
proclamation was to
...among the said rioters, or as near to them as he can
safely come, with a loud voice command, or cause to be
commanded silence to bel while proclamation is making, and
after that, shall openly and with loud voice make or cause
to make proclamation in these words, or like in effect:
Our sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth al1
persons,
being
assembled,
immediately
to
disperse
themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habi tations,
or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in
the act made in the first year of King George, for
preventing tumults and riotous assemblies.
God save the
King.
However, it should be noted, reading the act was not always an
easy
task, for
the
crowd
was
to
be
silent
so
chat
the
Proclamation might be heard, and there had to be light enough to
read .
There were a number of attempts to read the Riot Act in the
theatres of eighteenth-century London.
However, there were fewer
instances of success and even fewer cases where there were
persons actually charged with its violation.
Often those in
authority simply couldnlt read through the document before they
were intimidated or shouted down by the assembly.
During the
lengthy Old Price Riots at Covent Garden theatre in 1809 there is
no indication that it was ever successfully read.
Attempts on
the first night by Mr. Justice Read and two others, from the Bow
Street magistrate's
office, just around the corner from the
theatre, were shouted down with cries of, "No magistrates, no
police in a theatre." A print conflating a number of events from
the first week shows the trio centre stage clutching a piece of
paper with the house in an uproar (figure 7b) .
At the Chinese
Festival Riots fifty years earlier at Drury Lane the theatrels
prompter, Richard Cross, recalled that the proclamation was read,
but again with little effect ." The act was presented and read,
but for some reason, in the theatre there was not the same
urgency .
On the other hand, during the first night of the Footmenls
Riots
in
1737
at
Drury Lane
theatre, the
more
determined
magistrate Thomas DeVeil was successful in reading the act.
Colonel
~ e ~ e i l ~was
'
a
well-known local
trading
magistrate
presiding in the Bow Street office j u s t around the corner from
the playhouse (figure 1).
In attendance at the theatre on the
evening of the disturbance, as he was on other evenings, DeVeil
went to where the footmen had gathered to protest their being
shut out of their traditional gallery. Despite their threats "to
knock
his
Brains
out," DeVeil
read
out
the
Proclamation
"admonishing them to retire and desist from so unlawful an
Undertaking; for that he came as a Friend, and not as a Foe, to
warn
them
of
their
Danger."
DeVeills warning
and
his
M[rleasonably reading the Proclamation, had its desired Effect,
for they al1 went off in a few Minutes after the Proclamation was
read.
Military presence
With theatre riots, as with riots out of doors, there was
also a military presence.
Because there was no 'police' in
London until the 1820s, and magistrates were sometimes unable to
make an i.mpact on a riotous assembly, military force was used to
deal with situations that got out of hand. In London theatres,
detachments of soldiers were posted from at least 1721.
After a
riot at Lincoln's Inn Fields in March of that year, the King
ordered a guard composed of a sergeant and 12 men to attend the
theatre.
houses.
This arrangement was soon adopted by the two patent
The Treasurerls book of accounts at Drury Lane for the
first week of November 1750 shows that out of 4/13/6 paid to the
front-of-house staff, the soldiers received 14 shillings.62
The guardsl presence, in fact, was quite conspicuous.
were stationed onstage by
the stage doors
Two
(below the royal
boxes), and are included in at least two different theatrical
prints.
Unlike the oppressive nature of the troops in French
theatres, which David Garrick noted on a visit to Paris,63there
is a significant amount of evidence that suggests that their
presence in London theatres was much more in keeping with the
nature of the theatre experience.
During the early 1740s the
Muniversal Spectator" noted the case of a grenadier posted beside
the stage who was so enraptured with the performance that, after
a scene where one friend stabs another, the soldier llpullld
out a
Handkerchief, and wipld his Eyes. " 6 4
Nearly 30 years later a
painting by Zoffany of Garrick and Pritchard as Macbeth and Lady
Macbeth in the dagger scene features another soldier looking on,
with a pose suggestive of the earlier story of the tearful
guardsman ( figure 4 a )
.
It is difficult to assess the impact of
presence in the theatre.
the military
Of course they did not have the same
tactical possibilities as the military did when they were out of
doors.
It was impossible to deploy mounted guards in a theatre,
and even military formations on foot would be difficult to
maneuver given the restricted nature of the passageways and the
theatre auditorium.
There was also the possibility that in a
confined space their appearance might be counter effective as
indicated by an exchange in a humourous broadside published at
the time of the Half-Price Riots in 1763:
Tenducci
1 will away to quel1 these Mutineers,
Adieu - 1'11 send a File of Musqueteers.
Miss Brent
Yet stay Tenducci - for perhaps such Force,
Instead of quelling then, may make lem worse."
Moreover, there were often a significant number of military
individuals in the audience, with officers in the boxes and
soldiers and sailors in the galleries, along with their wives and
friends.
Their presence could exacerbate a situation where
outside
military
force
was
being
used
and
there
was
the
possibility of them joining the disturbance on the side of the
protestors.
In contrast to the
sternness noted by Garrick of
the
military in the Parisian theatres, there was something disarming
about the inclusion of
playhouses.
the soldiers onstage in the London
It was as though they were a routine part of the
eveningls entertainment, as noted by Charles Churchill in his
masterful Bpsciad (1761):
Then came Drum, Trumpet, Hautboy, Fiddle, Flute;
Next, Snuffer, Sweeper, Shifter, Soldier, ~ute:~'
During a performance of Twelfth Ni-
in 1763 at Drury Lane, the
actor O'Brien used the onstage soldier as an impromptu foi1 for a
bit of stage business, which so frightened the poor man that he
fell over backward to the delight of the a~dience.~'
However, when troops were deployed in the theatre, it could
be done in a remarkably dramatic fashion, as was the case during
the disturbance arotised by the appearance of a French theatre
Company at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket in 1738 noted at
the beginning of this chapter.
As the audience in the theatre
became increasing hostile, the curtain was opened to reveal rows
of
troops
on
stage.
effectiveness of
However,
the visual
in
image was
this
circumstance
self-defeating.
the
The
appearance of the armed guard evoked outrage from the audience
rather than submission.
antipathetic to
state
The public were feeling particularly
officialdom at
that
point, with
the
recently passed Licensing Act still evoking negative feelings,
and the fact that the evening's performance was by a troupe of
French performers appearing "by Royal ~uthority."~'
Violence
As with outdoor riots, theatre riots often involved a
significant amount of violence.
destruction of theatre property.
Many
times there was
the
Most often this was limited to
objects inside the theatre, and involved activities such as
breaking up the theatre seating, smashing the lamps and the
general destruction of the interior decorations.
in the
A commentator
w,
observing the Chinese Festival riots at
the Drury Lane theatre in 1755, noted that benches were torn up
and thrown into the Pit, as well as mirrors and chandeliers
smashed. However, at the same time it was also noted that
as there is a magnificent organization in this theatre, in
three minutes al1 the decor had been removed, al1 the traps
were ready to come into play to swallow up those who might
venture up, al1 the wings were filled with men armed with
sticks, swords, halbreds, &c., and behind the scenes the
great reservoir was ready to be opened to drown those who
might fa11 on the stage itself."
The reservoir, a precaution in case there was a f ire in the
theatre, was never used, but other parts of the defensive plan
were.
That a strategy existed points to the cornmonplace nature
of theatre riots, with the already large numbers of theatre
employees, joining in to support the managers in disputes, who at
times were further backed up by hired bruisers.
AS for physical violence to audience members themselves,
this was very often the case, especially during riots that pitted
one group within the audience against another.
On the second
night of the Chinese Festival riots, the observer cited above saw
heavy blows and broken heads with the "My Lords" supporting the
ballet, jumping into the pit from the boxes, armed with staves
and swords to take on those protesting the performance.
They
"struck right and left regardless, breaking arms and heads, and
blood was running everywhere.l17' Violence might also rain down on
audience members from above, in the form of missiles thrown from
the galleries.
thrown.
Apples, potatoes, and fruit were most often
On one occasion a piece of hard cheese, near half a
pound, was lobbed from the gallery, severely hurting a young
woman sitting in the pit.
This was quite unusual, however,
inducing the treasurer of the theatre, Pritchard, to afterwards
offer a ten guinea reward for information about the perpetrator."
When considering the degree of violence involved in theatre
riots, it is important to note, once again, that there was a
continuum of audience reaction, and a great variety of possible
behaviours.
The choice of response available to theatre goers
was stressed in the aftemath of the 1773 Macklin riot.
On
January 1, 1774 the question was debated at the Crown Tavern in
Bow Street, whether "to refrain1! £rom the house or to tear it
up.13
From this debate topic it is apparent that boycotting the
theatre was an option to be considered, as well as a more violent
form of response.
about
When chosen, there was something systernatic
the violence that accompanied theatre riots, with an
established repertoire of behaviours.
Moreover there was a
pattern as to when and how the disturbance could become violent.
Some actions involved violence to person and some to property.
With
the
destruction
of
property,
there
was
sometimes
restitution, even though it was likely not enough to cover the
damages, as in 1740 when the one of the instigators of a riot
over the non-appearance of a favourite dancer reimbursed the
manager, Charles Fleetwood, €100 towards damages that totaled
closer to £2-300.14
moved outside of
During the infrequent times when rioters
the theatre, they directed their animosity
towards a targeted person and proceeded to his house and broke
windows, as in 1755 when a group of Chinese Festival rioters went
to Garrick's house in Southampton Street.75
Women and Theatre Riots
The eighteenth century theatre audience was a heterogeneous
group, not just in terms of socioeconomic status, but in gender
and age as well.
Text and illustrative sources indicate a large
proportion of women in the audience, and not just amongst the
elite in the boxes, but in the pit and gallery as well.
Of the
fifteen victims who were trampled in the pit during a command
performance at the Little Haymarket late in our period, there
were f ive
men, five women, three young women and t w s children.''
A print of the Half-price Riots at Drury Lane in 1763 (figure
6b), noted for its relatively accurate portrayal of the layout of
a mid-century theatre, with chandeliers hanging over the acting
areas, and stage boxes on either side, also shows the audience in
some detail, including suggestions as to their sex, with women in
bonnets and men in tri-cornered hats.
There is a fairly strong
representation of women in the picture, with 15 females as
compared with 88 men. The ratio evens out significantly further
if we look to the boxes, where there is a ratio of 12 women to 15
men.
Some
contemporaries saw
the
women
in
the
pit
as
an
ameliorating force, or so thought Robert Lloyd in his poem to
George Colman, written prior to the opening of Colmants play
Peeping the curtaintseyelet through,
Behold the house in dreadful view!
Observe how close the critics sit,
And not one bonnet in the ~ i t . ' ~
From this we can gather that the female members of the audience
were more easily appealed to, or at least were not as violent in
their opposition.
An audience 'without bonnets" was more likely
to be critical and unsympathetic.
While women were very much a part of the exuberant mix in
the theatre audience, they were ushered from the premises when
the benches began to fly.
A tradition associated with theatre
riots was the removal of women from the proceedings at the point
when it appeared there might be physical violence.
took
place
when
riots broke
Blackamoor (1776).
out
at
An example
a performance of
the
The disturbance was largely due
to a faction opposed to the play's author, Henry Bate, who used
his newspaper, the w
u Post, to abuse "private and public
The violence quickly escalated and a woman who was
chara~ters."~~
present later told John Genest Itthat she and her friend were
obliged to leave the theatre before their carriage was come, and
get home as well as they could - - the cry of the evening was
'Ladies
But then again, this custom allowed women to
participate in the disturbance up to a certain point, at least
until the events became violent.
Al1 this said, we have to be careful how far we take the
non-violent influence of women in the audience.
During the
Chinese Festival riots, it was reported in the press that women,
'Ifar from being affrighted by the horrible scuffle, gave a hand
to the gallants that they might leap into the Pit and pointed out
to them the people to be knocked out.1180 This comment should
remind us that the culpability of women in theatre riots is open
to question.
Role of Tradition
As Edward Thompson has suggested, outdoor riots were part
of a l'moral economyl'where the instigators of a riot justified
their actions with a set of commonly held traditional values.
In
the metropolis perceived rights and traditions on the part of the
audience were also used to back up their course of action in
theatre riots .
"Cornmon Sense" reported a tavern conversation
following the 1738 Little Haymarket riot that provides an example
of those sorts of feelings. When questioned about the audience's
behaviour, an active participant explained "that the Audience had
a legal Right to shew their dislike to any Play or Actor in the
Manner here done; for the common Law of England was nothing but
common Custom, and the antient Usage of the People."'l
We also find this sort of justification later made by the
rioters during the Old Price disturbances.
Protestors claimed
that they were acting according to their long held right to
express their displeasure.
it was
In fact, during the Old Price riots
the nonviolent, tradition-backed position of
the OP
faction that was a major feature of the riots, as a sort of
presage to a changing mentality: a new synthesis of old ideas in
opposition to the breakdown of the patronage system. However, it
is important to see that these behaviours have a lengthy pedigree
with links to earlier in the century, perhaps aligned with
opposition to the administration, but
the opposition of
an
independently minded middling class, justified in its exuberance
by being on the 'right sidet of the quarrel.
It
is worth
noting
that
contemporaries and
eighteenth
century theatre historians also recognized the principles and
traditions involved.
Unlike later accounts, which were almost
always condescending towards riots and
rioters, contemporary
commentators often identified motives that were not ignoble.
They recognized that there were elements of principle involved,
including national pride.
When a "Person of Distinction" asked
Benjamin Victor about his namets appearance on a list seen on a
noblemants table, of participants in the 1738 riot against the
French Company at the Little Haymarket Theatre, he acknowledged
his participation proudly."
His comment gives us an inkling of
the political tension that exiséed beeween patriots and the
elite.
Contraste
From the exploration of the themes above, we can see that
there were a number of similarities between theatre riots and
riots out-of-doors, although we must acknowledge the differences
in degree.
We will now focus on ways that theatre riots were
distinctly different.
It is here we will also explore some of
the underlying issues and considerations for this study.
Perhaps
the most important notion to clarify is what we mean by the term
'riotl when applying it to disturbances in the playhouse.
As we
have seen above, the matter of definition is a major problem when
considering theatre riots.
The word
itself is laden with
subjective meanings, whether it is used as a noun or a verb.
person's demonstration was another person1s riot.
One
The social
historians we cited earlier have shown how important it is to
define public demonstrations more carefully.
When we trace the etymology of the word
'riot' in the
Oxford English Dictionary, noting in passing its use in the
hunting sense of a hound following some prey, there are two other
streams of meaning which are helpful in analyzing theatre riots.
On the one hand there is the sense of unlawful violence by a
group of individuals. We have explored this above, including its
Common Law and Riot Act manifestations.
established
that
there was
Historians of riot have
significant degree of
legal or
administrative subjectivity to this meaning of riot, and that the
term can be used through those channels to label behaviour in a
negative sense as unlawful.
The term Iriot1 can be an effective
way to discredit behaviour that is threatening to the status quo.
When backed up by certain legal implementations, such as reading
the Riot Act, with its impending consequences, the description
could become a deadly assignation.
However, especially in eighteenth century usage, the word
was also associated with breaking the laws of social behaviour,
and with wanton conduct and loose living.
Within this state of
moral laxity there was also the sense of indulgence and wasteful
extravagance, even
oneself.
to
the
over-use of
words
in
expressing
While we generally tend to associate the first meaning
with outdoor riots, perhaps due to the importance of political
analysis on the part of historians, both of these two streams of
meanings are in evidence in the theatre riot.
The legal ramifications of the definition of riot are
readily apparent.
Beyond the obvious concerns with the Riot Act,
the legality of theatre riots as a legitimate form of audience
response was called to question a number of times and there were
at least two important court cases, of a non-capital nature,
where the judiciary tried to define what should be considered
riotous behaviour in a playhouse and what was a legitimate show
of an audience memberls displeasure. O 3
one.
The line was not a clear
In 1743, after the Macklin/Garrick riots at Drury Lane
theatre, Justice Lee determined that ttcontinualHissing was a
manifest Breach of the Peace, as it was the Beginning of a
Riot.lta4 When we add the legal entanglements that attended the
status of the actor, which are implicated in a number of riots
throughout this period, we have a highly litigious environment.
However, there is also much to connect the theatre riot
with the other major theme of the definition, for in the theatre,
Iriot l came to define a type of audience response and in a sense
defines a behaviour that was seen by some to be synonymous with
theatre-going.
This association with the theatre was made by
those criticizing the stage from the outside and was also readily
adopted
by
theatre-goers themselves, so
cheerily will go
Itto d a m ,
"to rout,
that
the
audience
or "to riotn at a
performance, as an expected part of the eveningls entertainment."
As a further though somewhat belated proof of this semantic
shift, we find that the word 'riotl is eventually adopted into
the language during the nineteenth century to denote a highly
successful theatrical production.''
In the eighteenth century,
for a time "to riotI1 became a not unexpected form of audience
behaviour.
The element of ambiguity suggested by this two-fold
definition will arise more than once in this dissertation.
First of
al1 it
is important to see that there were
differences in the way theatre and outdoor riots were seen and
reported.
For one thing theatre riot behaviour was in line with
the conduct that customarily occurred at the event.
While here
we might make an apt comparison with the riotous behaviour of
crowds during elections, in the theatre this sort of response was
a part of the audience's responsive repertoire, not an anarchic
anomaly, but an extension of audience behaviour that regularly
took place as a matter of course.
Rioting was a potential part
of any eveningls programme, always hanging in the air as a
possibility.
Within this notion of a continuum of possible
behaviours, there were also spatial and temporal constraints.
Theatre riots took place indoors, almost exclusively, with a
confined group of spectators ostensibly gathered for the sarne
purpose, to partake of the evening's entertainment.
Drama is an
art form that depends directly upon its audience - - not just for
their ticket buying or financial support, but also in the actual
presentation of the play.
A
theatrical performance is not a one-
sided endeavour: it needs an audience and its varied response for
success.
The eighteenth-century audience, through the energy of
their presence and their feedback, participated very directly in
the performance, whether involuntarily through laughter, gasps,
or sighs, or voluntarily through clapping or hissing.
Of course
the response was not guaranteed and could run the gamut from
kudos to riotous displeasure.
When examining the interior dynamics of
the eighteenth
century theatre space one is struck by the different particular
environments within the building and the activities associated
with those spaces.
Of course there was the evening's programme
of entertainment in the theatrels main space.
The auditorium
itself was relatively well lit, with the lighting adjusted both
onstage and in the house during the performance."
Moreover it
was physically laid out so that it was possible for al1 patrons
of the theatre to see the other audience members in other parts
of the house, as well as the performance onstage.
For the
eighteenth-century patron the theatre was a place of public
display, where one went to see and be seen. The audience also
came to watch and mingle with each other as well as watch the
entertainment onstage.
Furthermore, from the entryway, through the lobbies, to the
seating area, the theatre was a site of various social activities
and enticements.
The theatre lobbies and entryways, were also
places to meet and socialize.
sold.
Playscripts and refreshments were
Prostitutes negotiated
with
their clients.
Indeed
disagreements over the activities in these areas could be a spur
to theatre riot, whether it was a noisy audience assembling for
halftime
or
an
affront
to
an
orangewoman
in
one
of
the
passageways.
The temporal context of the theatre and the timing of a
performance were important elements of the theatre riot. During
the run of a popular play, servants began to arrive by midafternoon to Save places in the boxes, allowing their masters and
mistresses to arrive much nearer to curtain time at six ~ ~ c l o c k . ~ ~
People would often begin to gather in the pit two hours before
first music.
John Brownsmith's book The Dr-tic
Time-Piece
(1767), listed the precise playing times of a great number of
popular plays, so that busy gentlefolk could make dining or
travelling
arrangements.89
From
this we
might
imagine the
potential disruption that could be caused when a' show was delayed
by a disruptive audience, or cancelled altogether as a riot
developed.
Richard Cross, the prornpter at Drury Lane, recounts
how on one evening the show went up ten minutes late and the
audience began making "a great noise to beginn and pelting the
actors when they finally did come onstage.gO
A further example of the public's concern with theatre
time, and one that also points to changes in the class membership
of the audience through the period, took place near the beginning
of the 1768 season at Drury Lane.
In the morning a printed
notice was "handed about requesting the lovers of theatrical
Performances to meet this evening at the theatre to insist upon
the doors not
being
opened
till
five ~ ~ c l o c k . ~ At
' ~ ~the
performance, the audience called for Garrick, but the actor King
went on instead and told them that 5:00 o'clock would be an
acceptable hour to open the house except on popular nights, but
the proponents of the new time insisted upon 5:00 o'clock for al1
occasions.
The managers finally agreed.
This incident is
another example of the power of the audience and further suggests
that there were now enough members of the audience who worked in
the afternoon and felt that the earlier opening time was unjust.
Furthermore, disturbances
often developed
delineated set of developmental stages.
through a
clearly
Often there were strong
warning signals in advance that a riot might occur, warnings that
would appear in the daily newspapers.
This was an outcome of the
deeply-entwined relationship between the newspaper press and the
theatre.
Theatrical events were advertised and reported upon in
the daily papers, which in turn were often read and discussed in
public coffee-houses, so that the progress of the theatrical
season was publicly scrutinized.
First, letters intimating a
grudge would appear in the newspaper, then retractions, then
perhaps editorial comments, and finally an account of the actual
encounter, or its failure to materialize.
Moreover, theatrical riots were often staged over several
nights, so
that
the
momentum
protracted
time
period
ebbed
provided
and
flowed, and
entrepreneurs
with
this
the
opportunity to become involved and profit from the disturbance.
The Chinese Festival Riots of 1755 began on a Saturday night
during a comrnand performance.
The riots escalated through the
following week and climaxed on the following Saturday.
By that
evening a six penny pamphlet appeared supporting the theatre
managers and festival's dancers and it was only one of a number
that
followed .92
occasions
for
In this manner
commercial
theatre riots became
exploitation.
Many
the
disturbances
generated a large amount of printed materials including newspaper
accounts,
pamphlets,
and
broadsides.
Satiric
prints
and
handbills were often on sale in the print shops before the
disputes were
resolved, a dynamic counterpoint to the more
standard forms of printed theatrical material such as playscripts
and newspaper reviews.
And while we might question the actual
commercial profitability of the printed material associated with
riots, much of which was distributed gratis, there was certainly
money to be made from increased newspaper circulation as well as
pamphlet sales.93
Another important feature of theatre riots was the degree
of self-policing that was often involved.
about
situations
where
the
disputatious elements within
standards of behaviour.
audience
Here we are talking
would
itself, and
confront
publicly
the
negotiate
At a performance of William Popple l s
T
h
e (1734), the actor Quin polled the audience,
and after pointing out that the majority were in opposition to
those who would d a m the play, the majority turned the noise
makers out.94 These acts of self-policing were between groups,
enacted on an individual level and even Royalty were subject to
the sanction of the audience.
Frederick Reynolds relates an
incident when the King arrived late for a performance and the
audience "received him with some very hasty rude marks of their
disapprobation."
Initially
the
King
showed
surprise
and
embarrassment, but was soon able to turn the audience's anger
around .
He drew forth his watch, and having pointed to the hand,
and s h o w it to the lord in waiting, he advanced to the
front of the box, and directing the attention of the
audience to his proceedings, he deliberately beat the
misleading time keeper against the box - - thus proving he
was a great actor, and deserving of the full houses he
always brought .95
Nevertheless, in the theatre, even the King was subject to the
censure of the audience.
It is also important to note that theatre riots were very
often successful. The power of the audience was impressive, even
when it did not resort to violence.
Very often it would get its
way, or certainly stop the show for a significant period.
the 10th night of Egagaua
After
(1775) at Drury Lane, according to
custom, the epilogue and prologue were discontinued.
the audience demanded them again.
However,
The prologue, by Arthur
Murphy, had a patriotic tone, and the epilogue, "by a Friend,"
was a passionate declaration of female ~ i r t u e . ~The
~
actor,
Palmer, stepped in and delivered the prologue, but at the end of
the play nobody spoke the epilogue, as Mrs. Yates, the actress
that had previously spoken it on earlier nights, had already gone
home this night with a sore throat.
The audience was not to be
denied and they held up the play for more than an hour and a
half .
The actors Mr . Vernon and then Mr . Weston went onstage to
reason with the audience, and finally Mr. Yates appeared, who
told them that his wife was home and sick in bed.
Eventually,
the farce was allowed to proceed, but even then, not q~ietly.~'
This episode is perhaps not spectacular, but nevertheless it
demonstrates the consequences of ignoring the audience and their
power to stop the show.
The pleading actors described above were vivid examples of
how performers were often caught in the middle of the situation,
trying to stay on good terms with the managers as well as the
audience.
It was a fine line that many actors tried to walk, but
there seemed to be little way to please everyone.
Occasionally
some managed a small victory over the audience as did the
rernarkable comic actor Weston.
Although his gimmicks failed to
win over the p r a u m audience, he had better success on another
occasion.
During the 1775 run of
me
Rival C u d a t e s Weston
spoke the epilogue to a large dog, his patting of the beast
rnirroring the treatment Weston's character received earlier in
the play.
The epilogue became extremely popular.
However, one
evening Weston decided on his own not to present the routine with
the dog.
The audience's repeated shouts for the epilogue
initially failed to move Weston and the audience showered the
stage with fruit, and then bottles, a large one striking one of
the chandeliers.
However, even Westonls eventual appearance did
not entirely satisfy the crowd, which remained surly, and it was
only some clever extempore by Weston to Dragon (the dog's narne)
telling the beast that he needn't fear the audience throwing
bottles at
head, that won them over.
Lichtenberg, in
attendance, claimed that
the situation was saved at a very critical juncture by this
excessively witty alteration, so aptly expressed in rhyme.
There was no end to the clapping and shouting. But Weston
did not move a muscle, his face being as expressionless as
a brick, not the least trace of pleasure or complacency, no
more than on the face of his four-footed f?~iend.~'
In the court of performance, Weston had pleaded his case and won:
the audience was quick to judge and to forgive.
manipulating
public
reaction, Westonls performance
perfect mix of nonchalance and irony.
Skillfully
was
the
It was a deft feat to walk
the line between riotous applause and riot.
From the comparison between outdoor riots and theatre riots
we have traced above, we can see that while there were many
similarities in the two types of disturbances, there were also
key differences.
Individually these are perhaps subtle, but
together they make for two quite different forms of public
expression. Theatre riots generally featured different groups of
participants from outdoor riots, including members of the upper
and middling classes, as well as the lower ranks.
They were
carried on in a cultural environment where public participation
and expression was expected, and in a way represent only one end
of a continuum of audience response, albeit to a sometimes
violent and destructive extreme.
And in the end they never
really met with a thorough response from official forces.
With
the
many
ways
that
historians
have
reconsidered
riotous behaviour, there are now new theoretical perspectives to
use with theatre riots.
This is especially important when we
consider the ways outdoor riots have been used to fil1 in the
spaces concerning Our knowledge of how eighteenth century British
politics and the negotiation of power worked.
Theatre riots
have a distinctly multi-class component and their machinations
can help flesh out this body politic even further, especially
when seen in a context that allows them to be integrated with
questions surrounding the development of a middling class, the
impact of trade and empire, the elements of nationalism, print,
and the developing public sphere.
For while theatre riots were
part of a continuum of audience response to events within the
theatre, very often they brought in issues and contests from the
outside.
By looking in detail at theatre riots through the
period, we are able to trace important changes in the way the
audience related to the stage and to each other.
Here we are only pointing to the vast amount of research in
this area by referring to the work of George Rudé, Edward
Thompson, and Eric Hobsbawm as three pioneers in the study of
rioting in eighteenth-century Britain. Their work, along with
others, will be discussed below.
2
. .
Charles Tilly, paialar CQr&z&ion in Great Br1ta.U. 1758-1834,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995. Nicholas
. .
. .
Rogers, m d s . Cultyre. and Politlc~ ln Georq+gn R r l t ~ ~
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. To be fair, in some cases the
authors' historiographical methodology precluded an examination
of theatre riots. The five years Tilly picked to sample which
fa11 within Our period did not witness riots and Nicholas Rogers'
long scale view is a episodic approach, focusing in detail on
specific riotous outbreaks through the period, as opposed to a
comprehensive view of rioting in the eighteenth century.
Stevenson mentions the 1749 riot at the Little Theatre in the
Haymarket, that had Lord Trentham, a London MP in the midst of a
violent Westminster by-election campaign, as a reputed
ringleader, but makes no further attempt to fit theatre riots
into his catalogue of disturbances. John Stevenson, PoDular
ces W.
1700-1874, London: Longrnan, 1979, 63-4.
In the early eighteenth century lmob1 was not necessarily
derogatory in the modern sense of the word, but often referred to
~ ~ he
a rank of people. Johnson's definition is IlThe c r ~ w d .but
goes on to cite Addison's remark that l'a cluster of mob were
making themselves merry with their betters." Samuel Johnson, A
ch the Words Are
n T h e n Diffprent
&e
WrW-ch
Fndish Grammar,
London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton, 1755. In
this same vein, diarist, Narcissus Luttrell notes an incident at
Bartholemew Fair "where the mobile gott a head and quarrell'd
with some gentlemen, upon which swords were drawn, where some
were wounded and one or two killed." (1/9/1690) Narcissus
af£&S.
from
Luttrell , A b r i e f - r e l a t i o n t e
1714, Oxford, 1857, II, 3 9 .
er 1678 to =il
Our definition a "theatre riotw will be detailed below, but in
essence we are choosing any occurrence when the audience, or
portion thereof, overwhelmed the performance, either forcing it
to stop, or carrying on to such a degree that the disturbance
essentially became the performance. This is what contemporaries
would have meant by the description.
See Appendix.
Frederick & Lise-Lone Marker, "A guide to London theatres,
1750-1880," NHistorv Vol. VI, 17501880, London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1975, lxii; Micheal Booth, "The
social and literary context: The theatre and its audience,"
Revels Historv of D r a m a i n l i s h , VI, 24. With ri0ts out-ofdoors, Stevenson notes the same sort of "transition to order.I1
295.
Stevenson,, PMischief, however, while often a major part of a theatre riot,
was not often a major cause of theatre rioting in itself.
On May 10, 1768, William Allen (probably innocent) and 5 or 6
others were killed by soldiers in what became known as the
I1Massacre of
St
George's
Fields.
Stevenson, PoDular
Dist-,
67-8. In Edinburgh in 1736, Captain John Porteous
ordered the Town Guard to fire on a crowd that becarne unruly
after the execution of a smuggler. Several were killed and
Porteous was
later lynched. Kenneth J. Logue, PoDular
D i s t w e s b Scotland, 1780-18=,
Edinburgh: J. Donald
Publishers, 1979.
Harvey J.
Çeorse &R
Kaye, ed., n e Face of &he Crowd
v and P
O
New York: Harvester /Wheatsheaf, 1988.
Stacs
in
D
Harvey J. Kaye, "Introduction: George Rudé, Social Historian,"
in n e Face of the Cr&,
3-5. Rogers, llIntroduction,"
in Crowds.
'O
'' Eric Hobsbawm, "The Machine Breakers," in -aMen,
London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1964, 7.
12
E.P. Thompson, "The Moral Economy of the English crowd in the
50 (1971), 78-9.
Eighteenth Century," Paçt,
in Historv: A Studv of PO DU^,^
d. 1730-1848, London: Lawrence
and Wishart , 1981 (1964). In his recent study, Nicholas Rogers
provides a tonic to Rudé's class-based assessment of the riots,
pointing out the political nature of the disturbances. Chapter 5,
~ ~
ds. C u l t u r ~ a n i i ,d1998.
l3
George
Rudé, The Crowd
9
.
. .
Charles Tilly, a a r Contention in Great B u . t a , u . 1758-1834.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995. Tilly has tried
to make an accurate count of what he calls 'lcontentiuusgatheriny
(CG)" which he considers to be made up of 10 persons or more, 19.
l4
Rogerst most recent monograph brings together a number of
investigations into eighteenth-century popular disturbances.
. .
Rogers, W w d s . m t u r e .
Politics, 1998.
lS
l6
. .
. .
Nicholas Rogers, klhigs and Cities: P O D Polltu2s
~
in the Aue
ole and Pitt. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.
. Frank OtGorman, The Lonq
Rogers, k&iffs & C i t m , .391;
.
.
hteenth C e n t u r y m u h Political and Social Hlstorv. 1688ml London: Arnold, 1997.
. .
18
Rogers, mas and Citieg, 350. In his most recent work, he
17
9
.
reminds us that we must not overemphasize the cultural aspect of
. .
riots, Rogers, t
15.,
Nicholas Rogers, ffCrowdand People in the Gordon RiotS. In a
d Gein the
C e n w , ed . Eckhart Hellmuth . 39-56. London :
Oxford University Press, 1990, 54.
l9
Tirn Harris, ItApproachesto the crowd,l1 in London Crowds in t k
. .
an
of a l e s 11:- p
~ ~ ~ O ~ L L L the
L Q Restoration
UI
u t i l the exclusion c r u , Cambridge University Press, 1987. See
R.L. Holton, IlThe Crowd in History: Some Problems of Theory and
Method, SocialHistorv,
3 (l978), 219-33.
'O
21~inda
Colley,
a the Nation 1707-1837, New Haven:
Senne of the
Yale University Press, 1992; Kathleen Wilson,
. .
ics. Culture anCUnpIrnDeriahsm in Enghnd. 1715-1785,
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
22 colley, Britonst 8 23 Wilson, S e n s e o f - ,
139. We will consider Wilsonls
work on the contribution of theatre to the IlImperia1 Projectn in
Chapter Five when we explore issues of nationalism and theatre
riots.
Shoemaker, Robert B.,. Il
The London "MobN in the Early Eighteenth
.
Century," Journal of British St-,
26 (1987): 278.
24
This separation of sub-disciplines is a major problem of
scholarly endeavours and represents the traditional hermetic
isolation that is too often characteristic of academic
departments.
25
One scholar has written: "A historian of late eighteenthcentury literature would be irresponsible if he encouraged his
readers to spend time on the tragedy, or much time on the comedy,
of the day in the belief that they would derive profit or
pleasure from their reading." John Butt, The Mid-Em,Oxford, 1979, 169.
26
''
Laura Brown, Ens;LiçhDramatic 1660-1760: An Essav in
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. For an
excellent discussion of this and other historiographical issues,
see the lengthy introduction to Ronald, W. Vince, Beoc&sic&
lacaoirot:ertaeh~
-,
Westport, Conn. : Greenwood
Press, 1988.
,-
2e
Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, S t r o U u Plavers & Drama in t h e
provinces 1660-1765, 1939 (New York: Octagon Books, 1970);
Richard Southern,
The-,
London: Faber and Faber, 1952; George
Speaight, B e u o r y of the E n u s h Pup~etTh-,
Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1990 (1955).
- -
William Van Lennep, ed., m e London Staue Part 1: 1660-1700,
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968; Emmett L.
Avery, The London Staae Part 2: 1700-1729, Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1960. Arthur H. Scouten, The Londw
Staae Part 3: 1729-1742, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1961. George Winchester Stone, Jr . , The London Staue Part
4: 1747-1776, Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1962. Charles
B. Hogan, #,
Carbondale: Southern
- MI.
Illinois University Press, 1968. [Henceforth
29
P.H. Highfill Jr., K.A. Burnim, and E.A. Longhans, eds. A
ses. D a c e r ~ ,w u e r g
1660- 1800. 14 Vol,&,
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975.
'O
David Mayer,
Pantanin&
1806-1836, Harvard University Press, 1969; A.H. Saxon,- F
=A
Horse: A U u o f ~ i ~ ~ o d r a in
m aEng.h&
and France, New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, Richard Altick,
,
Mass: Belknap Press, 1978. Citing the
a o w s of J I O ~ Cambridge,
topicality of eighteenth century pantomime, David Mayer reminds
us that theatre is not an activity that is separate from everyday
life.
32 From the title of a monograph following a conference at UCLA in
1976-77, which pointed to the importance of the "whole show1l;
that theatre is the integration of text, technicality, and
performance; George Winchester Stone, Jr., ed., - 3
1
1
1
in the Eiweenth-C e s ~ rTheatre
~
Paaewo:-011
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
l'
Robert D. Hume, ed. m e L d o n Theatre World 1660- 18OQ,
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980; Stone,. .
S t a - n . ,
1981; Kenny, shirley Strum, ed. British
atre and the Other Arts. 1660-1804, Washington: Folger
Shakespeare Library, 1984.
34 Robert D. Hume, I1EnglishDrama and Theatre Research 1660-1800:
New Directions in Re~earch,~~
Theatre Survev, XXIII, (1982): 71.
However, while there has certainly been far more recognition of
the importance of the performance aspects of a particular work,
as well as the staging and front of house context, the majority
of those writing on eighteenth century British theatre and
theatrical experience are scholars of English literature. Nine
out of the twelve scholars represented in Hume, The JIondon
m t r e World, 1980, are professors of English.
"
'' James J. Lynch, Fox. Pit and G U e r v : Staqe ;ind Society ig
v.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953;
Cecil J.L. Price, Theatre in the Aue of Garrick. Oxford:
,
.
Blackwell, 1973; Harry William Pedicord,
Theatrical Public LQ
m e T h e of Garrick, New York: King's Crown Press, 1954; Harry
William Pedicord, "The Changing Audience, e
W r l d 1660- 180Q, Ed. Robert D. Hume,
Illinois University Press, 1980. 236-51.
Leo Hughes,
une~#
, - L
urv
Texas Press, 1971.
Carbondale:
Southern
36
Austin, Texas and London: University of
37
Hughes, The,
3-31.
3e
Hughes, TheDrama's PatXQm, 65.
39
Michael Dobson, T
tation
.
u
A
h
e
h Poet: W e s ~ e a r e .
1660-1789, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992, 3.
. .
Jonathan Bate, ÇhakesDeareantitutions: Polltics. Theatre,
,- . . .
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 61-104.
During the Old Price Riots there were parodies of Shakespearian
soliloquies and several satiric prints featuring the Manager John
Kemble as an ill-fated Macbeth. Richard Gorrie, "The Old Price
Riots at Covent Garden in 1809," Masterts Thesis, University of
Saskatchewan, 1990.
40
Deelman, Christian, The Great Sh-eare
Joseph, 1964.
Jubilee, London: M.
41
Gillian Russell,
. e c *
Societv 1793 1815, London: Clarendon, 1995.
42
44
. .
Polltics
â11g
Allardyce Nicoll, t
t
r
e
s and &adkWes ig
E i w t h C e n t u , Manchester University Press, 1980, 87-8.
45 Elizabeth P. Stein, m v i d Garrick. D
B. Blom, 1967), 10.
m
, 1938 (New York:
George Winchester Stone, "The Repertory," in The Lo-n
Theatre
,
190.
ÿJorld 1660 180Q
47
Sir St. Vincent Troubridge, "Theatre Riots in London," in
atre Historv in Memory of Gabrielle
Enthoven, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1952, 84.
48 Allardyce Nicoll, A W o r v of FnclLigih Prama, 1660-190Q, IV,
Cambridge, 1970. H.W. Pedicord, "The Changing Audience," 248-50.
46
49 1 would posit that the 67 day Old Price Riots is the exception
which proves the rule. It was only the concerted publicity
campaign in the newspapers and pamphlet press, along with the
organizational and legal support from members of the Westminster
Committee, which allowed the "riotiDrama
to
' continue so long. In a way
this quasi organization was able to turn a traditional theatre
riot into political campaign.
John C. Whitty, "The Half-Price Riots of 1763,Drama'1ZheaL~e
W t e b o d , 24 (1969): 25-32. R.L. Klepac, "The Macklin-Garrick
riots,II Theatre Notebook, 52,l (1998): 8-17. Matthew J.
Kinservik, "A sinister Macbeth: the Macklin production of 1773,"
ary Rulletin, 6:l (1995): 51-76.
51
J. Anne Hone, For the Cause of Tr~th: Radicalism in LQXIQQ
1796-1821, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982; ~ussell, ~illian,
"Playing at Revolution," Theatre Notebook, 44 (1990): 16-26;
Gorrie, "The Old Price Riots at Covent Garden in 1809, 1990; Marc
J~ond~n,0xford:
Baer, Theatre m d Disorder m J~ate GeClarendon Press, 1992. Elaine Hadley, Plelodrgmatic tactics:
ketplace. 1800-1885,
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1995.
. .
Ca. 1770. Cited in John Kelly, #
eatres in the Eishteenth Centurv,
Princeton University Press,
1936, 55; See Archenholz, Johann Wilhelm von, A Picture of
. .
. .
d: C o n W u a D e s C u o n o f L h e J îws. CustOms, alsi
London: printed for Edward Jeffery, 1789.
53
*
T
imes review 30/12/1965, cited in Rudé,
Crowd;
George, "The Changing Face of the Crowd," The Face of-e
on. Ideoloay and P
o
D
~ess-of,
ed. Harvey J. Kaye. Harvester/Wheatsheaf,
1988) 67.
52
54
For a detailed account of theatre financing see chapters two
and five of Sheppard, F.H.W. (General Ed.), m e Theatre Royal
Published by
prurvbane and The Roval Opera House Covent Gar-,
Athlone Press for the Greater London Council, 1970.
5 5 E. Neville Williams, ed., The -th-Centurv
Constituti~n,
s and C o m m , Cambridge University Press,
1960, 408.
56
Stevenson, &QJ,&U
Di~lturbances, 5; W. Nippel, "Reading the
Riot Act: The Discourse of Law-Enforcement in 18th-Century
England, astory and Anth.ro~oloqy1 (1985): 402.
57
Nippel, "Reading the Riot ActIt1
403.
"ACTING MAGISTRATES committing themselves, being their first
appearance on this stage as performed at the National Theatre
Covent Garden," 1809. Newspaper reports also indicate the
magistrates tried to read £rom a piece of paper. B e S t a t e ~ ,
19/9/1809.
5a
59
Richard Crossls Diary, 18/11/1755 in LU, 509.
t l e m ' s Ma-,
December 1747, 562-4. DeVeil was a rather
noted figure in the London magistry. The son of a churchman,
exiled £rom Lorraine, DeVeil apprenticed as a mercer, rose
through the ranks by merit of his knowledge of language and later
turned that into account as a London solicitor. He eventually was
a knighted magistrate. Though censured by the w t l e u
Masazine as a trading magistrate, he nevertheless must be seen as
hard-working. Foote satirized him along with others in Taste
6O
don M a a m , February 1737, 107. "A great Number of Persons
wounded" had their injuries dressed by a surgeon in the same
room .
62 Sawyer, Paul Simon. The New Theatre in J l i m l n l sInn Fie-.
London: Society for Theatre Research, 22. The Winston Theatrical
Record indicates that Covent Garden paid 1£ for 18 Guards and a
Serjeant, in ml 891. As a comparison, the Candle woman was paid
2 shillings and the Lobby door keeper, 1 1/2 shillings. 11/4/50
m, 190.
61
On a trip to Paris in 1751 David Garrick noted in his diary
that "concerning the military guard Collé writes: 'These are
actually soldiers from the French guards, the same as at the
Opera; it gives great quiet, but it casts over the room a certain
sadness, which makes me fear sometimes that 1 am in a strange
country; 1 do not find any more the French gaiety: the pit has
actually a German air.'" Alexander, ed., w ,1751, 60.
63
June 1742, 292.
oar: with the wav to
ii new overture u
~ U old
e score: as it wa4 ~erfPnnedat the
Covent-Garden. bv Mr. Reard. Miss Brent. Sig,
th. Mr. Woodward. ~ i t .boxes. gd,kries. tc. tc,
~ t e db 1 burlesuuo) to the favourite airs in the
. .
xes. 'l3e t b d edition. London: Sold by E.
Sumpter, print and bookseller, at the Bible and Crown, three
doors from Shoe-Lane Fleet-Street, 1763.
64
NO. 712 in w o n Ma-,
. .
Gillian Russell, :
r
a
W
e
c
#
Politics
,
London:
Clarendon,
1995,
96-106.
Leigh
Woods,
Societv 1793 1815
pointing out Garrick's sympathetic approach to the military in
his repetoire, lists 30 llsoldierlyroles" played by the actor
during his career, Garrick Claims the Staae: Actinu ac; Social
Westport : Greenwood, 1984,
102, n29.
Charles Churchill, m e Rnsciad, 1761, ln 303-04, in James
C
h
,
New York: Barnes & Noble,
Laver, ed. poems of -es
1933 (1970).
66
a
.
68
28/10/1763 Drury Lane theatre, Hopkins' Diary, No. 10, in
Lane,
99.
ltCommonSense," in
533.
1
October,
,
1738,
~ournal-,
25/11/1755. Quoted at length in Deryck
Noverre: Fatber of Modern Rallet. London:
Lynham, me Chev&er
Sylvan Press, 1950, 37.
l1 Journal 12/1755, in me c h e v u e r Noverre, 36.
'O
75
77
Cross, 18/11/1755, in W, 509.
In Lance Bertelsen,eClub: Literature and PODure 1749-1764, Oxford: Clarendon, 1986, 69.
Bate was also involved in a well-publicized confrontation with
a noted fop Fitz-Gerall, receives detailed attention in Kristina
P1a-d
Straub, çexual Suspcts: Ei~hteenth-Centur~
Jdeoloav, Princeton University Press, 1992; 16-23.
79 Genest, TheEnalish
VI 489; Women also left Drury Lane
theatre during the 1763 Half-Price riots, and in many similar
instances.
Journal Etr-,
12/1755, in The -valier
Noverre, 35.
NO. 90, in w o n Ma-,
October 1738, 507.
h
e
x
Benjamin Victor, T
New York: Benjamin Blom, 1771 (1968), III, 61.
8 3 see Mansfield's judgment in the case of Macklin vs. Leigh et
al. Shearer West, "Zoffany's 'Charles Macklin as Shylock' and
Lord Mansfield," Theatre Notebook 43 (1989): 3-9.
Victor,
,
The epilogue to Colman and Garrick's, 8
1761, features people returning from just such an outing and
there are many other instances in other works.
niaht
the
c e n t w , Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988, for a discussion of the
implications of changes in theatre lighting.
During the run of Benjamin Hoadlyls popular play,
. .
SusDlclous Husband , (Covent Garden, 1746-7) Ladies were adviied
to send their servants by 3:00 to keep places, one hour earlier
than ususal.
J. Brownsmith,
Dr-e-Piece:
l
a a Calculation of the T
PerformiSa in A l 1 the A=tLm
London: Printed for J. Almon, 1767.
or P e r m Moilitor;
n
a
q
At the T h e - = s - R o v L
e
"This Day is publish'd, Price 6 d. me Dancers Pamn
Devil ta Pav at the Old W. Printed for R. Griffiths in Paternoster-row." m l i c Adver-,
18/11/55.
92
93 The fa11 of 1752 saw a flurry publication around a riotous
confrontation between the actor Henry Woodward and an audience
member who was critical of his performance as Harlequin in the
The critic, John Hill took sides
afterpiece, Harleauin -.
against Woodward in m e Ins~ector and Woodward countered with
letters in the U V
Advertis~,and also received support frorn
A pamphlet war followed and Woodward
the. was able to sel1 three editions of his letter to Hill.
Is Ma-,
November 1752, 535; Henry Woodward, A
Cooper, 1752; James Fullarton
Arnott,
.
.
Literature. 1559-1900: a R l h l l o w h v : I n c o ~ o r a L h aRobert ML
tri&
ture. Pubin 1888,
London: Society for Theatre
Research, 1970, 352
94
Preface, The,
1734.
Fitzgerald, a o r y of the Theatres, II, 10. During the
afterpiece at the same performance, a stage centaur rnisfired an
arrow, grazing the King. At this the audience expressed outrage
in defense of their monarch. However, the comic scene of both
ends of the horse expressing their dismay soon amused all.
95
96 Robert Jephson, &&garaal London: Printed for T. Evans...and T.
Davies, 1775.
91
in 1775, James L.
Clifford, ed., Cambridge University Press, 1947, 44-5; Mornins
Letter, November 30, 1775, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg,
. ,
s's
visits to S
€
laries F17741, 1938 (New York: B. Blom, 1969), 29. It is
interesting to see that Weston was well known for his talent of
assuaging an angry audience.
9e
Chapter 2
--
Background Contexts
With more than powlr of parliament you sit,
Despotic representatives of wit!
For in a moment, and without much bother,
You can dissolve this piece, and cal1 another!
As Itis no treason, let us frankly see,
In what they differ, and in what agree,
The said supreme assembly of the nation,
With this Our great Dramatic Convocation!
Business in both oft meets with interruption:
In both, we trust, no briblry or corruption;
Both proud of freedom, have a turn to riot,
And the best Speaker cannot keep you quiet.
David Garrick, Epilogue to W d of the Q&s, 1774.
To you, the Critic Jury of the Pit,
Our Culprit Author does his Cause submit:
With Justice, nay, with Candour judge his Wit:
Give him, at least, a patient, quiet Hearing:
If guilty, d a m him; if not guilty, clear him.
Fielding, Prologue, m e We-a
Dav, 1743.
In
contemporary
descriptions,
the
eighteenth-century
theatre and its audience were given many different metaphorical
shapes and roles: a sailing ship, a stagecoach, the subjects of a
painter, or the patrons of a tavern, but to name a few.
The use
of such metaphors was cornmonplace, expressed from the playhouse
stage in numerous prologues and epilogues, and used as well in
the
contemporary discourse
about
the
theatre
analyses of the state of the nation's theatre.
and
critical
However, the two
metaphors that head this chapter, the theatre as a house of
parliament' or as a court of lawI2 are two of the most useful
descriptions available when trying to understand the nature of
the eighteenth century theatre-going experience, the relationship
of the audience to the stage and most importantly for the purpose
of this study, the eighteenth-century theatre riot.
These two metaphors reflect cornmon, popular perceptions of
the theatre, held by both the describers and by the people being
described.
The
constitutional
metaphor
acknowledges
the
importance of politics in the minds of many Britons and their
attachment to Britaints distinctive parliamentary arrangement.
At the same time it suggests that the theatre experience was a
representative one.
Entertainment was put
forward and the
audience voted either positively or negatively to the offering.
At the same time this body with its acknowledged power was
composed of a range of individuals representing a number of
interests and classes.
The juridical metaphor attests to the judgmental power of
the audience and the participatory responsibility inherent in
that act of judgment.
It alludes to the concept of justice and
fairness that was seen as a Britonls birthright.
represent
associated
two
activities
with
responsibilities
- - judgrnent and voting - closely
play-going,
of
the
Both metaphors
which
audience
arrangement in which they were met.
take
as
into
well
as
account
the
the
spatial
Moreover, in each of the
cases chosen above, the idea of riot was associated with the
activity.
These two figures of speech are well-suited for introducing
the present contextual chapter, as they represent two ways in
which the eighteenth century theatre space ordered and delimited
the evening's activity in a physical, as well as a conceptual
sense.
Each metaphor relies on the actual physical area of the
playhouse for its effectiveness. The theatre space became a sort
of House of Commons or a court room, with the stage and the
auditorium
assuming
institutions.
some
physical
manifestation
of
those
The stage became a court dock, or the three
divisions within the audience of pit, box, and gallery, became
the two houses of parliament and the court.
To begin the examination of the riotous debates that went
on in the playhouse parliament and the uproarious cases that were
tried in the theatrical court, we will first outline a series of
contexts, exploring various physical, cultural, and historical
aspects of eighteenth century London theatre with a particular
emphasis on the extenuating factors that contributed to theatre
riots .
We
will
start by
examining
the
theatre's spatial
environment, looking inside the building at the human geography
of London theatrical activity.
We will take into account the
audience's experience of each area of the theatre and what
influences the
interior spatial arrangements had on theatre
rioting .
Next we will put theatre and theatre riots into a cultural
context beyond the confines of the playhouse by focussing on the
relationship between the theatre and the world of print.
was
a
remarkable
degree
of
interconnectedness
There
between
developments in the press and the theatre during the eighteenth
century and this mutually beneficial relationship had important
implications for theatre riots. As was the case with the theatre
at large, theatre riots were variously reported in the press and
closely followed by the public.
Moreover, playhouse disturbances
were also often an extension of a "paper war" and were fought in
the playhouses as well as in the press.
Finally we will provide a temporal context for theatre
riots by examining theatrical disturbances in the latter decades
of the seventeenth century and early decades of the eighteenth.
We will focus on two types of violent behaviour that were common
in theatres during this early period: the playhouse quarrel, and
disputes over the limiting of audience access.
We will show that
the tensions that led to these two types of disturbance were
similar to tensions that lay at the heart of many eighteenth
century theatre riots.
With these three contexts we will establish conditions that
will later corne into play in Our detailed analyses of riots.
Riots were a complex of audience behaviours, to some degree part
of their response, but also part of the audience's performance.
The dynamics of the theater space had a significant impact.
Through print, theatre took place beyond the walls of
the
playhouse and the medium of print also provided another venue for
theatre tensions and contests.
its own.
Print also introduced teusions of
The London theatre world was not a peaceful kingdom.
2a. Spaces and Places
Many modern notions of the theatre are deeply rooted in the
idea of space.
The verbal expressions of this idea are diverse,
whether it is 'making it to the West End,l
'upstagingt a fellow
actor, or playing it 'front and centre,' each of these ideas
expresses an aspect of theatre in spatial terms.
These notions
remind us that theatre is a form of cultural expression that
depends upon interior and exterior space for its effectiveness in
numerous ways.
Space is a crucial element of how the theatre
works as an artistic medium and how the audience relates to the
performance.
Certainly an understanding of the theatrels spatial context
is essential to the study of eighteenth century theatre riots.
The arrangement of the theatre space had implications as a
staging and prestaging area for any theatrical disturbance.
In
some instances the space was a direct cause of rioting, as when
the audience protested against the ways in which the management
reordered the seating.
Above al1 the tripartite arrangement of
pit, box, and gallery divided the audience and the theatre space
itself into hierarchical ranks.
The eighteenth-century London theatre audience was varied
in its social makeup, with representatives from a broad cross
section of eighteenth century British ~ o c i e t y . ~ The physical
layout of the theatre auditorium accommodated this diverse group
of playgoers with three separate seating areas of pit, box, and
gallery, each one generally populated by audience members of a
particular social standing.
While ultimately ticket prices
determined the inhabitants of each area, and an impoverished lord
might move from boxes to pit, each area was gradually associated
with a characteristic clientele. Not only were the three seating
areas distinct, but
distinctive, and
each one had physical
characteristics and a spatial relationship to the stage that
shaped the entertainment experience of the people who sat there,
including the way groups related to each other within
the
confines of the theatre.
Each area had its own particular attributes for displaying
its occupants and also allowing its occupants to be see.
The
front and side boxes granted the best view of the stage, as well
as of the other seating areas, while at the same time housed the
best-viewed seats in the theatre.
The pit was located directly
in front of the stage and below the rest of the house.
Its
central position facilitated a leadership role and their dominant
impact on the audience's collective behaviour.
Finally there
were the galleries far above the stage and atop the rest of the
house.
Located in the dimmer regions of the auditorium and
overseeing all, the gallery seats earned the nickname of Ilthe
Gods" .
To a certain extent, eighteenth-century playhouses were
similar to other public gathering spots of the period, such as
pleasure
gardens, public
assemblies,
exhibitions,
and
even
debating halls, where men and women from various ranks commingled
in
a
relatively
close
manner,
after
paying
the
price
of
admi~sion.~However, with the theatre there were a number of
combined circumstances worth pointing out.
For one thing, members of the theatre audience were seated
in relatively close proximity to each other, as well as to the
performance onstage. At the same time, the audience was composed
of individuals representing a wide range of social ranks.
The
combination of these two factors meant that at a Royal Command
performance, for example, the King in his royal box and an
apprentice
in
the
upper
gallery,
witnessed
the
same
entertainment, and joined together in a combined response, al1
within less than 100 feet of each other.'
Furthermore the
attention of the audience was more or less focused on one spot.
Ostensibly this was the stage, however attention was sometimes
diverted elsewhere to some other form of public display within
the house itself.
Finally, spectators were expected to respond,
both involuntarily and voluntarily, to the various presentations
onstage.
Al1 in al1 the theatre was a public venue where
representatives from many orders of society came together and
combined their various voices in one place.
Of course, the
voices were not necessarily of the same opinion and disagreements
were often expressed in dramatic fashion, sometimes resulting in
riot .
Nor was the building itself al1 of one piece.
The typical
eighteenth century London theatre was a maze of different spaces
and passages.
Within the auditorium there was the characteristic
division of the space into pit, box and gallery, a physical
layout to be found in almost every theatrical venue in London,
from the King's Opera house
theatres
of
the
London
in the Haymarket to the booth
fairs.
Moreover
the
tripartite
arrangement was also found throughout the kingdom, in the Royal
theatres of Edinburgh and Dublin, as well as the many theatres
which sprang up in provincial
centre^.^
This mode1 for theatre
design was established during the Restoration and was not changed
until the nineteenth century. The three divisions provided a
physical framework for seating, but also provided a system for
classifying the audience.
At the most basic level, a three-tiered pricing system was
associated with this seating breakdown, whereby the divisions
within the house were confirmed in the amount one paid for one's
seat.
In the large patent theatres, tickets were generally
priced at five shillings for the boxes, three shillings for the
pit, and one shilling for the gallery, throughout most of the
century.7
These were standard prices only and there were other
more specific ticket arrangements depending on the particular
circumstances of
advanced
price
the production.
charged
for
new
Some of
these, like the
pantomimes,
were
accepted
according to tradition, and others, like advanced prices charged
for old entertainments, were protested as an unjust innovation.
There were also times when the seating was rearranged or
repartitioned.
Sometimes on special occasions, to increase
ticket revenues, the pit and boxes were made one, while at other
times an amphitheatre was built onstage, sometimes with a false
ceiling for added warmth.'
In the larger theatres the gallery
was further divided into an upper and lower section, but for the
most part the physical layout of a theatre auditorium followed
the typical tripartite seating arrangement.
Furthermore it was an arrangement that was in effect in the
lesser venues as well.
At the booth theatres in the London fairs
near mid-century, the range was 2/6, 1/6 and sixpence for the
respective sections of the much smaller hou se^.^
Comparing the
two pricing schemes cited above points out a further significance
to the three level range of ticket prices.
We can see that the
basis of ranking was not necessarily associated with actual
amount of money paid for a ticket, but rather with the idea that
some seats in the theatre were better than others, and therefore
should cost more.
This financial confirmation of the divided
seating arrangement can be considered to be both reflective and
influential in the formation of the tripartite class system.
Social status was associated with the tripartite seating
arrangement -- the gallery for the lower ranks, the boxes for the
elite, and the middling classes in the pit.
This disposition of
seats created an interior geography that was highly segregated,
with relationships and tensions between social ranks reflected in
the actual physical layout of the theatres themselves. Given the
long-standing nature of
this
arrangement, the
tensions and
harmonies between the different seating areas provides valuable
insights into the relationships that developed between the ranks
during
this
dynamic
period
of
Britain's
consolidation of her international standing.
expansion
and
The pit, box, and
gallery arrangement, typical of the eighteenth century theatre,
provides
a
physical
model,
relations during the period.
however
eccentric, of
economic
However, before examining the
dynamics of those relations, we will examine the parts.
The Pit
The most centrally located of the three seating areas was
the pit.
Perhaps, the quintessential feature of the Georgian
theatre,1° it was very different from the yards of the outdoor
Elizabethan theatre, or from the enclosed stalls of the Victorian
theatre.
The term in its theatrical context, comes from the word
'cockpit,' an enclosure where people would gather together to
watch and wager on animal blood sports. The word does not appear
to have been used in the theatrical sense until the middle of the
seventeenth century, first referring to the area in front of the
stage in the indoor private theatres designed by Inigo Jones and
others .l1
Soon the term was also applied to the patrons who
frequented the pit, as well as to the area itself.
Sitting in
the pit as opposed to standing in the yard was one of the
important differences between private and public theatres in the
seventeenth century, along with roofed protection, lighting, of
course, and a proscenium and changeable scenery.12
Physically, the pit
was
comprised of
several rows of
benches padded with green baize and fixed to a floor that sloped
upwards from where the orchestra sat directly in front of the
stage, towards the rear of the house.
Audience members in the
back of the pit could easily lean over a solid railing into the
surrounding boxes.
Those seated in the boxes closer to the
stage, could climb d o m into the pit, as was occasionally done
during a theatre riot.
Spikes on a rail around the orchestra
were meant to keep the audience separated from the musicians and
off the stage.
However, although an impediment, they did not
always completely serve their purpose."
The benched seating in the pit of London theatres was
different from the benchless parterre in Paris.
Jeffery Ravel
has posited that the introduction of benches to the Parisian
theatres in the middle of the century was a form of absolutist
social control, seating an increasingly unruly section of the
audience in a set manner and thereby limiting their movement .14
However, in London's indoor theatres, which had evolved from the
court theatres, the audience had always been seated.
Far from
controlling the audience, the benches also provided temporary
platforms where a person could momentarily rise above the throng
to shout and gesture at the stage, or speak out to others in the
audience.
Finally, in a riot, the benches in the pit were often
targets of the audience's fury, being wrenched up, torn to
pieces, and sometimes hurled onstage.''
The pit was centrally located within the theatre auditorium
and surrounded on three sides by tiers of semi-enclosed box
seats.
Above those rose the first and second galleries.
As a
result of this arrangement the pit was overseen by al1 areas of
the theatre, which helped to establish both its importance and
influence as the leading voice in the audience.
Furthermore the
space above the pit was open and lit throughout the evening by
chandeliers which were raised and lowered to change the lighting
levels before, during, and after a performance.
Therefore many
members of the eighteenth century audience were fully visible to
each other throughout much of the evening.
André Roquet, a
French Protestant who lived in Britain for thirty years up to the
middle of the century observed, "They [theatre managers] are
strangers to the pitiful oeconomy of not illuminating the house
sufficiently.... Those who frequent the playhouses in order to see
and be seen, find a very good opportunity of satisfying their
desire."16 However, while it was far different from the complete
darkness we associate with theatre spaces today, it was dark
enough, for example, that candles were needed
to read the
playscripts or Song lyrics sold before a performance, or were
called for on occasion by magistrates to read the Riot Act.''
Darkness was used as a tool to subdue rioters as when Macklin
lowered the lights during a 1740 riot at Drury Lane.''
The pit was considered by many contemporaries, especially
by those who frequented it, to be the home of the most discerning
members of the audience.
In Roquet's opinion "the theatres are
in great measure governed by the pit, who acquit them selves to
admiration of this important trust."lg For many contemporaries as
well as historians, the pit was associated with members of the
legal profession, and was, in fact, a popular place for lawyers
and law students to meet.
The French visitor, Abbé Le Blanc,
commenting on the angry displays that met the first plays to be
staged in London after the Licensing Act of 1737, noted that the
majority of individuals participating in the disturbances were
lawyers, 'la body
of
gentlemen, perhaps
less honoured, but
certainly more feared here than they are in France."
Drawing
further comparisons he noted that
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 rit ers.^'
The legal profession was increasing in its collective power as
well as in its numbers through the early part of the century.
This development was partially brought about by changes in court
procedures.
During this period there was a significant increase
in the use of lawyers to defend legal cases as opposed to
defendents appearing before the bench on their own, and their
numbers were expanding .*'
The polit ical strength of the growing
legal community is alluded to in the Abbé's description, as is
the force they represented in the playhouse.
However, as threatening as lawyers might have been, they
were
not
as
violent
as
some groups
who
chose
to present
themselves in the pit, such as the Mohocks early in the century."
Nevertheless, members of the legal profession were not to be
trifled with.
For one thing they could be quite sensitive to the
way they saw themselves portrayed onstage.
In 1738 they showed
their displeasure when the playwright James Miller, in his play
e C o f f e e - w , included scenes featuring a particular coffeehouse at Temple-Bar which was a favourite haunt for members of
the legal profession.
The turmoil was renewed when the picture
that appeared in the printed version of the play used the same
coffee-house as its m~del.'~
Of course members of the pit were not only from the legal
profession.
proposed
a
The
set
of
j ournalist
and
playwright
representatives for
a
Richard
typical
Steele
"British
AudienceN and to represent the pit in his imaginary assernbly he
nominated
"an
eminent
Fast- 1nd.h
Merchantu.
As
for
qualifications, Steele suggests that Mr. Sealand (a character
also found in Steelels play 3
,1
-3
l
1722) was "a
man that does Business with the candour of a Gentleman, and
performs his Engagements with the Exactness of a Citizen."
His
knowledge and experience of the real world, as well as making him
"a true pattern of that kind of third Gentry, which has arose in
the World
this
discernment .24
last
CenturyIttgave
him
a
basis
for able
While it is not likely that Steele would consider
a playhouse melée as an example of discerning behaviour, some
forms of rioting might be seen as audience members carrying their
responsibility for judgment a little too far.
While the pit enjoyed a reputation for discernment
in
theatrical matters, it not only sat in judgment of the play
onstage, but as observed of the rest of the audience as well.
People were often there to watch each other as much as the
performance onstage.
Charles Macklin, in his prologue to A Will
agd No Wi1L (1746), indicates how the spectators' gaze could
easily switch from one subject to the other.
In this lengthy
preamble to the play itself Macklin has put the pit onstage, with
its members awaiting a play's prologue, thus providing a somewhat
novel one for his play. The character Rattle asks:
Smart, do you go to Newrnarket this meeting? -- Upon my
sou1 thatts a lovely woman on the right hand.
But
1 cant
what the devil cari this prologue be about?
imagine. It has puzzled the whole town.25
Watching a play from the pit provided audience members with a
chance to gossip, a chance to ogle, and the opportunity to be
critics.
In this particular instance the audience member is
engaging in al1 three activities at once.
Furthemore, there was
an element of performance in this attendance.
"Mr. TownK wrote
in The Connoisçeur, "1 never go into the theatre, without looking
on the spectators as playing a part almost as much as the actors
t h e m ~ e l v e s . We
~ ~ ~have
~ earlier seen André Rouquet's suggestion of
how the theatrest lighting facilitated this performance activity.
On
occasion
theatre
rioting
was
part
of
the
audience's
repertoire.
Boxee
Surrounding the pit, and rising above it in a semicircular
arrangement, were tiers of boxes.
As their name suggests they
were partitioned rows of backed seating, often with a private
entrance.
The second level extended around above the stage on
both sides.
Initially the royal boxes were on the lower level,
closest to the stage, with the king on left side of the house and
the Crown Prince on the right. George III had the boxes moved to
the second tier above the stage."
As we have noted earlier, this
location beside the stage meant that when the monarch was in
attendance he was very much a part of the scene. But this sense
of display also extended out to include the side boxes and around
to the front boxes, opposite and facing the stage and almost on a
level with the back row of the pit.
the aristocracy, as well
With seating for gentry and
as Royalty, there was
less of a
standardized element to the boxes than there was with the pit,
with a fairly wide range in the prestige of the seats, as well as
vantage.
Naturally enough, the seats that had the closest view
were considered best and, coincidentally, were also the most
easily viewed by the rest of the hou~e.~'
The boxes were an interesting mix of public and private
space. Similar to what we have indicated with the pit, the boxes
were a place for both performance and watching of the audience's
own show within the audit~rium;~~
however, the boxes were also
places not to be seen.
By hiding in the back of a box one could
avoid the gaze of other audience members.
One could also come
and go somewhat unnoticed through doorways in the back of the
boxes, which the boxkeepers also used to keep tabs on patrons, as
well as on the activities of fruit sellers and courtesans.30
Richard Steele's representative for the front boxes is Mr.
Sealand's daughter, Lucinda, a young woman whose unaffected ease
and knowledgeable conversation brings her "much into Fashion
among the great Families she visits.
But while hobnobbing with
the great, she has not forgotten her commercial roots and is a
firm supporter of domestic manufacture with the tasteful costume
in which she chooses to be seen.
"She concludes that the Theatre
should be made serviceable to al1 Parts of Life, and al1 Trades
and Professions, that it may the better deserve the Support of
the ~ub1ick.l'~~
Steele does not need to have her Say that the
theatre is also an excellent place
for the daughter of a
successful merchant to meet with the great, although it is
implied.
For the side boxes Steele nominates Charles Myrtle, a
gentleman and a scholar with "a fine Taste of LetterS." However,
besides many agreeable qualities, "he has little Imperfections,
that frequently indispose his Temper; and when Jealousy takes
hold of him, he becomes intractable, and unhappily positive in
~~~
comment suggests that
his Opinions and R e s o l ~ t i o n s .Steele's
the pit was not the only place where one would find discerning
spectators.
Patrons of the boxes had their own claim to taste
and ski11 at appreciation.
Mr.
Myrtlels intractability points
to
a
potential conflict within the theatre audience.
situation of
Many playhouse
disputes originated with arguments about the content of stage
material, with differing opinions on a particular presentation
expressed from the various areas of the house.
Only one of many
examples was the Chinese Festival Riots in 1755, when after a
major disturbance and much destruction, there was a strong debate
over whether or not the ballet at the heart of the dispute should
be performed again.
It was
"hotly callld for by the Boxes,
strongly oppos'd by a few in the Pit."
dispute
was
resolved.
Both
areas
&
Initially it seemed the
seemingly
agreed
to
a
compromise arrangement whereby the dance would be played for
three nights of the week, whereas other entertainments would be
performed for the benefit of the pit on the other three n i g h t ~ . ~ ~
However the bargain was beside the fact, as the opposition to the
dancers continued the following night.
The managers' arrangement
between the pit and boxes had not taken into account the views of
the gallery, who did not see the issue as a matter of taste.
Gallery
In many ways the gallery was the key section of the
audience.
Here we find a wide variety of individuals including
John Bull and his family, the men of Britain's armed forces,
exuberant apprentices, and many of the vast number of servants in
London, al1 of whose tastes and preferences were duly noted by
managers and those producing material for the stage.
Perhaps,
here, a slight correction should be made to Our classification.
Although the gallery was often referred to as being one section
of the audience, it was in fact comprised of a first and second
gallery, with an admission of two and one shillings.
David
Garrick, characteristically sensitive to the complexities of the
tripartite arrangement, duly recognized the important division of
the upper and lower gallery:
What shall we do your different tastes to hit?
You relish satire (to the pit) you ragouts of wit -- (to
the Boxes)
Your taste is humour and high-seasonld joke. (First
Gallery)
You cal1 for hornpipe, and for hearts of oak. (Second
Gallery)34
Contemporaries
and
historians
alike
blame
the
advent
of
spectacle, pantomime, and farce, that were being increasingly
added to the eveningts programme, upon the management's appealing
to the tastes of the gallery.
However, we must be wary of
accepting this explanation for the development of these new forms
of
entertainment
contemporaries
without
had
a
qualification.
tendency
to
Even
though
associate
some
non-verbal
entertainments with the lower ranks, there were others ready to
point
a
finger
elsewhere,
including
at
"People
of
sudden
Fortunes." 3 5
Garrick further gives us some idea of a gallery memberls
possible discontent with his or her place in his afterpiece,
(1759), the first speaking pantomime in
leauin's I n v ~ s i o ~
ri tain.^^
The piece is centred around the adventures of a
representative gallery family.
Such folk were typically blamed
for the existence of pantomime.
Dolly is not happy with the
strictures and implications of being a part of the gallery and
plans her escape to those parts of the auditorium more suited to
her sensibilities. She complains to her mother
Dolly: . . .I t m not an ugly Girl.
1 know that -- 1
wontt be stuff Id up twice or thrice a year at Holiday
Time at the Top of the Playhouse, among Folks that
laugh and cry, just as they feel . . . .
Then 1 shall sit in the side Boxes, among [myl equals,
Laugh, talk loud -- mind nothing -- Stare at the low
People in the Galleries, without ever looking at them
-- Thus. -- Then theytll hate me as much as 1 shall my
old Acquaintance.37
The speech reflects popular contemporary perceptions of
the
contrasts between the folks in the boxes who "mind nothing" and
those in the gallery that express their emotions "just as they
feel.
The speech provides an example of tensions between the
ranks, and shows how the physical structure of the theatre
facilitated that conflict, both separating audience members frorn
each other, and displaying them to each other at the same time.
The arrangement articulated a situation that could lead to
contests between groups of audience members and sometimes could
lead to riot.
Although the audience was divided into three parts, each
one populated with its own associated constituents, it should be
noted that these arrangements were not necessarily hard and fast
divisions.
Occasionally people found themselves in parts of the
house to which they were unaccustomed, sometimes intentionally,
and sometimes not.
Dr. Thomas ,Campbell,an Irish clergyman and
avid theatre-goer visiting London in 1775, unable to get in at
al1 to Covent Garden theatre to see the Barrys in the Grecian
Dau-,
made his way around the corner to Drury Lane, where he
was able to find a seat in the two shilling galler~.~'
A
prologizer describes the how an imaginary Iflady Prim,If no doubt
more familiar with a seat in the boxes, visits the gallery
incognito.
Cries, Lord! - - 1 would not for the world be seen
Congreve's Plays, so shameful, so unclean! - Yet in the Gallery with her maid undressfd,
Close and Incog: she sits a greedy Guest;
Takes Snuff, and Smacks her lips, at evlrySavtry je~t.'~
At
While
James
Boswell,
diarist,
biographer,
and
theatrical
aficionado, most often chose the pit, on occasion he found
himself up in the gallery, indicating that a theatre-goer could
get around to the various seating areas of the theatre, either
through necessity or design, although it is likely Boswell took
to the galleries for other performances besides those ~nstage.~'
The Stage
Facing the audience and ostensibly the point
of their
attention, was the stage itself, although during the first two
thirds of the century it was often crowded with spectators as
well as actors, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. The stage
itself was raked upward from the audience to improve sight lines,
with sliding pairs of flats and scenery pieces upstage used to
create the illusion of depth.
divided
into two sections --
Physically the stage area can be
the
scene, and
the platform.
Although efforts to improve the lighting of the upstage scenic
area were made through the course of the century, the majority of
the acting took place downstage toward the audience on the
platform.
The
eighteenth
century
theatrical
performance
great acting, but also remarkable scenic effects.
for
visual
edification.
excitement
spectacle
as
It was a place
well
as
dramatic
Lighting and scenery were important, but managers
also used moving
advantage .41
and
featured
stage pieces and special effects to great
The audience saw flying figures with actors moved
through the air with ropes and pulleys, although these effects
were temporarily curtailed after a suspended device fell at
Covent Garden in 1736 injuring a number of actors.42 Audience
members saw and heard guns being fired, an important cultural
education for city folks who might not be accustomed to the
sound.
A
variety of mechanized traps in the stage floor were used
for surprise entrances and disappearances from stage, and were
also
opened
at
the
commencement of
a
riot
as
a
way
of
discouraging audience members from moving across the stage for in
a theatre riot the stage became the podium of victory.
Charles
Macklin gave orders to open the stage traps and darken the
theatre when audience members began to Storm the stage during the
Chateauneuf riots .4 3
The boundary between audience and performers shifts through
this period, as audience members were gradually removed from the
stage, and it is one of the most important changes in the theatre
experience during the first half of the eighteenth century.
Spectators had been watching from onstage since the beginning of
the seventeenth century, with actors even providing stools for an
extra
charge.
Thomas
Dekker's,
1'5
Hornbook
(1609)
facetiously recommended that gallants time their onstage arriva1
to coincide with the appearance of the prologue.44 Under Charles
II the audience was not accommodated onstage, although by 1690
the custom seemed to be in effect once again.45 In the nascent
commercial
theatre
that
followed
the
Stuart
reign,
entrepreneurially minded managers turned the location into a
source of extra income.
Audience members were allowed on stage,
paying an added admission charge for the privilege and given
temporary seating around the acting area, to such an extent that
performers sometimes had difficulties keeping the play's illusion
alive, or indeed getting through the spectators to make their
entrances or exits.
There was even an element of permanency to
this arrangement in the very theatre design, with stage boxes on
either side of the stage.46
However, no
sooner was
the
stage used
as a possible
audience seating area, for a price of course, than problems with
the arrangement began to arise.
While it became a profitable
source of revenue for theatre managers,4 7 it was also a source of
strife.
Audience members on stage could i n t e r f e r e n s t only with
the technical aspects of the production, but also with the simple
matter of acting.
This did not matter as much with comedy as
with tragedy, where it could spoil the dramatic effect, or
spectacle, where
it
could
be
downright
dangerous.
These
encroachments on the stage were taken further, with audience
members, chiefly men,
prowling after actresses backstage in the
greenrooms where actors and theatre personnel relaxed or waited
between entrances.
There
are
numerous
anecdotes
about
the
problems associated with these arrangements.
most
blatant
As we will see
disputes over access to the stage and backstage became endemic.
What is most significant for Our purposes is that this practice
was going through changes as managers during the first half of
the century increasingly made efforts to remove audience members
from the stage.
The inspiration for this policy is generally
associated with Garrick, as one of his many innovations, but the
efforts preceded his arrival.
The audience resented the spectators onstage.
One reason
perhaps, was that it did not fit at al1 into the tripartite or
quadripartite arrangement.
Richard Cross notes an incident with
"Some Gentlemen crowding behind ye Scenes," which the audience
resented and held up the farce for half an hour.
Cross finally
took to drawing lines in chalk to keep the men within some
bounds, but it was the actress Miss Norris "applying publickly to
Capt.
Johnson, desiring
situation.
he
wou'd
retire" which
saved
the
Submitting to the will of the actress backed by the
approval of the public, t h e captain did retire and the farce went
on to great applause. 4 8
No doubt , some of the ovation was due to
the public gesture of Miss Norris.
The situation of the audience onstage was exacerbated by
its connection with actorsl benefits.
Benefit performances were
a vital part of the theatrels compensation system and took place
during the last months of the theatre season.
There were
benefits for actors, authors, and theatre personnel, as well as
benefits for charitable purposes.
Individuals sold tickets to
their o m performances and also took a percentage of the gate,
paying the managers a set house charge, which was £60 in 1740.~'
Amphitheatres were often built onstage to accommodate the special
benefit audiences, exacerbating the sort of situation we have
cited above.
The Antechambers
Within any discussion of theatre space, it is essential to
consider the many other areas of the building - - including the
various
passageways, entrances, and
lobbies
leading to and
surrounding the auditorium. When examining the interior dynamics
of the eighteenth century theatre one is struck by the various
distinct environments within the theatre building and
associated activities.
their
These too were social areas, from the
entryway, through the lobbies, to the seating area
- - sites where
the audience could intermingle, where social interactions could
take place, as well as sites for various commercial activities
with a wide variety of products on sale. From early in the
century an evening's activities at the theatre consisted not snly
of watching the entertainment onstage, but also the possibility
of partaking of a wide variety of enticements in other parts of
the theatre during the process of getting to one's seat.
Within the salons leading into the various seating areas,
there were a number of commercial activities, including the sale
of books
and
print
material
associated with
the
evening's
performance.
that
Newspaper announcements often reminded the audience
the playscripts
for the
eveningts performance
or
the
libretto for a new musical entertainment would be available in
the lobby.' O
As
for the passageways leading to the various seating
areas, just getting into the theatre could be difficult if the
show was popular.
There are many reports of the various rushes
that would take place in these on a busy night. We have already
referred to Reverend Campbell finding the pit sold out by 5:00
and having to head up to the gallery.
The day after Christmas in
1757, two women and a man were squeezed to death in the stairwell
up to the Drury Lanets second gallery.'l
Figure 2a gives an
indication of the hurly burly that was possible and the crush
that could happen in such crowded conditions.
The passageways were not only where people lined up for
entrance to the theatre, but they were also sites for various
forms
of
illicit
commercial
activity.
The
lobbies
and
passageways were used by clients to mingle and negotiate with
prostitutes.52
There were also alternate forms of ticket buying
and selling, encouraged by the prevalence of orders, benefit
tickets and shareholder subscriptions.
management warned
the public about
In 1743 the Drury Lane
the
sale of
counterfeit
tickets in the passages and the playbills later reported that
Mrs.
Catherine Penny had
been
arrested
for selling
forged
tickets.''
On occasion this nightly crush led to riotous disturbances.
One incident occurred in 1735 when footmen came into the passage
at the King's Opera House with lit torches.
According to the
newspapers the fumes offended some of the female patrons and
consequently the footmen were ordered to leave.
They refused to
do so and instead they "attack'd the Centinels" who in turn
needed reinforcement.
This came in the form of an armed troop
I1withtheir Bayonets fixld," who drove out the servants, severely
wounding one in the process .s4
Inside the theatre buildings, we can see that there was a
complex
spatial
arrangements, a
dynamic,
including
the
tripartite
seating
shifting zone onstage between audience and
performers, and a complex maze of passages and lobbies associated
with the various sections of the theatre structure. In al1 cases
the spatial arrangement had a substantial impact on the social
activities and inter-persona1 relationships that took place. Some
areas were under dispute, whereas others were places of assembly.
Moreover the divisions within the theatre space were not
static.
At the beginning of the period there were a significant
number of audience rnembers onstage.
It was a contentious issue,
with managers complaining of the obstructions, but then accepting
the advanced prices they were able to charge for the privilege.
As
working people and rnembers of the lower ranks made their way
increasingly into the upper gallery, there were concerns about
the impact of the theatre on these newcomers.
At the same tirne
there was concern about the undue influence rnembers of the
working classes had on the type of material presented onstage.
Here we can see various social groups trying to negotiate space
within the theatre and that the physical layout of the theatre
itself played a part.
2b. Theatre and Print Culture
Whenever any theatrical contest arises, in which
the public seems to take a part, the debate is
not confined to the theatre; the merits of the
cause are not canvasld in an impartial manner
upon the spot, and left to the decision of the
a
r
arm
~
majority: - - - A swarm of Ç
themselves with quills, and at a lofty distance
brandish their weapons to the gazing crowd;
Grubstreet takes the alarm, and every honest
author thinks he has a right to share the spoils
of the conflict .55
Fn Bppeal to the Public on B-lf
of the
wm, 1763.
In the previous section, exploring the spatial context of
theatre and theatre riots, it was suggested that theatre-related
activities
were
carried
on
well
beyond
the
walls
of
the
playhouse.
It can be noted further that these activities took a
variety of forms, engaged people on a number of levels, and were
conducted in a number of places.
There were the coffee-houses
and taverns immediately outside the theatre, where critics and
theatrical aficionados could prolong their theatre experience in
discussion and gossip reading aloud or alone, letters to the
newspapers or the latest reviews.
Other theatre lovers extended
their dramatic encounters through private theatrical performances
in their homes, or in spouting clubs for amateur actors, where
they could bring theatre down or "up1I to their own persona1
le~el.'~ Still others carried on public debates over stagerelated issues in the debating halls around London."
The publication and reading of printed texts facilitated
the extension of the theatre out to the community and into
people's lives beyond the buildings themselves.
Not only was
print a vehicle for extending the audience's theatrical encounter
into the community, but it was also a way for people without
direct physical access to the playhouse to have some sense of
participation in the theatre experience."
The sorts of possible
activities could range from reading aloud, or to oneself, from
printed play texts, to reading criticism of a production, and
then contributing to the discussion in the form of a letter to
the editor or by publishing a pamphlet . 5 9
Moreover,
these
printing
activities
were
inextricably
linked to the distinctive commercial aspect of the stage, through
direct advertising of daily performances, the merchandising of
printed plays and illustrative prints, as well as the reporting
and criticism of theatrical affairs we have mentioned above.
The
interrelationship between the theatre and print becomes even more
entwined when we consider that many of the individuals who wrote
for the stage, and about the stage, also wrote in other formats,
including, but certainly not limited to the periodical press.
Finally, and most importantly for sur purposes, print was
another forum for disputes about the theatre, or public quarrels
related to theatrical issues.
In this way the medium of print
was often an integral part of an eighteenth century theatre riot.
News of theatre riots was reported alongside other aspects of
theatrical
culture.
Because
of
the
immediacy
of
daily
newspapers, posted play bills, hand-distributed broadsheets, or
even a hastily published pamphlet, the medium of print became an
actual instrument of rioting, whether a harbinger of impending
trouble, a manifesto of a protester's case, or a detailed account
of the evening's performance including purported speeches from
the audience. As an author prologized to an audience he hoped to
rouse against a rival:
To-rnorrow's Chronicle your deeds shall boast,
And loud Te Deums fil1 the Morning-Po~t.~'
Rioters could d a m a play in the evening and then read a review
of their exploits the next day.
Newspaper coverage and comment
meant that an evening's dispute could become part of a more
general discourse.
Another way in which theatre riots were inextricably linked
to the world of print was that the British literary community, or
"Republic of Lettersu as it was often self-referentially called,
was a particularly disputatious group of
individu al^.^^
Because
writers often switched from one form to another as they plied the
many opportunities open to an individual with a pen, quarrels
between writers in print could make their way to the playhouse.
The letters and articles one wrote in the daily newspapers as a
party hack could influence the public's reception of what one
wrote
for performance on
the
stage
later
in
the
evening.
Disputes between writers, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as
agents for other interests, became either the cause of, or the
accompaniment to, a number of playhouse disturbances.
How can we link words on a page with smashing chandeliers?
We will explore this complex interrelationship in the following
manner.
First we will show that theatre had a printed dimension
and we will focus in particular on the theatre and the periodical
press.
Through the daily newspaper the theatre extended beyond
the stage, as did theatrical disputes.
We will then look at
various aspects of writing for and about the theatre.
Here we
will see how tensions inherent in the world of British letters
could develop into public quarrels and sometimes lead to riot.
Throughout this investigation, we will notice two recurring
themes. On the one hand we will look at the relationship between
print and the theatre as manifest in the material objects of
publication, including playscripts, pamphlets and newspapers.
This takes us into the commercial world of publishing and selling
printed materials.
The tensions of these market transactions
between seller and buyer will eventually inform our discussion of
theatre riots, especially when we
examine riots related to
management issues in the next chapter.
We will also look at the social world of print, and how
writers, critics, and readers were part of the audience for
theatre. This theme as well will point towards the business side
of theatre, but from a social point of view.
The element of
csmercs and its asçociated tensiûns, ûften link the two themes
and they likewise overlap in many places.
Theatre and Newspapers
The relationship between the press and the stage had an
important
economic
impact
on
both
endeavours .6 2
From
the
beginning of the century, advertising and reviews in the daily
newspapers were an essential part of the merchandising of a
commercial theatre.
-,
London s first daily newspaper, The D a m
established in 1702, soon announced the times of theatre
performances as well as where one could purchase printed versions
of
play^.^^
Newspapers continued to feature advertisements, but
soon included epilogues, prologues and special stage addresses,
backstage gossip, teasers, and announcements of new scenery.
Lighting or costumes, were commented upon, and the criticism of
plays, acting and management were also part of the regular fare.
Occasionally there were periodicals devoted solely to the stage.
While promoting the theatre, the theatrical material drew readers
to the publications and was an important part of the content of
many print endeavours.
One other feature of note were the
letters to the editor where the theatre going public could
contribute their own views about a theatrical issue.
An early eighteenth century example of a publication which
included comment on the theatre was Richard Steele's triweekly,
m e Tatler, (1709).
Steelets aim with his publication was to
influence the reformation of manners, morals and taste.
The
paper's distinctive format included different news reports and
lively
observations
from
different
London
coffee-houses.
Material on the theatre was inserted in the form of letters from
Will's Coffee-House by Isaac Bickerstaff.
The periodical had an
important impact on the rnorality of the age and demonstrated some
of the possibilities that the periodical format al10wed.~~
However not al1 publications were interested in reaching
their higher purposes so benevolently as the W . Perhaps the
most disputatious form of periodical was the weekly, especially
through the 1730s to 1750s.
Weeklies were the sites of numerous
squabbles or "warsU as they were often referred to.
Of note in
this regard was the W u b S t r e e t , a weekly run and largely
written by Richard Russel.
With an editorial policy that was
"calculatedly offensive" the paper took aim at a number of
different targets including Henry Fielding's plays at the Little
Haymarket Theatre."
In the nature of a typical theatrical I1paper
war1I the next foray came from the stage where Fielding portrayed
the Journal's critic as an ignorant hack, Leathersides, in
Covent-Garden Traaedy (1732).
Say, Leathersides, Itis thou that best canst tell:
For thou hast learnt to read, hast Play-bills read,
The Grubstreet Journal thou hast known to write,
Thou art a Judge; Say, wherefore was it damnld?"
No doubt spurred by the sparring from the playhouse, the reading
public was attracted to the paperls approach and it was one of
the most popular publications of the day.
The interrelationship between theatre, the reading public
and the periodical press was acknowledged onstage.
As well as
discussing and promoting the theatre, newspapers and other forms
of print physically figure in many eighteenth century plays, even
becoming a common stage prop.''
The newspaper was a vivid symbol
onstage, introducing the outside world
into a situation, or
identifying a distinctive type of eighteenth century individual,
the news reader, immersed in a world of news and numbers.
The
ignored wife confronting her preoccupied husband buried behind
his newspaper is not a product of the modern silver screen, but a
device
that
figures into several
eighteenth century plays.
Murphy makes fun of the obsessive news hound with his character
(1758).
Quidnunc in the -terex
. .
Sheridan's The Critic (1779)
opens with the stage direction:ela-"
a d r e a u a naspëpers.
at breakfast,
Mr. Dangle is picking through the news
items in the paper and reading to Mrs. Dangle. However, Sheridan
gives the situation a bit of a twist. While both individuals are
immersed in their respective papers, it is Mrs. Dangle who is
interested in the news and politics of the larger nation, while
Mr. Dangle is only really concerned with theatrical politics.
. .
e Cri=
contains a large-scale critique of newspapers and does
not spare their relationship with the theatre.
It is specific
about the various ways that newspapers puffed or promoted plays
and it also shows some of the tensions of the playhouse that were
played out on the printed page.
Printed play scripts also provided a basis for further
discussion and
additional means
considerations.
an
additional dimension
for dispute.
This
for public consumption calls forth several
First
of
al1
there
was
a
process
of
legitimization that went on through the physical publication of a
playscript.
For one thing, print provided a further basis for
formulating criticism.
commenting on
Cluest-
A
reviewer in the -on
(1766), noted:
Ma-,
"As to the
play we shall not attempt to point out the excellencies of the
plot, characters, diction. &c. till it appears in print. l t 6 '
In
this case it was the written form that was felt to be the more
suitable for a considered judgment of the play's merit.
During
his quarrel with Henry Fielding, "Dramaticus" in the Çrub-Street
Journal suggested that the best way to judge a play was to read
it.70
A
number of years later the critic for the
explained that he wanted to read John Home's
pouulas (1757)
before judging it .71
There was certainly a practical value in this assessment,
in that the written version could be referred to and quoted in a
A correspondent to the London
discussion of a particular work.
Post taking part in the discussion over the political
affiliation of David Mallet's play, avira (1763) (it having been
"publicly pronounced a party play)," claims "either seeing or
reading it," he could not find anything of political nature in
it.72 Not surprisingly this was only a disingenuous preatnble; the
letter writer then quoted the passages that might be found
offensive
to
anti-ministerial readers, a
process
that
the
published version of the play no doubt aided in both composition
and transmission.73
With a "rioted play,v74 print provided a number of options.
In the case of a production that was denied a hearing at all, it
allowed the author a chance to have his play read by the public
and
hopefully
the
opportunity
to
receive
some
sort
of
compensation, not having made it to the third performance, or
llauthorlsnight.""
the
author
to
A
make
printed version of a disputed play allowed
his
advertisement, or to print
or
her
case
in
a
prologue
the offending passages
or
that the
disturbed audience had had r e m ~ v e d . ~ A~ printed play script
allowed a play to have an impact beyond the playhouse even if it
had been silenced by riot.
Republic of Letters
To this point in Our assessment of the relationship between
the world of print and the theatre we have focused on printed
materials and the reading public.
We will now shift Our focus
and examine the world of those who wrote for and about the stage.
There were, of course, playwrights writing for the stage, but
there were also the critics, who wrote about the plays, and the
onstage performances.
Many didnlt write solely for the stage,
but wrote for a variety of publications, and they did not confine
their observations to the world of the theatre.
They were part
of a larger community of writers and readers sometimes called the
IlRepublic of Letters."
It was a community full of contention
that had implications regarding theatre riots.
The
notion
of
a
"Republic of
Letters" has
different
meanings at different points during the eighteenth century, both
geographically
and
temporally.
To
a
large
degree,
the
establishment of literary circles of writers and readers was a
development shared by a number of western European nations.
However there are differences worth noting.
In France there were
at least two distinct phases of development.
One phase, closely
studied by Dena Goodman and others, occurred towards the end of
the eighteenth century and was associated with literary movements
up to and including the French ~evolution."
Goldgar there was
another phase
According to Ann
in the development of
the
Republic of Letters in France that took place during the earlier
part
of
the
century.
Goldgar
suggests
that
the persona1
relationship that developed between literary practitioners was
the fundamental element of the Republic and not institutional
affiliation^.^'
ideas of
She contrasts this informa1 community with the
sociability and
enlightenment
identified with
Republic of Letters later in the eighteenth century.
the
Hers was a
group of literate souls who wrote to, and for, each other, and
also looked out for each other's interests.
In Britain on the other hand, it would be difficult to see
much degree of equanimity or cooperation within the world of
letters, especially during the middle decades of the century.
Arthur Murphy, writing an open letter to Voltaire in the m a y l s -
Inn JO-
would seem to describe a situation similar to the one
outlined in Goldgar's study:
The Republic of Letters has happily removed that awkward
distance, and that extreme difficulty of access, which
pride and policy have established in the ordinary
commerce of life... . With men of letters the case is
A free communication is always open; and
different.
while decency and good manners are preserved, an easy
intercourse subsists between the highest and lowest
members of the literary world."
However, Murphy is describing an ideal state of affairs.
His
later career, including his battles in print with John Wilkes and
Charles Churchill, indicates that communications were by no means
always open and decent." Churchill viciously criticized Murphy,
along with many others, in his poem The R o s c U , a poetic bestseller of
the early 1760s.'l
Within the mix
of
Britain's
increasingly commercial society, fed by growing economic and
imperial expansion, the Republic of Letters was a disputatious
place, ostensibly concerned with issues of legitimacy, merit and
taste, but operating within the commercial urgency of writing for
money and power. As a result there were strong tensions and much
squabbling between citizens.
Writing was a career that allowed advancement in eighteenth
century society on a number of levels.
Publishing
was
rapidly expanding industry in the eighteenth century.
variety
of
printed
materials
were
produced
and
a
A large
consumed
-
sermons, novels, almanacs, self-help books, and the theatrical
material we have already mentioned.
consumer
society, this
meant
Within the context of a
occupations
for
educated
and
literate individuals and there were many that took up the labour.
In many ways a writer's career was unique.
Anyone could write
and express his views regardless of the status of his birth.
In
the world of print one's status was a result of one's written
discourse as opposed to a judgment based on social title.'*
The
world of writing was a place where energetic up-and-coming
individuals
could
make
both
a
reputation
and
money
for
themselves, despite their background and social status.83
Success, of course, was far from guaranteed.
James Ralph,
a prolific author who wrote for and about the theatre, points to
some of the marketplace difficulties the writer faced in a
pamphlet, a e Case of Authors bv Profession or Tr&,
(17581,
where he complains
As the Case stands, he is laughtd at if poor; if, to
avoid that Curse, he endeavours to turn his Wit to
Profit, he is branded as a Mercenary. - - If again he
should have the good Luck to find a lucrative Market
for his Works, Pirates supplant him: His Property may
be worth taking, though not worth defending: - S. C-cles.
&c. may retale [sic] him. - Coffee-Houses subscribe for him. - Circulating
Libraries subsist by lending him. - - So that he may be
read everywhere, and rewarded nowhere . . . Il 8 4
Moreover, there were numerous wide
ranging disputes between
writers and the interests that they represented.
The conclusion
is that a war of words could become an attack on an individual's
livelihood while at the same time allowing the perpetrator to
make money.85
There was also a growing public interest and involvement in
the Republic of Letters beyond those trying to make their living
or fortune from it.
Participation was something that could be
tried by any person of leisure, or sufficient inclination. With
writing
about
the
theatre, aspirants
could
exercise
their
critical faculties, and consequently there were great numbers of
amateur critics. In his account of the reading world of Anna
Larpent, John Brewer presents a view of a diverse and variegated
reading public, widely
sources.
sampling material
from a
number
of
He calls it a I1logocentric worldtl that thrived on
polemics and controversy, where someone like Anna Larpent was
very much an active critic.8 6
While perhaps not speaking of genteel types like Anna
Larpent, the
Covent-Garden pointed
out a major problem
with self-appointed critics in its first issue.
The editor
remarked that a "great Revolution" had lately taken place "in the
Kingdom of Criticism."
Its ancient laws had been constituted in
the classical works of Aristotle and Horace, and "the Government"
of the Kingdom was being "usurped by a Set of Fellows, entirely
ignorant of al1 those Laws.l1
The result was warfare in "the
great Empire of Letters"' a war of ancients versus moderns that
had been
made in the Literary World, chiefly by means of a
large Body of Irregulars, composed of Beaux, Rakes,
Templars, Cits, Lawyers, Mechanics, School-boys, and
fine Ladies, who have been admitted to the
. . tath, by the Usurpers in the Realms of Criticism,
without knowing one Word of the antient Laws, and
original Constitution of that Body of which they have
professed themselves to be Members. 1 am, farther,
sensible of the Revolt which hath been of the Authors
to the Critics; many of the meanest among the former,
having become very considerable and principal leaders
among the latter."
While writing for the stage was only one of a variety of
writing possibilities open to the eighteenth century individual,
playwriting seemed to have had a deep-seated attraction for those
who hoped to succeed in the Republic of Letters.
There is the
well-known story of Johnson setting out to London "to try his
fate with a tragedy.""
Nor was he alone in his aspirations.
Tobias Smollett also first came to the metropolis with a play
under his a m .
Numerous lesser-known writers also tried their
hands at play-writing.
Theatre historian Allardyce Nicoll was
"startled at the number of one-play writers1I who penned half of
the plays from 1700-1750.''
While these figures suggest that
there was an air of dilettantism involved with the endeavour, the
numbers also indicate the potential opportunity that playwriting
represented, as well as the connection between the urge to write
and the theatre.
One obvious attraction of playwriting was the possibilities
for financial betterment.
"The writer of plays has been ever
supposed to pursue the quickest road to the temple of Plutus,"
wrote Garrick1s biographer, Davies .'O
With the Non iuroy, Cibber
received £105 from the publisher Lintott for the right to publish
the play, but nearly El000 in performance royalties within half a
month of its initial production in June 1717.'~
were other rewards for authors.
Moreover there
Cibber received f200 from the
King to whom the play was dedicated.
If one was willing and able
to work within the strictures of the Licensing Act, and had the
talent, there was money to be made from writing drama.
A
significant part of Garrick's early financial success came from
the sale of his afterpie~es.'~ Furthermore, there were not just
financial gains to be made from plays, but there were also
contacts leading to other writing commissions and positions to be
gained.93
The fact that many of the same writers moved back and forth
between politics and the theatre contributed to the disputatious
nature of the theatre and led to a number of riots. The theatre
could be a continuation of the political arena, with factional
fights being continued from the realm of politics to the theatre.
The darnnirig of a play because of the politics of its author
attacked the playwright in his pocket book.
After
Word to the
(1768) was driven from the stage, its author, Hugh Kelly, in
"An Address to the Public" claimed that he had "been no less
attacked in his reputation than wounded in his
fortune.^'^
In considering the relationship between the theatre and the
medium of print, not only was there the practical sense of
capturing the ephemeral and putting it into the hands of the
public via the printed page for reading "in the closet", but
print
also facilitated a continuation and
expansion of
the
theatre experience itself through criticism, discussion, and
recollection.
Furthermore through the medium of print, the
theatre extended into the community in a material sense as part
of the commercial dimension of the theatre, and also in a social
sense as one of the foci for the nation's community of letters.
Not surprisingly, the same disputatious nature that pervaded the
playhouse also extended into many of the discussions about the
theatre in the Republic of Letters.
As writers traversed a
variety of forms and wrote for different types of readers, they
also brought other issues into the theatre that became the focus
of dispute.
2c
Making Riot
-
The historical context
But as to Wit, most aim before their time;
And he that cannot spell, sets up for Rhime:
They're Sparks who are of noise and nonsence full,
At Fifteen witty, and at Twenty dull;
That in the Pit can huff, and talk hard words,
And briskly draw Bamboo instead of Swords:
But never yet Rancounter coutd compare
To Our late vigorous Tartarian War:
Cudgel the Weapon was, the Pit the Field;
Fierce was the Heroe, and too brave to yield.
But stoutest hearts must bow; and being well can'd,
He crys, Hold, hold, you have the Victory gain'd.
Al1 laughing call--Turn out the Rascal, the eternal Blockhead.
---Sounds,cry Tartarian, 1 am out of Pocket:
Half Crown my Play, Six pence my Orange cost;
Equip me that, do you the Conquest boast.
For which, to be at ease, a gathering's made,
And out they turn the Brother of the blade.
---This is the fruits of idleness and ease.
Aphra Behn, Prologue, D Younu W u . or, The Mis-,
1679.
While this "rencounter," described by Aphra Benn, was not a
theatre riot, per se, this dispute points to several themes that
will become central to Our characterization of riotous behaviour
in the eighteenth century playhouse.
Young critics of the stage,
early citizens of the Republic of Letters, have come to blows in
the pit.
In some ways the fight could have been a brawl in the
Street between rival groups, except perhaps for the bargaining
over financial compensation for the loser. Even in the aftermath
of victory, both sides recognized that there was a price to be
paid for a visit to the theatre.
What stands out with this encounter is that we see the
theatre as a place where young sparks came to display themselves
in public, along with their wit, and challenge each other,
exercising their capacities as critics.
was not just a space for watching
participating
in, even
if
The theatre auditorium
from, but also one for
occasionally
there
were
disputes
between rival groups of Iperformers.' This idea of a place where
identity was expressed and disputed over was integral to how the
eighteenth century theatrical experience developed.
While public
disturbances in the theatre changed in their nature from the
seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries, to some degree it was
the same sort of behaviour, only modified by eighteenth century
pressures.
It is therefore useful to see where and how the
behaviour originated.
It is often difficult to find truly revolutionary moments
in historical studies.
However, when looking at London theatre
at the beginning of the long eighteenth century, the Restoration
represents a strong break with the past.
After the establishment
of his court in London, Charles II instigated many striking
changes to the theatre in the metropolis.
exerted
considerable
control
over
The new monarch
theatrical
affairs
and
introduced a number of innovations borrowed from the French
stage.
These included the use of elaborate scenery and stage
machinery, the division of the seating area into pit, boxes, and
gallery, and the employment of actresses to play female roles.
However,
perhaps
the
most
far-reaching
change,
was
the
introduction of the rnonopoly system, limiting the number of
playhouses to those operating under royal a~thority.'~
The monopoly system arose from Charlest concern that the
theatre be brought under control and yet in a way that involved
little direct financial subsidy from the crown. Two patents were
granted
to
the
courtiers Thomas
Killigrew and
Sir William
Davenant, although Charles remained intimate with the day to day
affairs of the stage. The establishment of the patent system was
a smart economic move on the part of the King, for as a monopoly
controlled by others the arrangement cost the crown very little.
However
the policy
was
only
effective
if
the
monarch
was
intimately concerned with the theatre; otherwise the patent
system contributed to the further development of a commercial,
money-making theatre, beyond the direct control of the crown.
As for disorderly behaviour in the Restoration playhouse,
there were
few actual riots, but
disturbances.
there were
a variety of
These included a sportive sort of disorder that
greeted new plays, with rowdy factions demonstrating support for
and against certain writers.
However, while some disturbances
were linked to the onstage performances, many arose from audience
activities within the theatrical venue itself.
There were groups
of individuals who used the theatre as the place to make known
their political beliefs.
There were disturbances by groups of
men who refused to pay admission or who insulted other segments
of the house.
A
particularly prevalent type of disturbance were
quarrels within the audience leading to physical fights.
disputes stemmed from a variety of causes.
These
Many were related to
violations and negotiations of physical space within the theatre
and the sorting out of interpersonal relationships within that
~ontext.'~Very often they ended in a duel with swords.
The playhouse quarrel was a public matter.
Public display
was made manifest if a duel started in the pit and moved on to
the stage.
In one instance, a circle was formed onstage around
the combatants to contain the fight.9'
One
implication of
fighting a duel publicly in the theatre was that the duel itself
and how it was fought became the sufrject of public attention,
One such duel was fought between the Duke of Buckingham and the
patentee Thomas Killigrew's son Henry.
Outclassing Killigrew in
swordsmanship, the Duke made a fool of him during the fight and
in a manner that evidently enhanced Buckingham's reputation.
Pepys noted
that
"it seems
in
this business
the
Duke of
Buckingham did carry himself very innocently and well."
Pepys
heard an account of the duel at the Exchange and noted that "it
is pretty to hear how people do speak kindly of the Duke of
Buckingham,... and therefore they do mightily favour hirn."''
However, many duels did not end so benignly.
The death
toll was startling enough to indicate that this was serious
business.
Volume
1 of the London Stase records seventeen
playhouse quarrels which led to drawn swords and violence between
1666 and 1700.
There were at least six deaths.
When looking at
duels it is important to note that there was a continuum of
violence involved, including the near-duels and the situations
that didn't actually corne to duels.
Drink would appear to have
been a factor in a number of cases, and sheer cornbativeness on
the part of the protagonists in others.
The evidence further
shows that some duelists fought in the theatre more than once.
For instance, it was reported that the Earl of Pembroke had a
I1another rencounter" at the playhouse in December of 1675.
opponent on the occasion was William Davenant's son."
His
In 1682,
Mr. Charles Deering quarreled in the Dukets playhouse with a man
named Vaughan, and the two eventually "mounted the stage" and
fought .
Deering was badly wounded and Vaughan was held "lest it
should prove mortal."
Deering's wound obviously wasntt,as three
years later Deering was to fight and kill a Captain Goreing in
the Dorset Garden play house.'O0
Sir
John
confrontation
he
Reresby
gives
had
the
in
a
detailed
account
King's playhouse
disagreement over seating could escalate into a duel.
and
of
a
how
a
It started
when a drunken patron failed in his attempt to get Reresby to
switch seats. The interloper claimed that the switch would allow
him to speak with a friend, but Reresby suspected it was for the
better view of the stage from his seat.
The man claimed Reresby
was uncivil, whereby Reresby charged that the man was a rascal
and the two would have come to blows had not a neighbour come
between them. However the challenge remained, and Reresby later
made a whispered assignation to continue the fight outside the
theatre.
However an observer nearby informed the Captain of the
guard and the two potential combatants were apprehended and
brought before the Duke of Monmouth the next day, who brought
about a reconciliation.
Reresby remarked in his Mernoir that
lt[Monmouthlmade us friends, who had not been long enemies, for 1
had never seen the gentleman to my knowledge before in my life."
Sometime after that the gentleman met Reresby in the Street and
offered him a bottle of wine, telling him that "he was very sorry
that he had the misfortune to have a dispute with one of whom he
heard so good a character.ttlO1 The public nature of the quarrel
had
further implications resulting in its being
stopped, and resolved.
discovered,
Of course, as we have noted, there were
many duels fought, or at least started, in theatres, that did not
end so benignly.
The people of
theatre themselves were not
quarrelling in the playhouse.
immune £rom
We have mentioned that both
Killigrewts and Davenant's sons were involved in duels.
There
would also appear to have been tensions within the companies
themselves.
Soon after the Restoration, the actor Smith of the
Dukets Company "killed a man upon a quarrel in the
At
the King's playhouse in 1682 there was a substantial quarrel
between the senior and junior men of the Company 'which grew to
such a height that they al1 drew their swords which occasioned
the wounding of several.11103
Duels within
the
theatre continue
into the eighteenth
century and of course were also an issue in Society at large.
However, for the purposes of understanding eighteenth century
theatre riots they are important, as they mark the theatre as a
place for settling disputes between individuals, and occasionally
between individuals and their retinues.
establish the
idea of
the
We will see that they
theatre as a public
place
for
quarrelling.
Another type of public disturbance in the playhouse was
connected
with
notions
aristocratic privilege.
of
space
and
the
boundaries
of
As early as 1663, the Lord Chamberlain
was faced with the problem of an increasingly unruly audience,
with theatre patrons refusing to pay and forcing their way into
~
early in the
the theatres "with evil language and b l o ~ s . " ' ~Very
Restoration, when plays were first produced within the confines
of St . James ' , free admission was a sign of connection with the
court.lo5
However, in the new pbayhouses it was difficult to
discern who might enjoy such favour. While theatre managers were
trying to conduct their profitable business under royal monopoly,
some audience members were under the impression that the return
of the monarch was a restoration of aristocratic privilege, and
were trying to evade payment.
However, this sort of aristocratic
privilege was very much against the notion of a commercial
theatre and the Lord Chamberlain had to issue continued reminders
that audience members must pay for their seats and he also
instituted refinements in ticket taking. To avoid further frauds
it was decreed, Itthat none hereafter shall enter the pit, first,
or upper gallery, without delivering to the respective doorkeeper
the ticket or tickets which they received for their money paid at
the first door. "lo6
The policies however, had little effect.
after
ignoring
the
procedure
of
buying
a
Furthermore,
ticket,
the
transgressors proceeded to trespass the boundaries of the theatre
space, making their way both onstage and backstage.
As a result
of these continued incursions, notices were soon posted in the
entrances to the theatres, stating that both civil and military
officers would be used to stop the practice of audience members
wandering backstage, claiming that their presence interfered with
the stage machinery.lo7 However, the problem of the audience on
and backstage was not to be easily solved and notices were still
being posted some ten years later.
Moreover, the management had
begun to charge for the privilege of sitting onstage.
Policing a
negotiation between assumed privilege and house management was
sometimes a dangerous task as indicated by the doorkeeper Rogers,
who explained under oath that Charles Lord Mohun had threatened
to slit his nose when he asked the Lord and his friends to pay
the price differential when they had moved from the pit to the
stage.108
In the house itself, theatre-goers were allowed to stay for
a single act of a play before having to pay an admission charge.
It was another aspect of the commercial theatre that made a
boxkeeper's life miserable.
A scene from Thomas Shadwell's play
A True W i m provides a glirnpse of the aristocratic airs a ticket
taker would have to put up with, as well as an insight into some
of the tensions involved. The scene involves a number of men who
have overstayed the permitted one act, and are hassling and
threatening a doorkeeper after he asks them to pay.
Theodosia: What, do Gentlemen run on tick for Plays?
Carlos: As familiarly as with their T a y l o r ~ . ~ ~ ~
The character is criticizing the aristocratic practice of buying
on credit, inside, as well as, outside the theatre.l1°
In the winter of
1674, after there were
'Disorders
&
disturbancesu at the Dukels playhouse, the King ordered the
Recorder of
London to proceed against the drunken revelers
according to the law for riot.
Later, in the midst of tensions
over the Exclusion Bill, "gentlemen in their cupsl1 entered the
pit, flung torches on the stage and then proceeded to publicly
reproach various members of the audience including the Duchess of
Portsmouth.
Again the action so incensed Charles that he
commanded that the persons were to be proceeded against as
rioters .
An important aspect of this outcome was that this
publicly disruptive behaviour was given an official definition.
This proclamation gave a guideline and a legitimization for legal
processes in regards to disorder in the playhouse.
At the same
time the officia1 response recognized that there was a disruptive
conduct within the theatres that could be called rioting, conduct
which the court attempted to officially stigmatize.
However,
while riotous behaviour was defined as such there was still a
great deal of latitude accepted in interpretation.
Theatrical disturbances in the late seventeenth century
were in part a reaction to attempts to define the theatre space
and partially a show of resistance to the efforts that were made
to move the audience off of the stage.
In general these early
disturbances were more about individuals and self-expression than
about the group action we see in the eighteenth century.
were often an exhibition of persona1 identity.
They
On a number of
occasions they were persona1 quarrels that were fought on the
public
stage.
These
themes
are
to
reemerge
through
the
eighteenth century, however in the milieu of important social
changes
that
accompanied
the
changing
conditions of eighteenth-century London.
economic
and
social
Despite attempts to
implement various legal and official curbs, the theatre remained
an area where riotous behaviour was carried on often as a matter
of course.
' The metaphors range widely. An early one is found in Aphra
Behn's The Rov~E,1681. Poets are Kings of Wit, and you appear,/
A Parliament, by Play-Bill, summon'd here. Part II. Here are but
a sampling: Thrice happy Britain, where with equal hand,/ Three
well-poistd States unite to rule the land!/ Thus in the theatre,
as well as state,/ Three ranks must join to make us bless'd and
great./ Kings, Lords, and Commons, o'er the nation sit;/ Pit, box
and gallery, rule the realms of wit. George Colman, Epilogue to
Hugh Kelly, _Clementina, by 23 February 1771; . . .al1 persons, who
pay for their places, whether Noble, Gentle, or Simple, who fil1
the Boxes, Pit, and Galleries, in a theatrical sense, form the
town; as K--ng, L-rds and COMMONS, in a constitutional one, make
that
great
body,
the
Nation.
Theophilus
Cibber,
Diss_ertationç, 1756; Distrest alike, the statesman and the wit,/
When one a borough courts, and one the pit,/ The busy candidates
for powtr and fame/ Have hopes and fears and wishes just the
same. Samuel Johnson, prologue to Oliver Goldsmith, Çood-Nat1768.
A female culprit at your bar appears,/ Not destitute of hope,
nor free from fears. Prologue to PFscoverv, T m B o u a u e t ,
19; Old Philpot: Enough! This jury (to the audience)
will conduct
.
,
us both. Arthur Murphy, Epilogue to The Citizen, 1761; If here
then any learned Sages sit/ At Bar Defendants, Plaintiffs in the
Pit,/ When Judge and Jury too rash Zeal discover,/ Nor pass your
Sentence 'fore the Trial's over./ The Mimick Doctor could your
Praises claim;/ The Mimick Lawyer do not partial darnn;/ For Fools
of al1 Professions are the same. Phillips E., Prologue, Stase
Mutineers, 1733.
A French observer from early in the century noticed that London
theatre was the major form of amuskment for common people as well
as the elite. Muralt Beat Ludwig, m t r e w sur les Anslais et leg
, 3 vols., 1725. cited in John Kelly,
Thatres in the Eiahteenth Centuy,
Princeton University Press, 1936, 7.
Hunt, John Dixon, #,
Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1985; Altick, R.D., The Shows of
London, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1978.
'
1
See H. W Pedicord, "BV Their Majestlew
Comwnd 11 .. The House of
over at the London Theatrew. 1714-1804, London: The Society
for Theatre Research, 1991, for a detailed account of the
Hanoverian's support of theatre and opera.
See Leacroft for a detailed account of what the Royal Theatre
in Richmond, Yorkshire would have looked like. At some 3 5 by 60
feet on the outside, the theatre is a small version of a patent
house, with tripartite audience arrangement, a stage box (half
onstage anyway), and the various necessary passageways. X k
Georaian Plavbouse , 156-60.
'
The following are standard ticket prices at Drury Lane theatre
through the 1 8 century
~ ~
summarized f rom Judith Milhous, l1 Company
Management," The LQndon Theatre World 1660- 1800, Ed. Robert D.
Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 1-34.
Of course what is noticeable here is that the gallery prices
changed the least, with the upper gallery not changing at all.
8
, Covent Garden, 14/3/1743, LS,1040.
IV
Advert-,
23/8/1747.
m
t
University Press, 1960.
9
See Sybil Marion Rosenfeld,
c
Cambridge
h ,
The benchless parterre can be considered the quintessential
feature of 1 7 to
~ ~
18'~ century Parisian theatre.
The first reference was appended to a quick sketch of a theatre
design by Inigo Jones in 1639 "for ye cokpitt." Leacroft, 73-77.
The OED cites its first usage in a theatrical sense in Lovelace,
Poenas, 1649, 78,
l'The other [comedyl for the Gentlemen 0th'
Pit .
l2 Richard Leacroft, The D e v e l o D m e n t i s h Playhouse,
London: Eyre, Methuen, 1973.
l 3 Spikes can be seen in a print of the Tuileries Theatre (1778)
separating the parquet, benched seating at the front of the
parterre, which was installed when spectators were removed £rom
the stage. Mittman, Bernoval of S~ectators £rom the Stagc, fig
31.
Building on the Habermasian notion of the literary public
sphere, Ravel outlines the debate about the introduction of
benched seating and hence, control, over this unruly section of
The debate largely waged in print,
the Parisian audience.
including a 1777 revision to the Ençvclo~edie.Jeffery S. Ravel,
"Seating the Public: Spheres and Loathing in the Paris Theatres,
1777-1788." -torical
Studies 18 (1993): 175. cf.
l4
15
Drury Lane, 23/1/1740; Drury Lane, 22/1/1750.
André Rouquet, The Present State of the Arts in -,
(London: Cornmarket Press, 1970), 111. "Nor could
l6
1755
[Partridgel help observing, with a Sigh, when al1 the Candles
were lighted, 'That here were Candles enough burnt in one Night,
to keep an honest poor Family for a whole Twelvemonth. I V
Henry
Fielding, The History Of Tom Jones, A Foundling, London: Printed
for A. Millar, over-against Catharine-street in the Strand, 1749,
Vi, 43.
l7
Victor, m t o r v of the Theatres, 1, 59.
see
l e Macklin's diary, flll. For implications of theatre lighting
. .
Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Disenchanted N i a t : the in-izatiqn
o
f
, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1988, 191-221.
l9
20
Rouquet, Preçent State of the Arta, 110.
Abbé Le Blanc, cited in Cibber, &oloqy,
1, 278, nl
J.M Beattie,
the Courts in ~~gl.ar~d:
1660-180Q,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986, 353-362.
21
2 2 D. Statt, IlThe Case of the Mohocks: Rake Violence in Augustan
20,2 (1995 May) : 179-200.
England,It Social
m,
23
'4
James Miller,
Coffee-Houg, 1737.
Theatre, III, 9/1/1720.
Charles Macklin, A Will and No Will: or a Borie for the J ~ 7 ~ e ~ 1
1746, (DL).
25
26 He continues, "Al1 the Company, from the stagebox to the upper
gallery know their cues very well, and perform their parts with
No. 43, 21/11/1754. George Colman
greatspirit . " TheConnoisseur
and Bonne11 Thornton weekly edited this. See Alvin Sullivan,
. ,
(Ed. ) B r i t i s h L i t e r a r v w d the Athe-e
~f J o b o n . 1698-1788, Westport Conn.: Greenwood, 1983, 46-52;
Lance Bertelsen, U
-J~S~
Club: JAterature and Popu u r e 1749-1764, Oxford: 1986.
1
27 Harry William
Pedicord, I1Rv Their Maiest-'
C - d aII .
m u s e of Hanover at the J~ondonTheatres. 1714-180Q, London: The
Society for Theatre Research, 1991, x.
In the early versions of the indoor playhouse, the "state" or
platform for the theatrels patron was slightly back of center on
the floor of the auditorium. As theatres became larger, these
boxes were moved forward beside the stage, providing a closer
view for those seated there, but also more easily seen by the
rest of the house. See the plan of Whitehallls Tudor Hall in
Leacroft, # oflavhouse, 59.
29
An epilogist describes them as "... this Circle so refinld,/...
/Who come to Plays, to see, and to be seen; Epilogue, I1By a
Ladyl1lFoote, The Au-,
London: Printed for R. Francklin ...
and Sold by P. Vaillant, 1757.
"
This element of privacy was taken to the extreme in the
attempted changes to Covent Garden theatre in 1809, where as well
as creating private boxes and renting them out on an annual
basis, the management provided private antechambers for the
patrons.
3 1 m e T h e a u , III , 9/l/1720111.
30
'
'TheTheatre,
III, 9/1/1720112.
33
Cross, 17/11/55, The J~ondonStage, 4, 508.
David Garrick, Epilogue to Al1 in the Wrong, by Arthur Murphy,
1761.
"
36
David Garrick, m e e plays. Prj-fl-om
37
'
1
Garrick, Harleauln
w, 1926 (New York: B. Blom, 1967).
s
hi-to
unDublished
Invasign, II, 1759.
39
David Garrick, Prologue, Huntington Library MS LA 419. in
Price, Acre of Garrick, 93.
40
Boswell, Urlsbn JourQ.cd, 83; Foswell for the Defence, London,
41
Many of these were traditional from the 17th century, if not
earlier, but effective nonetheless.
42
Advert in a , 2/11/1736.
Macklin's diary, flll-15, in William Worthen Appleton, Charles
An Actor's J&,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1960, 40-1. Macklin also used stage thunder and lightning to
subdue the rioters.
43
44
Barbara G. Mittman, $~ectators on the Paris staae in the
Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI
,-ie Research Press, 1984, 106.
Allardyce Nicoll, t
12, II, 36.
45
46
Leacroft,
h Dr-,
1967, 1, 1199-
John Rich charged 10s. 6d. for seats onstage at the opening of
Covent Garden in 1732. Angus, William, "Actors and Audiences in
m
Eighteenth-Century London, çtudies in S~eechand in H
der M. Dr-,
Ed. Donald C. Bryant et al. , Ithaca
N.Y.: Corne11 University Press, 1944, 129.
47
w, 158, 2/12/1749, Drury Lane
48
Cross in
49
Stone, llIntroduction,u,
ci-cviii.
theatre.
It was announced that the libretto for a new musical
entertainment m i n Hooà were "Published at 3 o'clock that
afternoon and sold at the theatre [Drury Lanel for 6d." General
Advertisey, 13/12/1750.
51 LOndQn Evgnins Post, 24-7/12/1757
tisa, 21/3/1743; Notices for The;also
. .
TheVirsin
7/3/1743.
54
Dailv P n s t a d General Advertisey 11/2/1735.
n Dailv Post and General Advertisey 11/2/1735.
55
eal to the Publlc on B e W f of the &m&uers,
printed for Wilson and Fell, 1763, 1.
of Theais: Some PAes. 1700-1824, London:
Society for Theatre Research, 1978. In one published edition of
his 1756 play, T h e r e n t i c e , Murphy identified well over 100
quotations used in the play by the young amateurs. Murphy
presents an ironic situation, criticizing the theatrical
obsession of his characters, but in a rnanner that would
56
Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, -les
London:
particularly appeal to those who could read and thereby identify
the quotes and then check themselves at the bottom of the page.
. .
Donna T. Andrew, ed. w o n Deba&a
Socletles, 1776-1799,
London Record Society, 1994.
58
This was not necessarily seen as a good thing.
In a
contemporary critique of spouting clubs the author compares them
to private theatricals: "Idle people of independent fortunes,
when, in order to ki11 time, they take it into their heads to
w,
do but =Dose themselves; but when the f
f
eatriciag seizes the inferior classes or the trading and
mechanic parts of the nation, ruin is the inevitable consequence.
Townand
1/1769, 18-9.
59
"Theatrical publications" including published plays were
Ilsecond only to novelsflin popularity at circulating libraries.
.
J.H. -Plumb,
h t #
.University of Reading, 1973, 8.
57
8
For a stage treatment of the disputes within the world of
letters see Samuel Foote, The Patron, London: Printed for G.
Kearsly, 1764.
Looking back at the relationship from the turn of the century,
William Cobbett observed that, "there is and always has been in
this country a natural alliance, a sort of family compact between
the press and the theatre. "Open letter to Sheridant1 from
. . Proteus. A View of e P&)&acter
Cobbett Is
Po1it;Ccal
9. S h e r i d a n , (London, 18041, in Ustory
conwt
erer in the Ma-,
Vol. 1, London, 1935,
48.
62
With a reference to Richard Steelels Tatler (1709), but
speaking of the press in general, Colley Cibber wrote in the
dedication to his play Ximenes (1719), 'How often have we known
most excellent audiences drawn together at a dayls warning by the
influence or warrant of a single 'Tatler,' in a season when Our
best endeavours without it could not defray the charge of the
performance. This powerful and innocent fashion soon recovered us
into fashion."
64
Interestingly, the paper featured ads for the printed playtexts
before it actually began announcing the plays themselves. rn
v C o u , for 27/2/1702 advertised the availability of
Inconçtant for 1 shilling "Al1 printed for Bernard Lintott at the
Post-House at Temple-Bar, Fleetstreet. Where Gentlemen may have
al1 sorts of plays at reasonable Rates."
. . ritish
6 5 Alvin Sullivan, (Ed. ) , B
:
Au9U&3Ul
son. 1698-1788, Westport Conn.: Greenwood,
1983, 317.
S
66
.
,
Charles Harold Gray, Xhgatrical Crlticism in Ilondon to 1795,
~
Columbia University Press, 1931 (New York: B. Blom, 1964), 75;
Sullivan, BritishLiterarv
144.
67
Gray, -trical
Criticinrn in ml78; Henry , Fielding,
2&
,
Çpvent-Garden Tra-,
London, 1732; Sullivan,
144.
8
.
a
.
.
ml
Murphy, The U D ~ ~ $ ~ P ~ 1758.
P K , In Bickerstaff, m n e 1 and
1768, the opening stage instruction is: "Colonel Oldboy
is discovered at breakfast reading a newspaper." Richard
. .
Sheridan, n e Critir, 1779.
-,
Review of , February 1766, 63-4.
in Mariacre,
69
.
m
J ~ o n d m Ma9uher
.
30/3/1732, in Gray, meatrical Criticism in London, 77-8.
"DramaticusN is identified as Sir William Yonge by J.T. Hillhouse
Durham, N.C., 1928.
in The,
70
71
72
Gray, Theatrical Criticism in London, 133-4.
a Post, 27-9/1/1763.
S
.
.
73
The letter writerls signature IlNo Time-ServerIt points to
Mallet's allegiance to the administration.
.
,
"Dedication of a Rioted Play, William Shirley,
Parricide:
1739. Shirley dedicated his play to
John Rich.
74
o
r
.
,
Shirley's play did not make it to a second night.
lS
"Dedication," Edward Moore, TheFoundincr,
1748. Moore was able
to put in the lines he had been forced to cut from the character,
Faddle .
76
77
Dena Goodman, Tbe Regublic of J~ettem:A C u l W a l Historv qf
e Frach
. - F
Corne11 University Press, 1994.
Goldgar, m
e J t e ~10,
, 242.
Arthur Murphy, T ~ P
Grav1s-Lm Journal, Number 41, 28/7/1753,
349.
79
For details of Murphyls quarrels in the Republic cf. Howard
Hunter Dunbar, m e D r a E & i c C a r e g r , New York:
Modern Languages Association of America, 1946 (Kraus Reprint: New
York, 1966), 106-121.
James Laver, (Ed) poems of -les
Church.iU, London: Methuen,
1970.
. . .
82
r
Terry Eagleton, Tbe F W o n of Criticism from the S ~ m t o to
Post-Structuralism,London: Verso, 1984. 15.
Writers who supported the administration often were later
rewarded with favours. Murphy received a commissionership of
bankruptcy for his political writing. Henry Richard Fox Bourne,
N e w w e r s : w t e r s in the HlstorV of Journalism, New
83
York: Russell, 1966, 1, 143.
James Ralph, The Case of Authors bv Profession or Trade.
Gainesville, Fla.: Scholarsl Facsimiles & Reprints, 1758 (19661,
58.
85 As an example, Fielding used the Covent
Jouuul in 1752
to advertise his business interests with Universal Register
i
2
Office. He was attacked by Bonne11 Thornton in the p
ve at Ye
sponsored by a rival of Fielding's
. .
interest. Alvin Sullivan (Ed. , pritlsh
Tliterarv Mauazines : T h e
an bue a d the Aue
of Johnson. 1698-1788, Westport Conn.:
Greenwood, 1983, 64-5.
84
John Brewer and Ann Bermingham, ed. B e Co-tion
Routledge, 1996.
87
of Culture.
Henry Fielding, (pseud. Sir Alexander Drawcansir) Covent G a r m
Jxx
No.
, 1, 4/1/1752,
The letter writer continues that Johnson would also try I1toget
himself ernployed in some translation, either from the Latin or
the French.'' Gilbert Walmsley to Reverend Colson, 2/3/1736 in
Davies, iife of Gaxxkk, 1, 11.
89 Allardyce Nicoll, A
,
1961, 1, 8.
Nicoll goes on to Say that these were "men unassociated with
literature and uneager for literary glory." 1 would dispute this
and Say instead that it indicates the extent to which the public
participated in the theatre.
Davies, Jlifeof Garrick, II, 148. Davies noted that "Dr. Goldsmith
having tried his genius in several modes of writing, in essays,
descriptive poetry, and history, was advised to apply himself to that
species of composition which is said to have been long the most
fruitful in the courts of Parnassus."
91 Shirley Strum Kenny, IlThe Publication of Plays,
ir) The Jlondgn
Theatre World 1660- l8OQ, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1980, 310.
92
Lv-
Valet had 184 performances between 1741 and 1747.
Hugh Kelly was pensioned with f200 a year for writing filler
for the administration supporting Public_-_Ledueg.Robert Right
. .
Rea, m e E n s l i s h - 4 1
Lincoln :
University of Nebraska Press, 1963, 167.
93
Hugh Kelly, m r d t m e Wise, 1768 (New York: Georg 0lms
Verlag, 1973).
94
95 For a detailed history of the patents see chapter one of F.H.W.
Sheppard, (General Ed.), rire Roval Drurv J~ane and The
nt Gar-,
Published by Athlone Press for
the Greater London Council, 1970.
96
Percy Hetherington Fitzgerald,
UP:
From the E~storation to the J~lbSZtvof the Theatre~. in
1
London: ,
Tinsley Brothers,
1882, 1, 91.
'' At the Dukels playhouse, Sir Thomas Armstrong took offense that
Mr Scroppe had dared speak to a masked actress, Mrs Uphill, I8soa
ring was made wherein they fought." Scrope was run through the
heart and died on the spot. John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney,
30/8/1675, (HMC Verney MSS., 7th Report, 1879, p. 465), m, 235.
98 Pepys, D h r y 22/7/1667, III, 16.
see Niemeyer, Carl. "Henry
Killigrew and the Duke of Buckingham,"
xii (1936): 326-8.
The Duke of Buckingham was involved in
another near duel, when he is alleged by Sir William Coventry to
have contrived with Sir Robert Howard to "bring him [Sir William]
into a play. The play was not acted. Add Mss 36916, folio 128,
2/3/1669 LS1, 157. see Pepys 4 and 6/3/1669
-ml
tial Protestant Mgrcury, 2/5/1682, in Thomas, 181;
Luttrell, A Wrief Relation, 10/6/1685, 1, 346.
100
19/3/1678 The Memoirs of Sir John Reresbv, ed Cartwright, 132.
Reresby later prevented a serious duel in the theatre, himself.
Coming to the aid of a shortsighted audience member, Colonel
Macarty, Reresby crossed swords with a "gentleman in drinktlwho
had drawn before Macarty was ready to fight. Although the two
combatants were parted, they arranged to fight the next day, but
Reresby informed the King, "who caused them to be both secured
and made friends." 6/1/1679 DL or DG
M e a r s of Sir J o b
-,
158.
'O1
'O2
Pepys, -,
14/11/1666, II, 362.
'O3
21/3/1682 John Harold Wilson, "Theatre Notes from the
Newdigate Newsletters," Theatre Notebook, 15:1960-1, 80. see
Leslie Hotson, t
h
noSt-,
1928, 268-70.
'O4
Entrance to Playhouses, 7/12/1663, PRO LC 7/1, p.1, in David
Georghrl En-:
1660- 1788, Cambridge
Thomas, ReçtorationReçtorationand
University Press, 1989, 179.
105
Percy Hetherington Fitzgerald, F New Historv of the Enq;L+Sh
From the Restorat.ion to the Libertv of the--3atres. in
ction With the Patent House$, London:
Tinsley Brothers,
1882, 1, 91.
âtaae:
Printed Bill on Entry to Playhouses, 2/2/1673, PRO LC 7/3, f.
au$ Georqian F n a l m , 179.
1, in Thomas, Res-tion
'O6
'O7
Printed Bill on Entry to Playhouses, 2/2/1673.
108
al of ,-rw
1693, who was accused of
murdering the actor, William Mountfort. ml lxxiii
'O9
O''
Thomas Shadwell, fi True Widoy, IV, 12/1678.
See John Brewer, nCommercialization and Politics," The B-
a C ~ ~ ~ ~ l bSociety,
m e r
Ed. Neil McKendrick, John Brewer and J.H.
Plumb, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982, 197-262, for
a discussion of the problem of aristocratic clients not paying
bills promptly or at all.
pf
Wilson, "Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters," 79-80.
Chapter 3
--
Riote over Management Iseuee
There never was a Season in which the old Proverb that
asserts the Likeness between the Stage and the World,
was more fully verified than at present. The Scene is
exactly the same on the great Theatre and the small
one.
The Disputes between the Governors and the
governed have a perfect Resemblance, and we may safely
affirm in both Cases, that the Heat and unruliness of
the one, is absolutely the Effect of the il1
Management and Corruption of the other.
James Ralph, D e Case of Our Pregent Thea-
,
When
1743.
analyzing the causes of playhouse riots, theatre
historians have tended to propose narrow and specific reasons for
disturbances, and as a result have managed to identify a great
variety of different issues that could bring about a riotous
disturbance in the playhouse.'
Furthermore it soon becomes
obvious that as well as there being numerous reasons for theatre
riots, classifying riots is to some degree an arbitrary exercise
and one's organizing bias will have an impact on the result .
To
date the categories historians have chosen have tended to reflect
a negative view of riots.
not
integrated with
They are viewed as anomalous and are
the more
acceptable forms of
audience
behaviour.
Our own attempt at classifying riots supports the thesis
that
theatre riots were
experience at lar'ge.
in keeping with
the
theatre-going
Furthermore, Our classifications will help
further the contention that the theatre-going experience itself
was integrated with the culture at large in a number of ways.
The themes we have chosen will allow us to examine theatre riots
within the context of larger historical developments including
the concern over issues of management in the aftermath of Robert
Walpole's administration, the public's fascination with persona1
reputations and
public
figures, the
development of
British
nationalism during the mid-century wars with France, or the
never-ending concern over issues of morality.
These classifying
themes give us a basis for studying theatre riots that allow us
to
do
so
within
a
discussion
of
larger
historiographical
considerations.
The underlying
causes of
theatre
riots were
obscured by the overt actions of the rioters.
sometimes
The violence
committed during a riot often obscured its root causes.
confronted with the evidence of extensive physical damages
When
--
in
the neighbourhood of £2-4,000 on the occasion of the Half-Price
Riots in 1763
--
it is difficult to remember that what led to the
smashing of the playhouse often began with what were in the eyes
of the rioters, a set of
justified grievances.
Moreover ,
contemporary interpretations can sometimes lead us astray when
trying to assess causation, as with the Half-Price Riots.
In
that case the persona1 animosities between the leader of the
rioters, Thaddeus Fitzpatrick, a well-known, self-styled critic
and the Drury Lane theatre manager, David Garrick, were reported
and amplified in the contemporary press, obscuring the pragmat ic
economic issues that were also being ~ontested.~ Instead the
riot was pictured as being caused by the ire of a petulant
patron, and for the most part, this has been the explanation and
focus of the riot ever ~ i n c e . ~
Of course with many riots there were several issues having
an impact at the same time.
The categories we have chosen will
only serve as a guide, giving us a lens through which to study
the various disturbances. As we have already noted, the theatre
in eighteenth century London was a cornplex, interactive affair.
Our themes will help us to locate riots within the mix and at the
same time see riots as a form of audience response.
Riots over Management Issues
This category presents perhaps the most straightforward
cause of theatre riots: issues related to the management of the
theatre space, and revolving around the relationship between the
audience and the managers of the theatre.
management-related
issues
included
Disturbances over
disagreements
with
the
managers1 policies regarding the running of the theatre and
included disputes over the price one paid for a ticket, or where
one's
ticket
performers,
performance.
practices of
previous
allowed
or
even
the
These were
to
sit,
starting
and
terms
space
the
non-appearance
time
of
issues related
to
theatre management.'
chapter,
arrangements)
one
of
the
the
of
eveningls
day-to-day
As we have seen in the
admission
allocation
were
(including
two
of
the
ticket
most
contentious issues in the post-Restoration theatre and frequently
caused problems for theatre managers.
Not surprisingly, when
eighteenth century managers attempted to change these conditions,
they also were met
escalated into riot.
with audience opposition that
sometimes
Theatre management
issues were also a part
of
several
larger concerns that occupied people's thinking during the latter
eighteenth century.
the
commercial
On the one hand there were questions about
nature
of
the
theatre
strictures of royally granted patents.
operating
under
the
These questions were
debated within a discourse about the role of the audience and the
responsibilities of the manager.
On the other hand the questions
about theatre management were part of a larger discussion of
social and political management issues in general.
To a great
degree these suspicions were due to the public's concern over
corruption within the administration of Robert Walpole and the
lack of punishment he received after his descent from power.
Although we have few riots that can be directly attributed to
concerns over the national administration, the misgivings over
the abuse of power and the accountability of managers were very
much a part of most theatre riots, including those we will
consider in this chapter.
What were the duties of the theatre manager?
Ostensibly
the theatre manager supervised al1 facets of the technical,
production, and commercial aspects of the theatre's operation.
The manager chose the plays, contracted the actors, organized the
production activities, and oversaw the business activities of the
theatre, including advertising and ticket sales.
Often these
responsibilities would be handed over to an assistant.
Charles
Fleetwood left most of the day-to-day operations of the Drury
Lane theatre in the 1730s and 40s up to the actor Charles
Macklin.
Or management duties were shared with a partner, as was
the case with Garrick and Lacy later at the same theatre.
mid-sized
A
business
venture
by
eighteenth
century
standards, a large number of people earned their livelihoods
directly and indirectly from the theatre.
For example, during
the 1766-7 season at Covent Garden theatre, the managerial team
of
Colman,
Beard,
and
individuals including one
Harris
hundred
employed
and
approximately
eight
225
performers, 21
musicians and 96 who worked backstage and in the front of house.'
Coordinating this number of employees demanded a significant
degree of managerial skill.
As a business venture, the theatre was a particularly
dynamic undertaking, whether we consider the volatile situation
of the 1720s and 30s in London, the steady growth of Garrick and
Lacyts partnership at Drury Lane, or the solid success of John
Rich at Covent Garden from early to mid century.
However, while
the theatre could be an extremely profitable endeavour, there was
also the chance of failure.
John Highmore, who took over
majority ownership of Drury Lane theatre in 1732, was quickly
ruined and forced to sel1 the venture a year and a half later
amidst
litigation and
a
dispute with
the
theatre's
acting
Company.6
While the risky nature of the theatre was in keeping with
many
eighteenth
century
commercial
ventures,
there
were
particular aspects of the theatre that are worth n ~ t i n g . ~The
theatrets obvious dependence upon the public's favour for its
survival and success ensured that theatrical business was subject
to a great deal of public attention, including extensive press
scrutiny and reportage.
Newspaper coverage included the routine
promotion that went on in order to sel1 tickets and advance the
success of a production, such as puffs and advertisements in the
daily press.
The press also included public commentary of how
the theatres were managed including criticism of how the theatres
were run, how actors were hired and how plays were chosen.
The
theatre was a popular topic for writers, whether pamphleteers,
poets, or letter writers in the daily press.
Through the medium
of print, individuals associated with the theatre became the
subjects of public interest, including theatre managers who were
often brought to task for their policies and methods of handling
situations.'
It
is worthwhile
theatre management
to compare this general
alongside the public's
interest
attention to
in
the
management of the state at large.
Eighteenth century Britons
avidly followed political affairs.
Hannah Barker has outlined
the importance of newspapers to the political awareness of the
people, noting that it was an active inter-relationship with
people reading about political affairs and contributing in the
form of letters to the e d i t ~ r . ~This same sort of interest was
also the case with the theatre, with people avidly following
issues in the periodical and pamphlet press.
the Gentleman's Ma-
A correspondent to
in 1743 made a comparison between the
public's interest in the two areas somewhat facetiously.
He
noted that ItNext to Faction Detected [a pamphlet by Lord Perceval
defending the new post-Walpole administration] the Affair which
has made the greatest Noise, is a Dispute between a Proprietor of
the Theatre and some of the principal Actors.
Footels play, B e -B
In Samuel
(1773) the character Margin links the
public's interest in reading about the theatre and politics in
some advice to two writers waging
mmPoliticalWarfare" : "The
conductor of a Newspaper, like a good cook, should always serve
up things in their season: who eats oysters in June? Plays and
Parliament Houses are winter provisions."" The theatre season,
like parliament, began in the fall, carried on through the winter
When in season, both were the
and recessed for the summer.
subjects of public scrutiny and comment.
Public
interest
in
the
machinations
of
the
world
is
reflected in the popularity of the plays about the workings of
the theatre.12
Fielding,
h
e (1730) by Henry
Plays such as T
P e e ~R
e
w the C u r t u (1767) by David Garrick, or
.e
. (1779) by R.B. Sheridan, explore various aspects of
Th
managing, acting, and writing for the stage.13 The popularity of
this format, a play about a play, shows that audiences were not
only engaged in the illusion created on the stage, but were also
curious about
what
was
behind
the
illusion, including
management of the theatres that created the illusions.
the
Here the
management of a theatre was exposed before the audience's eyes.
Thanks largely to the press, little could be done in the
theatre without the public knowing about and discussing it.
Even
disputes between the managers themselves were the subject of
public discussion in the daily newspapers, accompanied by a
flurry of pamphlets.
Thus, for example, a managerial dispute
that pitted George Colman and William Powell against fellow
managers Thomas Harris and John Rutherford over the control of
Covent Garden in 1767-68, led to the publication of at least
eight pamphlets, a broadside and an anonymous poem.14
Harris
eventually took Colman to court, charging him with abrogating
their joint agreement and assuming arbitrary control of the
theatrels affairs.
However, the decision came down in Colman's
favour.l5
The rivalry over the control of Covent Garden in the late
1760s was a dispute between individual managers; however, more
often the points of contention were between theatres managers and
the public. Individuals working in the theatre were seen to be
responsible to the public trust.
A pamphleteer addressed David
Garrick early in his career as manager of Drury Lane theatre:
Now you, as Manager, Actor and Author, have a good
deal of the Education (as 1 may cal1 it) of the Vulgar
in your Hands; therefore 1 think every Man has a Right
to draw his Pen against you, when he sees you misapply
the Power that is placld in you, for your Countrymens
service.l6
The disputed issues were often depicted as the failure of the
management to live up to its end of the bargain.
The claims of
the audience were justified by tradition, but it was a recently
created
tradition
with
precedents
that
were
commercially
pragmatic, and were expressed in the distinctly entreprenurial
setting of the London theatre.
tickets
were
often
couched
The arguments over seating and
in
the
rhetoric
of
political
arithmetic expressing the ethos of the market economy.
In fact there are a number of significant factors behind
these
market-related
justifications.
The
playwright
and
commentator James Ralph outlines one aspect of audience approval
in commercial terms.
He proposed that "the value of Wit, like
the Value of al1 other Commodities, should be set by the public
Voice. 1117
Ralph was not merely making a joke.
Wit in this
instance represented the engaging interactive experience that the
theatre should ideally provide.
The implicit ideal in a free
market, non-subsidized, theatre was that the audience had made an
economic choice.Is
A
critic describing his intended approach,
likewise related the power of the audience to the monetary
exchange
that
took
place, reminding his
readers that
"the
Inhabitants thereof [the theatre] are manifestly the Servants of
the Public (while they are paid for it) .
his criticism.
This in turn justified
I1Whenever they deserve it,, they shall have my
Lash.1119
Furthermore, because of this commercial negotiation the
audience had an enormous amount of power, and some of it was
potentially quite explosive.
With an element of tongue in cheek,
this power of the audience was recognized from the stage:
From hence alone, Our royal funds we draw,
Your pleasure Our support, your will Our law.
While such Our government, we hope youlll own us;
But should we ever Tyrant prove - - dethrone us.20
Here the managers not only acknowledged the financial support and
will of the audience, but also invited the audience to wield that
power if the managers did not govern properly.
The metaphor is
hyperbolic to some degree, but the notions of government and
overthrow
are
apt
in
the
context
of
theatre
riots.
A
correspondent to the London Masazine gives proof of the economic
expectation that spectators brought with them to the theatre, in
the affront he takes during the 1738 French Strollers riot, of
being ordered by the magistrate to disperse "from a Place where
In one sense we have a complicated
they had payld their m0ney.l~~~
procedure of market choice with the riot as an example of a
potential customer response.
At the same time there were elements of a traditional
economic milieu, heightened by the monopoly implications of the
royally sanctioned patent situation.
This put the theatre in an
It was subject to the changing rules of
interesting position.
open market commerce, but it was also governed by the rules of a
state-regulated monopoly.
And so if riots were couched in the
audience behaviour of the past, riots over management issues were
very much a part of the present and future.
These issues were especially problematic due to changes in
eighteenth
century
London,
which
included
an
increasing
proportion of young people and a growing ec~nomy.'~Theatre going
was an activity that was available to more and more citizens, as
London's population grew and as the ticket price represented a
smaller portion of their incorne.
arrangements were
two
areas where
Ticket prices and seating
the
audience tested
contested these changing demographic conditions.
and
Initially these
seating and pricing disputes had been justified with claims of
aristocratic
privilege
sanctioned
eighteenth century they became
by
precedent.
In
the
"traditional" rights, whether
claimed Dy footmen in regards to their perquisites or critics for
their fair ticket price.
Theatre management
James Ralphls comments at the head of this chapter, written
shortly after the fa11 of Walpole, show that, for some people,
issues of theatre management were metaphors for larger issues.
Starting with the Excise excitements in 1733, political activity
had been particularly turbulent.
London's theatres had also been
disorderly, witnessing five riots in eight years.
Just as
~ ~ ~the world
attention was focused on "a certain p r ~ j e c t o r in
outside the theatre, there were also questions of management and
mismanagement in regard to theatre managers with an oft-stated
distrust of the person at the top.
Robinocracy,
"managementN
denoted
For most people during the
partiality
and
corrupt
practices, and theatre managers were subject to the same sort of
criticism as politicians.24
Theatre managers
position.
in the
1740s were
in an
interesting
On the one hand they had a significant amount of power
over theatrical affairs in London, by virtue
of
the royal
patents, which were in turn strengthened by the conditions of the
Licensing Act.
However, on the other hand, the public was
knowledgeable of its ewn power, through the market transaction as
we have discussed, and through various evolving forms of public
expression inside and outside the theatre including riot.
prime
target of
theatre manager.
audience observation and
criticism was
A
the
Drury Lane manager Charles Fleetwood, who had
been the cause of four of the five disturbances cited above, was
targeted frequently.
Fleetwood
manager
who
represented a particular breed
saw the
theatre both
as
a
of
theatrical
fashionable and
a
~ bought the Drury Lane patent at a
profitable e n d e a ~ o u r . ~He
reduced price in the midst of a theatrical revolt, and was
displaced by
similar circumstances some twelve years later.
Indeed his predecessor John Highmore only found his way into
theatrical management after winning a ~ager.'~ He then proceeded
to run the theatre into financial turmoil.
Highmore had major
confrontations with his acting Company and soon found himself
with an actors' strike and was forced to sell.
circumstances
surrounding his
purchase
would
financial acumen on Fleetwood's part, he was
Although the
indicate
a
some
financially
reckless individual, having already gambled away real estate
worth f6,000 per annum.27
Fleetwood had no particular talent for managing a theatre
and only became directly involved when he tried to wring out more
money from the venture. As we have already seen left the day-today running of the theatre to the actor Charles Macklin.
Macklin
actually managed to pilot the theatre quite successfully for some
years. However, Fleetwood's personal expenses eventually indebted
the
theatre and
in the
ensuing
financial crisis Fleetwood
quarreled both with his actors and with the general public. As a
result, pressure by commentators was brought to bear on Fleetwood
in
the
pamphlet
press,2e
amidst
the
public ' s
concern
with
corruption in the aftermath of the fa11 of Walpole and the
breakdown in the day-to-day operations of the theatre.
Fleecwood
slipped
progressively
further
into
debt,
As
actors'
salaries went
seized.
unpaid and costumes and props were
To the disgust of
sometimes
some high-minded theatre-goers,
Fleetwood presented rope-dancers and tumblers in the attempt to
attract an audience.29
The 1743-4 season at Drury Lane showed signs of promise.
Fleetwood had managed to lure David Garrick from Goodman's Wells
theatre the previous year, after having Giffard's theatre closed
by the authorities as illegitimate under the Licensing Act.
However Fleetwood continued to mismanage the theatre and mistreat
the acting company.
By the summer of 1743, Macklin and Garrick
led the actors in a revolt against Fleetwood's inc~mpetence.~~
The dispute centred on the manager's refusal to pay the actors on
time and as per agreement.
Fleetwood locked out the actors and
they in turn petitioned the Lord Chamberlain to grant them a
license or patent to put on plays at the Opera House.
However,
the Duke of Grafton, Lord Chamberlain at the time, offered no
help
and
the
actors
were
left
to
their
own
devices.
Nevertheless, the actors were not without public support and a
significant pamphlet war ensued discussing the issues of the
situation.31
The actorsl strike eventually led to xiot, although it was
factions supporting Garrick and Macklin who eventually confronted
one another, and as such will be discussed in chapter five below.
But in order to explore farther some of the issues associated
with theatre management it is worth looking in detail at a
pamphlet written by James Ralph at the time of the dispute
between Fleetwood and his company.
Ralph takes the argument
beyond the specifics of the quarrel and provides some valuable
insijhts into some of the public's concerns with management.
Ralph was very much a writer of al1 works, a citizen of the
disputatious Republic of Letters we outlined earlier. Careful of
his political alignments, Ralph had been associated with Henry
Fielding and The
with
the
ChamDion
Prince
-ancal
of
from 1739-42 and later became aligned
Wales'
faction
when
he
edited
a publication with financial support from the Whig
courtier, Bubb Doddington.
He finally put himself "to auction"
between the Bedfords and the Pelhams, two mid-century Whig
factions, and was bought by the later."
Although Ralphls plays
enjoyed little success, his pamphlets on the theatre are of value
in understanding some of the issues associated with theatre
management.33
Ralph's 1743 pamphlet was only one of many that appeared in
connection with the fight between Fleetwood and his actors, but
whereas the others presented cases for each side, Ralph took on
larger issues.
To begin with he saw both actors and management
as greedy and guilty of assuming airs above their station,
although he soon focused in particular on the pretensions of
Fleetwood.
The manager wss accused of living like a Duke or a
Prince, and moreover behaving as irresponsibly as a Duke or
Prince. However, it was one thing to dissipate his own inherited
money, but quite another to waste money which was an annual
stipend, and then to introduce spectacle into the programme in
order to refill coffers.
After initial criticism of both sides, Ralph dealt with the
larger issues of theatrical governance, public taste, and the
welfare of the British nation.
In Ralph's opinion the benefits
of good order in the first, the theatre were passed on to the
latter, the nation.
Like many, Ralph felt that the contemporary
trend toward spectacle in the theatre had reduced the quality of
the stage and at the same time increased the expense of producing
plays.
He felt that this trend was an example of both greed and
folly on the part of theatrical proprietors.
Ralph noted that
elsewhere in Europe, theatres were better managed and therefore
had a more positive impact in fulfilling their most important
mandate of improving the manners of the people.
Comparing the English and Athenian theatres, Ralph noted
that the Greek theatre went into decline after the freedom of the
earlier period was curtailed with a clampdown on libel. As a
result the comedy became less satirical and more entertaining.
This shift was exacerbated by state subsidies to the theatre and
"the Stage by Degrees, was reduced to be a mere Spectacle of
Amusement, instead of an instructive Diversion as originally it
had b e e n . ~At
~ ~a time when the Licensing Act was still very much
on people's minds, Ralph notes that the Athenian theatre during
this middle period was under the control of the magistrate:
1 shall begin with observing, that though the Athenian
Stage, was always under the Direction of the
Magistrate, yet itts Freedom fell and rose in
Proportion to that of the Government, so that when the
Constitution of the Athenian Republic, was in itts
[sic] full Vigour, the Stage of
was in it's
highest Glory; and as the Liberties of the People
began to sink, as Corruption overspread their Manners,
and as they lost that Fire and Spirit, which set them
at the Head of the noblest Nation in the Universe, 1
mean the w, so the Life and Beauty of their
dramatic Performance gave way, their Decorations
increased, and the Expense of the Theatre rose to its
greatest Height, when the Performances thereon were of
least value.35
Within the context of the contemporary situation, Ralphts picture
of Greece's demise, was similar to contemporary criticism of the
Whig administration; a glorious golden age, contaminated by the
two pronged attack of the state
--
overtly through censure, and
covertly through corruption.
Ralph's criticism fits into the general national concern in
the political sphere around the idea of management and issues of
governance.
Ralph pays homage to the traditional notion of the
theatre having a strong impact on the public and therefore argued
that its management or regulation was a key to the welfare of the
nation.
By corollary the "Genius of the Nation" was seen in its
theatrical life and a corruption of the latter was to the
detriment of the former.36
Changes in Programme
We will now look at some contentious management issues that
led to riot.
The first riot we will examine resulted £rom the
management not telling the audience of a change in the evening' s
programme.
One
of
the
essential
conditions
of
the
audience/management relationship was the audience's expectation
to enjoy what had been advertised. The nightly performances were
announced in a variety of ways.
Often with a production of note,
an informal paragraph was inserted in the daily press well in
advance of the coming performance. These took the form of gossip
or puffs and were unofficial or semiofficial, commenting on the
ongoing production plans of the theatre proprietors and not
always in a positive manner.
However, most often the intimations
of coming performances were of a more direct and positive nature,
written by sources close to the managers with the intention of
building interest in their plans.
Officia1 advertisements of a theatre's nightly bill of fare
regularly appeared in the daily and tri-weekly press.
These
announcements were part of the theatrefs advertising budget, with
various papers serving as the officia1 carriers of what was
playing, very similar to Our current daily listings for theatre
and films.37 The ads were found in the same place in the paper
every day for easy consultation.
Occasionally there would be an
announcement of notable upcoming performances, or changes in
management policy, but for the most part the daily listings were
devoted to announcing the next dayfsperformance.
There were also bills distributed and posted outdoors,
including small handbills, and large poster-sized announcements.
These
would
contain
the
same
copy
as
the
newspaper
advertisements, but were obviously posted in various outdoor
locations. The large bills were put up in the morning announcing
the performance for that night. However, problems such as an
actorfs illness would cause new bills to be printed and posted as
soon as possible to announce the change.
Twelfth Ni&
was
On December 4, 1773,
scheduled for performances at Drury Lane
theatre; however the hoarseness of the actress, Mrs. Abington,
meant that it had to be cancelled and "great Bills [were] put up
about 3 otclocktf
for
me
Fair Ouaker of ~eal.~' Nine days later
the prompter notes in his diary that IlThe School for Wives was
put upn but Mr. King sent word he was too il1 to perform and
ItfreshBills were put up for Zara.t t 3 g
The audience was generally understanding of last minute
adjustments
in
the
programme
due
to
an
actorts illness.
Occasionally, however, a player's failure to appear could lead to
violent behaviour. At Drury Lane theatre in 1740, when a popular
dancer, Madame Chateauneuf, failed to perform for three nights in
a row, after being listed in the paper daily and with no apology
from the managers, a small group of audience members proceeded to
do £300 to £400 worth of damage to the h~use.~' In his report on
the riot Benjamin Victor, a contemporary theatrical chronicler,
began his description of the damages to the theatre auditorium
with the use of parliamentary metaphor:
The First Motion, and made by a most &le
w,
was to fire it! but that being carried in the
Negative, they began with the Orchestra, broke the
Harpsichord and Base Viols, broke al1 the LookingGlasses, pulled up the Benches in the Pit, broke d o m
the Boxes, then the King's-Arms in the Front (a sort
of petty Treason) fell a Victim to their ~age!""
The riotersf "petty Treason" was a serious offense and resulted
in rumours of Jacobitism.
It also no doubt prompted one of the
participants to later pay Fleetwood El00 towards his share of the
damages .'2
While this riot had an element of audience mischief to it,
the situation quickly got out of hand.
things to be gathered from this incident.
However, there are two
One was that audience
members
formed
strong
attachments
to
various
performers,
including, or perhaps especially, to dancers and didn't like to
be disappointed. Benjamin Victor called Madame Chateauneuf
best French Dancer here at that Time. " 4 3
the
But more important
within the realm of management issues we can consider this
another example of the contract between buyer and seller not
being met.
In this case, the advert or the playbill was a
listing of the goods to be delivered and the ticket a form of
contract that later sealed the agreement, hence the speed with
which management normally announced any changes to the evening's
programme.
As we have noted above, the audience was generally
sympathetic to last minute adjustments.
However, in the case of
Madame Chateauneuf, a small group of individuals did not like
being
repeatedly misinformed,
and
that
displeasure,
albeit
influenced by a significant amount of alcohol, eventually led to
a substantial riot .4 4
Changes in Seating Arrangements
A second sort of managerial policy which the audience found
ojectionable and which sometimes led to riot, were changes
CO
the
theatre seating arrangements, After alterations to Covent Garden
Theatre by Henry Holland in 1792, and citing the increasing cost
of running the theatre, the management raised ticket prices and
tried to eliminate the upper one
~
shilling g a l l e r ~ . ~ The
audience's protest was strong enough on the first night of the
new policy, that the playbill the next day had the announcement:
"It having appeared to be the Sense of a considerable Part of the
Audience on Monday Night that the One Shilling Gallery should be
restored, the Proprietor has already given Directions that their
Wishes may be obeyed with al1 possible Expedition.~'~~
While the
price rise for the rest of the house stayed in effect, with the
Drury Lane Theatre soon following suit, the one shilling gallery
remained. Fifty years earlier there had occurred one of the most
significant sets of
riots about seating changes during the
eighteenth century, the Footmenlsgallery riots of 1737.
Servants were a distinctive part of the eighteenth century
theatre audience.
From the time of the Restoration, they were
regular patrons of the playhouse, arriving early, sometimes in
mid-afternoon, to claim places for their mistresses and masters.
In the 1690s, actors discontented with Charles Rich's management
at Drury Lane theatre, established their own company at Lincoln's
Inn Fields with a special licence from the Lord ~hamberlain.~'
According to Colley Cibber the new company did well with "the
People of Quality" to the detriment of the deserted manager.
To balance this Misfortune, he was resolvld, at least,
to be well with their Domesticks, and therefore
cunningly open'd the upper Gallery to them gratis: For
before this time no Footman was ever admitted, or had
presumfd to come into it, till after the fourth Act
was ended: This additional Privilege (the greatest
Plague that ever Play-house had to complain of) he
conceived would not only incline them to give us a
good Word in the respective Families they belong'd to,
but would naturally incite them to come al1 Hands
aloft in the Crack of Our A p p l a ~ s e s . ~ ~
Cibber indicates that the innovation achieved its purpose and it
was soon an established routine, with "the quality" sending their
servants in the afternoon to hold places for that evening's
performance.
Once mistress and master arrived, the servants
would then retire to their own gallery until the end of the
eveninglsprogramme.
However, the practice was not without its problems.
When
employers were late in arriving, noise and confusion were created
as
places
were
being
exchanged, and
the
inconvenience was
heightened by the footmenls habit of not allowing the play to
begin until they were settled in their places.
The problem was
most annoying for prompt theatre-goers, who had two groups to
focus
their animosity
upon, the
elite
and
although the footmen were the easier target.
their
servants,
This disturbing
situation was exacerbated when patrons were more than a little
late, leaving their servants in their seats through one or two
acts of the mainpiece, where often they loudly carried on, much
to the annoyance of their neighbours.
Nor were the servants in the gallery without their impact
upon the material presented onstage.
A prologue, spoken by the
popular comic actor William Penkethman early in the century,
pointed to the power of the footmen assembled in their gallery.
"Pinky," especially revered for his prologues and epilogues, made
a lengthy appeal to the "dear Brethren of the Upper Tire,
reminding them that he was a servant too.
He warned al1 poets
"Who writes not iip to you [meaning the upper tierl, 'tis ten to
one will fail," and then went on rhetorically:
Your thundring
You make Plays
How often have
Impose on your
plaudit Itis that deals out Fame,
run, thol of themselves but Lame:
we known your Noise Commanding,
Inferior Masters Understanding;
To demonstrate the basis of this power as well as his own mastery
of it, Penkethman then led the footmen in a participatory show of
strength:
And now to let The poor Pit see how PinkylsVoice Commands,
Silence - Now rattle al1 your Sticks, and clap your grimy
Hands .
There is no doubt that llPinkyll
was doing this comic bit for
effect; however, at the same time it vividly demonstrates the
power of the gallery within the total makeup of the audience and
was no doubt disconcerting to those sitting below, in direct line
of fire from a variety of objects which could be lobbed from
above ranging from half -eaten fruit to on at least one occasion,
a bottle flung from the g a l l e r ~ . ~ ~
England's
theatre
managers
did
not
available to their French counterparts.
have
the
options
The situation in Paris
was quite different, where, after 1716 servants were banned from
the Comédie Française and the Comédie
tal lien ne.^^
The manager
and playwright Richard Steele indicates that English footmen were
not only different from French servants in being allowed in the
theatre, but that they noisily expressed themselves there as
well.
In England "the very Footmen give Laws to their Masters,
and will not suffer any one but themselves to be heard, till they
are easy in their Places, tho' they never pay for them.n51
Not only did servants have a place of their own in the
theatre space, as disputed as that might be, but they were also
very much a part of the dramals content, featured in many plays,
and referred to in a number of prologues.
Granted wily servants,
both male and
female, were a part of plays during earlier
periods, but it might be wondered if it was to the same extent as
during the eighteenth century.
Footmen were the subject of their
own play in the early 1730s,'*
and servants in general were
featured as important characters in many of the period's most
popular main pieces
including Steele's
Valet (1742) James Townleyls U a h L i f g
(17221, Garrick's -a
Stgirsl759), and Holcroft 's Eollies of the Dav (1785),
- B
the latter itself a speedy translation of Beaumarchais'
gf
Fi=.
female and
In these plays and many others the servant, both
male, appeared
on
the
stage in great
numbers,
collaborating with their masters and mistresses, but often acting
to their own benefit and on their.own behalf.
This is not to suggest that servants were being pandered to
by
eighteenth-century
playwrights,
but
rather
that
the
relationship between masters or mistresses and their servants was
the subject of much interest.
The inclusion of servants as
characters was traditional theatrical fare, as far back as the
classical times.
However, in the eighteenth century their
inclusion was often with the added economic underpinning that
characterized the period, with
the
servant
as a cosporate
assistant in pursuit of the protagonist ' s fortune.5 3
several productions onstage
servants were
Moreover in
presented
in
the
context of theatre-going, in that they are either on their way
to, or talking about, the theatre, or even self-consciously
behaving according to theatrical
convention^.'^
Servants were also involved in theatrical disturbances in a
variety of ways.
Sometimes they took part in the theatrical
quarrels of their masters.
A
vivid example occurred near the end
of the seventeenth century when there was a quarrel in the pit
between a Captain Leinster and another individual that resulted
in many swords being drawn.
This was matched by a quarrel
between the servants of each retinue and "the Earl of Oxford's
footman was run through the body.
Footmen were at the centre
of later disturbances in the theatre as well.
At the opera
polifemp at the King's Opera House on Saturday February 8, 1735,
footmen came into the passages with lit torches. Offending "the
Ladies" and others, with the fumes from their links, they were
ordered out of the passageway, but refused to leave, instead
confronting "the Centnelsw of the house.
However, armed troops
came to the aid of the latter and it was reported that Ilin the
Fray one of the Footmen was stabb'd in the Groin, and in the
Body, and its thought will die of the W o u n d ~ . ~TWO
~ ~ ~years
earlier, footmen had been involved in another pointed dispute
when an orange woman, passing from Drury Lane theatre to a
neighbouring coffee-house, took offense to comments made to her
in the passageway and stabbed a chairman and two servants.
The
footmen followed her, and when t h e people i n the coffee-house,
where she had taken refuge, refused to produce the woman, the
footmen forced their way in and broke glasses and china."
~t is important to note that there was a hierarchy amongst
eighteenth century domestic workers, with footmen in livery near
the top.
Only a persona1 servant would rank higher.
To some
degree this status on the part of footmen was because of their
conspicous place as a sign if wealth and status in the entourage
of a noble.
It was a position that footmen guarded jealously and
sometimes abused.
This included outrageous behaviour in the
playhouse during their duties of keeping seats.
Through the
1730s, the obnoxious behaviour of servants became increasingly
offensive
to other theatre-goers.
A
correspondent
to
the
llOccasionalP r ~ m p t e r ,a~ ~theatre column in the Pgilv JO-,
described the turn which things had taken.
Not content with assuming their Masters Province, they
have, for a long Course of Time, encouraged each other
to look upon themselves, during the Time of their
sitting to keep Places, as Representatives of those
who sent them; and of course, as GOOD as any present
in the house.5e
The servants were accused of talking loudly to the distraction of
those around them.
Beer had been brought in on one occasion.
One issue that particularly irked the writer was the refusa1 of
servants to take off their hats, which of course created more
noise
and
complaints.
confusion
as
people
sitting
behind
added
their
It was noted that members of the pit tried to
command quiet, but that they were instead met with hoots of
derision.
The correspondent then went on to support an idea currently
under consideration that a lobby outside the auditorium be built
where the footmen could wait instead-of attending the theatre in
their own gallery.
The "Occasional Prompter" replied to the
suggestion that, even though by their behaviour, they did not
deserve the llFavourll
of sitting in the house and furthermore,
"whenever the Town insists upon their Exclusion, Mr Fletewood
[sic] and every other Manager of a House, cannot refuse complying
with it," but shouldn't do so if a "Reform in their Behaviourtt
could be brought about. As we will see, Fleetwood certainly gave
the insistence of the Town a great deal of weight
in his
considerations.
Problems with footmen at the theatre came to a head through
the winter of 1736 - 1737, flaring up at Drury Lane theatre on
two separate occasions.
The accounts of the dispute describe it
as a reaction on the part of London's theatre-going footmen to
the end of their special status within the theatre and the loss
of their gallery privileges.
However, the motives for the riots
are obscure and their story is neither well nor completely told.
Although there were at least three nights of disturbances,
n Ma-
identifies only two nights. The Dailv Advertisc
missed the initial occurrence, but ended up printing the most
complete account and the key to deciphering the events.
Later
accounts either ignored the whole affair or got it wrong.59 This
is
hardly
surprising given
the
sometimes
less-than-rigorous
approach of the early eighteenth century press and later of early
theatre
historians.
What
is
surprising
is
that
modern
historiography has neglected to delve into some of the more
intriguing aspects of the disturbance.
The riots show elements
of class conflict as well as the use of traditional popular
political tactics and rhetoric on the part of the participants.
The
first
disturbance
is
described
several
times
as
beginning on Monday February 21, 1736/37, as a reaction by the
footmen to Fleetwood's denying them access to their gallery.
However, a letter to the pailv Advertisel;, indicates that the
dispute began the previous Saturday and did not originally arise
between the manager Fleetwood and the footmen.
Instead the
conflict developed out of antagonisms between the theatre-going
servants and "Gentlemen in the Pit" who were I1determintdto make
the footmen behave with Decency and proper Civility.
The
confrontation began with members of the pit demanding that the
footmen remove their hats when the Ladies and Gentlemen, for whom
they were saving seats, began to arrive.
The footmen refused and
one is reputed to have said, Itthathe would not take off his Hat
for anybody" and would knock d o m anyone who tried to see he did.
He made good with his threat, striking "one of the Gentlemen
going to rise."
After this encounter the confrontation turned into a group
affair, with about a dozen men from the pit climbing into the
boxes and forcing the footmen out.
However, this meant that the
footmen were not able to do the job that their mistresses and
masters had sent them to do.
And "upon proper Submission from
some of lem, the Gentlemen sufferld lem again into the Boxes to
keep their Places.
Meanwhile word had been communicated to the
footmen assembled outside the theatre and as they came in, their
plans to bombard the Pit from the gallery were overheard by
audience mernbers making their way into the pit.
These threats
were in turn communicated to the rest of the pit; "upon which the
whole Pit instantly rose, and with one Voice demanded of the
pirector of the Theatre, that there should be either
Çallexv or no Pit."61
no
Footman'ç
Worried
about
inconveniencing
the
quality,
Fleetwood
vacillated, but eventually gave in to the pitls demands and
closed the gallery.
However the footmen soon broke through the
doors and thus gained a temporary victory.
After sitting through
an act of the play, they began their threatened barrage of fruit
and
words .
The
magistrate
Colonel
~ e ~ e i lwho
, ~ ~
was
in
attendance, as he was on other evenings, made his way to where
the footmen were assembled, and despite threats Itto knock his
Brains out,I1 he read out the Proclamation I1admonishing them to
retire and desist from so unlawful an Undertaking; for that he
came as a Friend, and not as a Foe, to warn them of their Danger.
This Admonition, and [rleasonably reading the Proclamation, had
its desired Effect, for they al1 went off in a few Minutes after
the Proclamation was read.lt61 However , Fleetwood would appear to
have kept to the new policy.
A
few weeks after this first set of encounters, there was
another disturbance at Drury Lane involving footmen.
On Friday
March 4, at the end of the mainpiece, in trying to make their way
to their traditional section, three or four footmen assaulted one
of the doorkeepers.
Several other house employees came to help;
however, they were mistaken for interlopers by mernbers of the pit
who inadvertently joined with the footmen in their attack. The
situation was volatile and the next day, March 5, the footmen
returned to continue their protest despite the fact that it was a
command performance for the Prince and Princess of Wales.
Some
300 in nurnber, the footmen disrupted the play and once again
Justice DeVeil made his way to proclaim the Riot Act.
However,
on this occasion, fearing the consequences, DeVeil didnlt read
the proclamation, but instead arrested a number of those involved
on other charges, who were then taken to I1a room adjacent to the
play-h~use.ll~~ After
a
lengthy
examination
ringleaders were taken to Newgate.
several
of
the
Two were later tried at
Hickls-Halland were sentenced to hard labour for six rn~nths.~'
It took some days for the press to assemble the full
details of the riot.
summaries in the
Riot
Act.
Initial accounts, including the later
London focused
However,
on
Thursday
on the reading of the
March
10,
following
an
announcement the day before, because the riots had "become a
Topick of publick DiscourseI1~the W l v Advertiser published 'a
true and exact Account of the Disturbances" as well as a letter
purportedly sent to Fleetwood by representatives of the footmen
on March 5 :
Sir,
We are willing to admonish you before we attempt Our
Design; and Provide you will use us Civil, and Admitt
us into Our Gallery, which is Our Property, according
to Formalities; and if you think proper to Come to a
Composition this way, youll hear no further; and if
not Our Intention is to Combine in a Body in Cognito.
And Reduce the play house to the Ground. Valuing no
Detection we are
~ndemnified.
The letter has a number of notable, if fractured, phrases.
The
gallery is viewed as belonging to the footmen whose entitlement
was based on precedent and tradition.
made, combined
with
a
rather violent
A
settlement offer was
threat, which, while
exaggerated, did point to the violence that could occur.
The
identification of " a Body in Cognitov and the letter itself,
identify this as a threatening letter of the sort studied by E.P.
Thompson.67
The threat carried no weight with the managers, and with
the force of the law assembled against them the footmen were
ultimately denied their traditional perquisite in London's two
patent houses.
However it would appear that they continued to
attend the theatre, with perhaps their employers now paying for
their tickets. But their spirit was not completely subdued.
In
one instance soon after the riot, a servant, keeping places on
the stage, hearing audience members in the pit calling to footmen
in the boxes to take off their hats, I1leapt £rom his Seat, and
opening the Curtain, cryld out with a loud Voice, bidding the
said Footmen keep on their Hats.~~' The Footmanls gallery was
kept on at the King's Opera House in the Haymarket.
Some twenty-
five years later it would seem that there were complaints about
the behaviour in that gallery.
ver-
A notice appeared in the Public
explaining that because patrons sitting in the Crown
Gallery had had their clothes "spoiled, at different Times this
Winter, by the Indecency of the Footmen" the manager of the
King's Opera was humbly hoping that Ilthe Nobility and Gentry"
wculd not take it amiss if he had to shut the Footman's Galler~.~'
Changes in ticket prices
A third category of management related riots were disputes
over changes in ticket prices.
As we will see with the riots at
Drury Lane theatre in 1744 over Fleetwood's pricing innovations
and the Half Price riots at both Covent Garden and Drury Lane in
1763, riots over ticket pricing were amongst the most successful
of theatre riots on the part of those protesting the innovations.
At the beginning of the
1744-45
season, the Drury Lane
theatre under Fleetwood's management, would appear to have been
in good order. The theatre had a strong Company, including David
Garrick, whose star was rapidly rising.
However, there was
significant competition elsewhere, with two hundred performances
In one instance Theophilus
that year at the minor theatres.' O
Cibber featured his daughter Jenny in pomeo_and J u l i e at the
Little Theatre in the Haymarket, until ordered by Magistrate
DeVeil on behalf of the patent managers to stop the company's
performances.71
Moreover, Fleetwood was also being assailed in
the press by letters from William Hint to the W
suggesting
that
"the
Townm was
being
~
deprived
Itby some
t or o t W n of their best actors, meaning Charles
Macklin, that there was a cartel between the patent managers, and
that Fleetwood's pricing policy was unfair.7 2
Let us look at this system in some more detail.
The
standard three-tiered theatre pricing systern was adaptable in a
number of ways.
First, there were half-price rates for people
who came in after the third act of the main piece,
This ticket
arrangement would allow late corners to see some of the main
piece, the afterpiece, and any dances or special performances in
between .
This
practice
dates
from
at
least
1692, being
introduced near the same time as the Footmenls gallery.
It is
notable that the innovation was instituted during a period of
serious economic
competition.
Near
mid-eighteenth century,
,
theatre managers at both patent houses attempted to end the
practice on several occasions, but not successfully, as we shall
see .
Another eighteenth century pricing
charging of advanced prices.
arrangement was
the
An increase in the ticket price was
levied when a new pantomime was mounted and for any subsequent
performances the same season, with the claim that the added
expenses of the new scenery justified an increase in ticket
prices.
For the most part audiences accepted the arrangement.
However, when Fleetwood, desperate to increase his box office
income, tried to charge advanced prices for old entertainments
during the 1744-45 season, the audience expressed its displeasure
through riot.
As was common in the opening stages of a theatre riot, the
manager was requested to come forward and answer the complaints
of the house from the stage, and was thus given a chance to
retract his policy before any damages were done.
Fleetwood
refused to come onstage, claiming that he was not an actor, and
asked that a delegation meet with him in his rooms backstage
instead.
Representatives from the audience did so and further
disturbance was avoided.
However, although Fleetwood acquiesced
to the meeting, he did not alter his policy innovation for the
next performance.
The only change was an announcement at the
bottom of Mondayts playbills that the advanced price would be
returned if audience members choose to leave before the farce or
pantomime afterpie~e.'~Unfortunately the audience did not accept
the compromise and that night violence erupted in the theatre
once again.
His
proposed
solution
unwilling to back d o m .
having
failed,
Fleetwood
was
He instructed the house employees,
including "Peace Officers, Carpenters, and Scene-men" to meet the
potential rioters with a show of force.
It was claimed that
Fleetwood also employed some more dubious characters disguised as
gentlemen.74
After
failing
to
hold
the
door
supporters made their way amongst the audience.
Fleetwood's
The manager had
"a Country Gentlemant1taken from one of the upper boxes and
escorted to Bow Street to stand in front of the local magistrate.
When news of Fleetwoodtsactions involving the courts got back to
the theatre, the disturbances escalated even
farther.
The
damages were extensive enough to stop the eveningts performance
and shut up the house for the following two nights.
Meanwhile
the daily newspapers contained a number of letters about the
riot.
to
Early in the week support for the rioters came in a letter
the W l v
Advertisthose
congratulations to
Conquest
over
the
Entertainments . "?'
by
'Philo
involved
Hireling
Dramaticus" who
in
the
Encouragers
offered
"long-wishld for
of
the
Pantomime
Later in the week a letter to the same paper
suggested that those who had taken up Fleetwood's offer
to
receive a return of their advance money and had instead received
~ I n s u l t sand
~
abuse from the servants of the house, should meet
at two otclock at the Fountain Tavern in Catherine Street in the
Strand, presumably to plan their next course of action.76
As
with
many
theatrical
disturbances,
newspapers
and
pamphlets became another location for carrying on the dispute.
Fleetwood published his own defense in the w
a
l Advertisex
against the three reasons which he argued were at the heart of
andI
He justified
n
raising
s
prices
ult
because of the increased costs he faced in running the theatre.
Besides, he claimed, his advertised intent to return advanced
money to those who did not stay for the afterpiece, should clear
him of that charge.
He claimed that the actions he and the
servants of the house had taken were justified by the nature and
size of the protest.
As for the staging of pantomimes, which
seemed to be at the heart of
the dispute, his defense is
quotable :
...however distasteful such pieces may be to the
delicacy of some judgments, yet there are others, to
whose taste they are suited; and as the Playhouse may
be considered as the general mart of pleasure, it is
only from the variety of entertainment, the different
tastes of the publick can be supplied - - of this the
receipts of the house are a sufficient evidence, it
being notorious, how necessary the addition of such
pieces is towards procuring the best play a numerous
audience."
Here
Fleetwood
blamed
the
audience
for
the
appearance
of
pantomime on his stage, or at least a certain section of the
audience.
Policv 1 7 4 4 ) , one of
- t ~
The pamphlet
several to attack Fleetwood also seems to apportion blame for the
appearance of pantomime to one part of the house.
notes
that whereas
primarily
the pit
supported the
and
boxes
were
The writer
the people
theatre through the price
of
who
their
tickets, they were also the ones who seemed to be chiefly against
the pantomime.
This observation leaves unsaid the charge that
the gallery, and thus the lower classes were the audience members
being catered to by this form of
enter tain ment^.^'
We will go
into more detail on matters of taste in chapter six which looks
at theatre riots over content.
So far most of the examples of management-related riots we
have chosen have involved one manager, Charles Fleetwood.
With
this in mind we should perhaps alter Our classification to
suggest that it was not so much managerial policy, but the
manager
Fleetwood
himself;
however,
were
the
larger
issues
than
surrounding
just
a
single
seating and
ticket prices
individual.
Of prominence in this regard were the Half-Price
Riots of 1763 at Garrick's Drury Lane theatre.
These are amongst
the best-known of eighteenth century theatre riots.
several reasons for this familiarity.
For one
involved David Garrick at the height of his career.
There are
thing they
For another,
they took place at both patent houses, with rioters moving from
one theatre to the other .
Furthermore they were accompanied by a
large amount of printed materials, including a well-known print
featuring one of the clearest views we have of the interior of a
mid-eighteenth century London theatre, showing rioters climbing
into the orchestra p i t on their way to the stage (figure 6b).
Finally, the riots involved a clearly identifiable instigator,
Thaddeus Fitzpatrick, a well-known literary fop whose pretensions
made him a vulnerable target for contemporary wits and historians
alike.
As a result the reasons behind this half price campaign
were obscured by persona1 animosity directed against him.
Like the earlier FootmenlsRiots, Half Price protests broke
out on two occasions in late January and late February 1763, but
unlike almost any other riots, on their first night they occurred
at both the Drury Lane theatre and Covent Garden theatre on the
same evening.
Although there was often much audience traffic
between the two theatres during an evening, with boisterous
groups of patrons moving rowdily from one venue to the other,
riots generally
did
not
take place
simultaneously at
theatres or spread from one house to the other.
both
The fact that
riots did not spread between the theatres, supports the point
that riots were not just the result of exuberance, but sprang
from substantive issues.
With the Half-Price Riots we also have
an interesting example of
how, once the
two
theatres were
assaulted, the managers briefly came together to enact a common
policy in response to the challenges from the audience.
We earlier have seen how Charles Fleetwood had tried to
implement advanced prices, or a higher general price for a
special entertainment, and had run afoul of the audience.
With
the Half Price Riots the pricing policy in dispute was the
refusal
of
half-price
tickets,
another
turn-of-the-century
innovation by the manager Christopher Rich, established to allow
people to corne in after the third act of the main piece for halfprice.
Rich was taking advantage of audience members who moved
between theatres, those who would hang about for late seats, no
doubt at a local coffee-house, or those whose work or financial
predicarnent prevented them from coming earlier and paying full
price.
Cibber, in
his
picture
of
the
money-hungry Rich,
indicated that the manager used the innovation of half-price as
an opportunity to underpay his staff, allowing "his murmuring
office-keepers and door-keepersv to divide the money thus taken
amongst them~elves.~~
As the second part of the eveningls programme became more
popular and extensive, the institution of half-price had a major
influence on the evolution of the variegated programme with the
potential of a totally different group of patrons coming for the
second
show.
The
nineteenth
century
observer,
Fitzgerald
suggests that the audience for the two halves of the programme
can be divided along class lines, with the lower ranks waiting
for the price change before attending."
However, during his
early
theatre-goer, often
years
Isaac
Reed,
a
life-long
frequented the theatre after half-price, as well as paying full
price on many occasions, and that arrangement allowed a more
active type of theatre-going, related to age and energy, as much
as to social station."
Thaddeus Fitzpatrick was certainly an active theatre-goer.
He was a theatrical aficionado and a flamboyant frequenter of the
Bedford coffee-house, a noted Covent Garden headquarters for
theatre critics.
He was a man of independent means and had
obtained an educatim that purportedly "had given him a taste for
the belle lettres."
Garrick's biographer, Thomas Davies further
described him as an able critic who soon lost his objectivity and
succumbed to his own vanity.'*
This fate was not uncornmon in the
Republic of Letters, as the critic came to fame through the
accuracy of his comments, and then became the target of such
comments himself .8 3
Initially Fitzpatrick had
been
on
friendly
terms with
Garrick, both in the actors' Company and in Fitzpatrick's own
writing about the theatre, despite the fact that Garrick had
parodied
Fitzpatrick as the
fop Fribble, in his
afterpiece, M
i
s
s (1747)
Not
47).
successful
taking
obvious
offence, Fitzpatrick enjoyed the freedom of the house at Drury
Lane theatre.
However, Fitzpatrick eventually insulted Garrick
absenth at a meeting of the Shakespeare Society, an annual
feast held at the Shakespeare's Head tavern.
This insult seemed
to mark a turn in Fitzpatrick's feelings towards Garrick, and he
continued to assault the manager in letters to m a f t signed X.Y.Z.
He later collected these and published them in a
pamphlet entitled -v
m
a
into the Real Merit of a Certgig
r Performer, (1760).O4
After Fitzpatrick had attacked him, Garrick tried to find
out why, presumably to resolve the dispute semi-privately, but
failed.05
Soon after Garrick set his own pen to work in a
scathing satiric portrayal of Fitzpatrick.
With his publication
of ~-1eriad
(1761), Garrick escalated the extent of the
dispute . 8 6
In the poem Garrick describes Fitzgigg, or Fitzpatrick
At which, one larger than the rest,
With visage sleek, and swelling chest,
With stretch'd-out fingers, and a thumb
Stuck to his hips, and jutting bum..
The publication included a caricature of "Fizgig;" the critic
being pictured with an affected air and a pleased smile. Charles
Churchill, whose own fame as a critic was rapidly rising, and who
was a friend of Garrick's, joined the attack, and included a
scathing portrayal of Fitzpatrick in the eighth edition of X k
W. He drew a clear, if parodied, picture of Fitzpatrick,
at the same time reflecting on al1 self-appointed critics:
Much did It talk, in Its own pretty phrase,
Of genius and of taste, of players and plays;
Much too of writings, which Itself had wrote,
Of special merit, though of little note;
For Fate, in a strange humour, had decreed
That what It wrote, none but Itself should read
Much, too, It chatterldof dramatic laws,
Misjudging critics, and misplaced applause;"
While most of Churchill's critiques were of performers onstage,
here was a performer offstage under scrutiny.
This battle of persona1 pique and public ridicule, played
out in the contemporary press, soon became the accepted reason
behind the riot in the histories of the period.
later historians decided that
Fitzpatrick had
Reporters and
disrupted the
performances at both theatres as a clumsy tactic in this war of
wits and his claims of the managers1 abrogation of accepted
pricing policy was merely a pretence.
his
feelings might
be
from
the
F
"Mr. Fitz---k, what ever
r
b
b
smothered his
resentment, till it burst forth in the riot which he raised on
account of playhouse charges.lls8
However, a closer examination
forces us to reconsider the causes of the ri~ts.'~
The initial disturbance on January 2Sth, 1763, was preceded
earlier in the day by a handbill vindustriously dispersed in the
taverns, coffee houses, &c.
according to the London;g0
"at al1 the public places and coffee houses in London," according
to a pamphlet account of the ri~ts.~'The handbill, addressed to
the llFrequentersof the Theatres, was a call to arms to protest
the new pricing policy that attempted to deny theatre-goers halfprice tickets.
The handbill went on in some detail to discuss
precedents in ticket pricing and ended with the suggestion:
One Way only is left us, to obtain redress, which is,
to assemble at the Playhouses, and demand, with
Decency and Temper, an Explanation on this Grievance,
which, 1 am certain, cannot be supported; and owes its
Establishment to an Opinion, that every Imposition,
not openly opposed, acquires the Sanction of
prescription.92
The case in the handbill was presented as an economic argument.
There was little invective in it, and none directed against the
managers.
The writer alluded to Garrick in his explanation as to
why the printed explanation was distributed as a handbill rather
than in the newspapers, claiming that that particular channel had
been cut off due to the "Influence of m e of the T h e a t r i a
m.
llg3
It was signed "An Enemy to Imposition.
There were in fact a number of enemies who turned up at the
theatre that night.
Benjamin Victor called them, I1a Sett [sic]
of young Men, who called themselves the
m.
llS4
As
soon as the
play began, they stopped the actors with calls for Garrick to
appear.
When he did and the noise subsided, the actor/manager
was called to account.
"1 call on you in the name of the public
to answer for your RASCALLY impositions" came the challenge, with
the word rascal repeated through the house according to one
source. Because theatre riots occurred indoors, we get to 'hear'
the voices of the rioters in the press accounts, or at least a
written suggestion of what was said.
On this occasion the
theatre next became a sort of parliament with the questioner
continuing,
"
n
Garrick did sol .
'
II
but the scribe reporting the incident confesses the audience
couldnlt hear clearly.
Then the ringleader, whom we might
presume to be Fitzpatrick, continued, "$~eak to the audience.
s r : s ~ e a kto the h o w . l 1 Garrick requested time to speak with
his partner, and was then presented with a written statement that
he was asked to read.
His request for time to read the document
was met with a cal1 to concede at that point, l f U l vou. or will
~t the first winter of a new oantomime?1195 ~arrick again
indicated that he had to speak with his partner and left the
stage.
At this point there was some discussion amongst the audience
members about whether the play should resume, "the majority"
loudly calling for it to begin.
However, the will of the
minority to create havoc got the upper hand, and sometime after
eight olclock the ladies were ushered out and the destruction
began.
"The benches were torn up, the glass lustres were broke
and thrown on the stage.u96 Two of the actors, Mr. Moody and Mr.
Ackman, took it upon themselves to defend the theatre. Finally a
magistrate
appeared
with
the
guard
and
the
dispersed.
Others were given their money back.
rioters
were
There is some
confusion as to what happened next, but it seems Fitzpatrick and
his supporters went to Covent Garden where they had a similar
encounter with the manager, James Beard, who readily acquiesced
to their demands and thus avoided any damage.9 7
The complicated commercial dimension of the theatre widened
the impact of this and other riots.
Benjamin Victor, whose
benefit for the alterations he had done to the Two-G
Ver-
was interrupted by this first night of rioting at Drury
Lane, cast the event in a commercial light.
He found it
incredible that the perpetrators would riot on that particular
night, when he was to have received his customary third night
benefit for having adapted the play.
only
have
happened
because
the
Victor thinks that it could
crowd
thought
Garrick
was
responsible for the alterations, "for it must be supposed, they
were ignorant of the Outrages they were committing on private
Property.I1
The Drury Lane theatre managers certainly weren't
unaware of Victor's financial loss through the riot, and were
later "honourableN enough to pay him f 100 pounds in lieu of the
money
he
would
have
r e ~ e i v e d . ~ ~Victor's mention
of
the
financial implications of a theatre riot for an author, as selfinterested as the assessment might be, confirms Our earlier
observation that theatre riots had a detrimental impact on an
author's income. This is an issue we will discuss further in Our
chapter on party riots.
Given the nature of the opposition at Drury Lane on the
first night of the riot, is not surprising that Garrick requested
time to respond to the demands of Fitzpatrick and his cohorts.
Nor is it surprising that his response was a lengthy explanation
in the newspapers the next day.
Garrick often appeared when
summoned to the stage by the audience, but it was very difficult
to deal with such a group in those circumstances, and besides
Garrick was masterful in his use of the written word.
A
poet,
playwright and prolific letter writer, he was also an effective
manipulator of the daily press."
Even his onstage request for
more time, reported in the -1ic
Advert-
artful in its design and delivery.
the next day, was
Garrick too claimed the
sanction of ancient usage, but was willing to consider the matter
with his partner, and noted that, after consulting, they would
publish their response accordingly.
He closed by asking that the
audience suspend judgrnent, "with their usual c a n d o ~ r . " ~ ~ ~
This they did not do.
The next night at Drury Lane, at the
third music, the last piece of orchestral music before the
beginning of the eveningls performance, the audience insisted on
the playing of "Britons Strike Home" and the "Roast Beef of OldEngland.
These were
two
popular
songs, which
in
these
circumstances, the orchestra was commonly called upon to play as
victory anthems.
prologue
to
When the actor Holland came out to speak the
F m ,
the
eveningts mainpiece,
Garrick
was
immediately called for and came upon the stage with the house in
a furor.
The description of what followed is worth quoting in
full for its close resemblance to parliamentary question-time:
After a confuçed uproar which lasted some time, during
which he remained on the stage in a state of mind that
may be more easily conceived than expressed, a hundred
voices calling out, Hear him, Hear him, while as many
others called out, Hear the Pit; he was asked from the
Pit, Whether .he would answer the question put to him?
He respectfully said, he would. The following question
was then put,
"Will you, or will you not, give
admittance for Half-price, after the third Act, except
during the first winter of a new pantomime?"
In this situation the questioner had the upper hand as the
description continues:
Mr. Garrick wanted to explain the reasons of his
conduct in asking full prices during the first run of
a new play; but could not obtain leave: He was desired
to give an explicit answer; Yes or No. After again
attempting to speak to explain his conduct; he called
out in some agony, not without a mixture of
indignation, we may suppose at the uncandid treatment
he had received, Yes: and the audience expressed their
triumph in the manner they usually express their
appiause .1°1
The London Dailv Post, which was slightly less sympathetic to the
manager than the London, edited the encounter to leave
out Garrick's initial respectful acknowledgement to the audience.
Moreover
the
magazine
showed
their
sympathies
further
in
describing the audience's applause of Garrick's acquiescence as
that "which every person in his situation is sure of, when he
complies with the sense of the public."lo2
A report in the same paper in early March indicates that
Garrick had visited Beard at Covent Garden to see if he was going
to insist on full prices as they had agreed in their posted
bills.
If they were going to remain united, Garrick was prepared
to endure another onslaught of protest.
However Beard said he
had consulted friends who had advised him "to give it up."
With
this knowledge, Garrick was prepared to give up the pricing
innovation as we11.lo3
However, the capitulation was neither simple nor completely
finished for the evening.
The mainpiece, Flvirg finally got
underway, but when the actor Mr. Ackman was observed onstage in a
crowd scene, he was called forward to apologize for his behaviour
on the previous night.
On that particular occasion, when the
rioting had begun, Ackman and another actor, Moody, had rushed to
the boxes to see what was happening and were viewed by the
rioters as spies for the management.
Moody had also witnessed
someone smashing a candle lustre from the wall and the actor had
put out the candle against the wainscotting.
He then waited to
identify the culprit to the magistrate; however this rioter later
managed to elude arrest.
Called forward, Ackman acknowledged the
claims of the house, asked their pardon and was forgiven.
Moody
was then summoned, but the house was told he was not at the
theatre that evening. "Send for him - - we will have him - - send
for him," was the reply, nor was the play allowed to resume until
it was assured he had been sent for.
At the end of the act,
Moody was called for again, and finally appeared onstage
.
. .and after the noise which the sight of him
occasioned was quelled, he said, "!&nLlmen. if my
savina the h a u s e u t niaht from a
byrried. was
on.'# - - and went off - - at
which the whole house roared out to bring him back - and he appeared again, every one cried out, bees.
k n ~ e s !down on vour knees!lo4
This Moody refused, and clapping his hand on his breast left the
stage in contempt.
The audience would not countenance this.
Garrick was again called to the stage and made to "promise that
while Mr. Moody laboured under the displeasure of the audience,
he should not appear on the stage."los
This was a significant
victory, a sector of the audience taking over and not only
revising the management's
pricing plans
but
controlling
the
behaviour of the actors.
Moreover, it was a victory on two fronts for the protestors.
After the destruction at Drury Lane Theatre on the first night,
the crowd went to Covent Garden, where Beard had hoped to
initiate the same pricing innovation.
No doubt knowing what had
happened at Drury Lane theatre, he immediately gave in to the
demands of Fitzpatrick p a l . lo6
However, this capitulation was
not the end of the affair and a month later, Beard tried to
implement the policy of abolishing half-price entry, once again,
announcing on February 23, that Covent Garden would not to accept
half price tickets for Opera of ~rtaxerxeson the following
evening.
The next day, once again a handbill was printed and
distributed "at al1 the public places in London.I1 It is worth
quoting in full for its use of precedent and the language of
legal regulation and authority.
To the frequenters of theatres,
Gentlemen,
In defiance of the regulation which your resolution
and steadiness, lately established at Drury-lane
theater, and in which it was universally understood,
that the managers of the other theatre had fully
acquiesced, there appeared this day advertised, the
opera of ARTAXERXES, with this remarkable notice, viz.
r the full ric ce CAN be taken. It now
therefore behooves you, gentlemen, to enforce your
decision, and convince the directors of Covent-aarden
-,
that a point once determined by the
tribunal of the public, must and shall forever remain
a law, subject to no alteration, but by their own
authority.
1 am gentlemen,
Your Humble servant,
An enemy to imposition107
The public's self-appointed tribunal met at the theatre that
evening. While we have seen earlier that women were often a part
of theatre riots and generally left or were ltusheredout1l only
when
the
situation became
violent
or
destructive, on
this
occasion it was noted in the press that very few women were
present
in
the
first
place,
perhaps
pointing
to
a
more
confrontational attitude on the part of the protestors.108
A
great noise greeted the drawing of the curtain, and from the
beginning of the evening members of the audience demanded that
Beard appear to answer their charges.
A significant amount of
negotiating back and forth took place, with, at one point,
someone in the pit declaring that the management "ought to submit
in this to the t o m , especially as they had a precedent in &
ck.
the
areatest
theatrlcal
submission was made and at 9:30
-.
11109
However,
no
the audience subjected the
theatre to their wrath, committing some f2,000 worth of damage.
In addition, several employees of the theatre were Wery much
hurt . "Il0
The public and W l y Advertiser~ of
the following day
contained a statement from Beard with the management's side of
the dispute, arguing that
the production expenses of
justified the change in ticket pricing.
opera
Furthermore, after
prevsnting his case to the public, he hoped that no one would
think the innovation exorbitant.
...the
managers therefore flatter themselves, that a
solution to oppose the arbitrary and illegal demands
of a particular set of perçons (contrary to the
general sense of the audience) will not be deemed
arrogant or unreasonable, especially when those
demands are enforced by means subversive of private
property, and in violation of the decorum which is due
to al1 public assemblies.ll1
However the delay occasioned by the extensive repairs gave Beard
a chance to temper his stand.
The theatre was dark for four nights. While this inactivity
stopped the theatre itself from being a site of disturbance, the
battleground shifted to the press and the courts.
On Saturday a
reply to Beardls defiance appeared in the Public Leduex.
It
questioned a number of the management's assertions, backing up
their counter-claims with facts and figures detailing a thorough
knowledge of
theatre.
the
financial
intricacies of
running a
large
Its eighth query asked:
Whether the managers do not contend the point in
question from no other motive, but the hope of being
able to establish a precedent, under the sanction of
which they may be able to counter-work the law lately
established by the public at Drury-lane theatre?llZ
Here we see the notion of legality that was so often used in the
justification of theatre riots.
more pragmatic
At the same time there were the
legal questions about
charges from the initial riot.
the
individuals up on
Meanwhile Beard cooled down and
accepted the demands of the protestors not to charge full price,
in a decision he published in a letter to the m l i c Advertisa
on March 1st and in a pamphlet which appeared on March 2nd, the
day of the theatre's reopening.l13
However he was not as quick
to drop the charges against the rioters and this rancorous issue
was still unresolved at the theatre the following evening.
spirited
crowd
gathered
and
once
again
the
orchestra
A
was
commanded to play the popular favourites of "Hearts of Oak,"
"Britons Strike Home," and "Rule Britannia."
A clamour followed
which
precluded
any
performance
and
Beard
was
summoned.
Initially the manager did not guarantee that al1 charges would be
dropped, but finally "for the sake of public tranquilityl'he gave
in to the protesters on every point.Il4
The Half-price riots have often been portrayed as having
been instigated by Thaddeus Fitzpatrick because of his ire over
Garrick's persona1 satires.
A
detailed examination shows that
this is a superficial interpretation of the events, and one
overly
influenced
reputations.
by
contemporary
factional
disputes
and
It was instead very much concerned with management
policy and conducted over a period of time and with a wide range
of protest media and arguments.
In Conclusion
During the eighteenth century there were many disturbances
revolving around issues related to the management of London's
theatres. Issues pertaining to the management of the theatre
provide
the
greatest
degree
of
continuity
disputes £rom the earlier and later periods.
between
theatre
It was a form of
behaviour embedded in the space and the changing nature of
theatre patronage, from an aristocratically-led entertainment to
commercially-driven cultural industry.
It is interesting to note that whereas during the latter
part of the seventeenth century the spatially-motivated riot
primarily involved the elite and their claims over the boundary
between the audience and performer/performance, in the eighteenth
century we see several situations when the lower ranks within the
gallery were involved in these sorts of issues, claiming their
own particular spaces as part of the audience.
space
and
the
exclusive
rights
to
Disputes over
space, were
very
much
characteristic of the age.
In the eighteenth century there were certainly still times
when audience members pushed their way into theatres.
But it was
not in the way that Restoration blades did, as a manifestation of
notions of privilege, but rather in a way that queried market
place rules and precedents.
On those occasions the disturbances
can be seen as a form of disapproval with managerial policy, not
with
people
necessarily
expecting
to
get
away
with
any
infringement, but as a form of protest, an action within a
vocabulary of behaviours.
admission
as
a
way
of
They were refusing to pay their
showing
their
displeasure.
These
incursions continued through the eighteenth century, reaching a
sort of culmination with the Old Price riots of 1809.
On the whole, those who protested over management issues,
such as changes in seating and ticket prices, were extremely
effective in achieving their goals and resolving the issues at
hand.
Very often the outcome went against the managers and for
the aggrieved parties, as in the case of two of the three riots
detailed above.
We can further see that the justifications used
to back the causes of the rioters were based on a "created"
tradition, invoking the mythology of rights and freedoms which
were deeply rooted, but which, in point of fact, as with the
footmen at Drury Lane theatre, had only recently arisen at the
turn of the century as a commercial innovation by a rather
mercenary
entrepreneur,
and
with
later
audiences,
in
the
commercial precedents of the theatrical marketplace.
Sir Vincent Troubridge claims to have distinguished twenty
separate reasons behind theatre riots. He divides them "under
offences - - or alleged offences - - by the management, the artist,
the author, and specifically the audience (as in throwing bottles
from drunkeness and xenophobia, or dislike of foreigners) and the
usual convenient heading of mis cella ne ou^.^ Sir St. Vincent
Troubridge, "Theatre Riots in London," Studies in Enulish Theatre
thoven, London : Society for
Theatre Research, 1952, 84; George Stone pares the list down to
six. I1Half a dozen types of condemnatory groups and tinderbox
situations had wrought havoc in the theatres throughout the
century and had brought any house into uproar - - situations, for
example prompted by quarrels among spectators (as sometirnes
happens in the stands at modern American football games);
quarrels among actors spilling out onstage; quarrels between
political factions; trampled persona1 loyalties and tensions;
management errors; premeditated damnation; and spontaneous
eruption." Stone, "Repertory," 190.
For an insightful interpretation of the Half Price Riots see
John Whitty, "The Half-Price Riots of 1763, Theatre Notebook 24
(1969): 25-32.
Davies, Jdfe of Garrick;, II, 15, "But 1 can tell them [the
public] honestly, they owed these great emoluments to the private
resentments of a splenetic man, not to public spirit or patriotic
principle.I1 Traced to its source the disturbance was Itentriely
founded in persona1 pique and private revenge." An ap~ealto the
Dl
London: printed for Wilson and
Fell, 1763, 3.
4
Of course, choosing the eveningls programme is another
managerial responsibility, but we will focus more closely on that
in Our discussion of taste in Our chapter on riots about content
issues.
F.H.W. Sheppard, (General Ed.), The Theatre Rovai Drurv
The Royal O ~ e r a House Covent Garden, ~ublished by ~thlone
Press for the Greater London Council, 1970, 14.
7
Emmett Avery, in his critical introduction to the London Stage
volumes for 1700-1729 chooses to recognize and explore the
"theater as show business." Avery, Emmett L., "A Critical
, Carbondale:
Introduction,"
Southern Illinois University Press, 1960, xviii.
Throughout his career Garrick was the recipient of numerous
letters in the paper and pamphlets in letter form.
~ol&~cs. and ~ a l i co-on. ,
in late
e_icrhteenth-centurv,Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. There
are a number of characters in plays obsessed with political news.
Arthur Murphyts Quidnunc in The U~blsterer (1758) stands out in
this regard. The most obvious example of one consumed with
. .
theatrical politics is Dangle in m e Critic by R.B. Sheridan.
Hannah Barker, -ers.
a
.
Gentleman'sMasazine,
10/1743, 533. The "affairl'was Charles
Fleetwood's dispute in 1743 with striking Drury Lane actors.
III : i l 476.
C a t a l- o f i , ,
11
Samuel Foote, The B a n k u ~ L ,London: Printed for G. Kearsly . . .
and T. Evans, 1776, III, ii.
1O
Dane Farnsworth Smith, Elays About the Theatre in
Act in 1737. New York,
1936, Dane Farnsworth Smith and M.L. Lawhon. m v s About the
From
clous Stase
Foote to S h e r i m , Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979.
l2
l 3 There were also plays by
actors that allowed them to air
grievences from the inside Woodward, Catherine Clive, pays in
çounçil: or. a picture of a areen-room. A dramgtic Doem, Dublin:
printed for the author, and sold by the booksellers, 1751.
'' James Fullarton Arnott, Enalish Theatrical Idterature. 1559J90QI London: Society for Theatre Research, 1970, 118. see E.R.
Page, Georae Colman, thelder:e9%avist.dramatisU
rical W a e r . 1732-1794, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1935
.
Colman, George, A true state of the differences -s
b t h e r i e t o r s of .c ~, m 2 . n t - G a r d e n - T h e a t r e : s w, e .r to a
us. and n~.&icious
umua.cxi~t.libel. e-ited
on
-v.
Jan. 23, London: printed for T. Becket; R. Baldwin; and
R. Davis, 1768; Gentleman'sMasazine,
3/1768, 125-131; I&,
1268l5
9
9.
l7
Ralph, a e Case of Our Present Theatrical DisDutes, 33
la
British theatre companies received no subsidy, unlike many of
their continental counterparts. Judith Milhous, "Company
Management, The Jlo@on Theatre World 1660- 1804, Ed. Robert D.
Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 12.
l9
Plans for "Oxymel Busbyl in Çcourse, 1, 28/11/1752, in Gray,
in Law, 119.
"The New Occasional Prologue1' (CG, 14/9/1767),
in Edward
. .
Thompson,suoC o m ~ o s i t i ~ 1 11777,
~~
in LE&,
1273.
The seventeenth century demographer, King claims that 45% of
London's half-million under 16. Harold Love, "Who were the
Restoration Audience?, M o o k of Enqlish Stutiigg, Ed. G.K.
Hunter and C.J. Rawson, Modern Humanities Research Association,
1980, 10: 37.
23
ndon Ma-,
10/1738, 508; A reference to Walpole in a n
about the riots at the Little Haymarket. Of course any mention of
Walpole in a theatrical context encompassed the licensing Act and
pointed at the tyrannical and arbitrary power of the Lord
Chamberlain.
22
For dramatic and poetic satire of Walpole's administration see
Jean B. Kern, Dramatic the Aue of Walpole. 1720-1750,
Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1976; Christine Gerrard,
. .
~ o l eand the Patriots: P o l ~ i c s .Poetry. and Mvth. 1725-1742,
Oxford University Press, 1995.
24
25
The nineteenth century theatre historian Pevcy Fitzgerald
remarked that Ilone of the features of every dramatic era is the
craze for management with which young men of fashion or wealth
Staae: From the
have been seized. A New W t o q of the Rnh
h
Bestoration to the L i b e r t v o f T
the Patent Houses, London: Tinsley Brothers, 1882, II, 72.
26
Highmore was a modestly wealthy young man (€800 per annum). He
made a El00 wager at White's that he could play the part of
Lothario and the Drury Lane managers readily let him try. While
he had little talent as an actor, he soon became immersed in
of the E n W h S t a s ,
theatrical management. Fitzgerald,vII, 72-90.
27 0
London: T. & ,
J.
Elvey, 1821, 27.
I And libertv lest: the
2 e Patrick Fitz-Crambo, Zyxamy trimghmt.
. . du&:
and al1 Covent-Garauses run mad: A W l o struck
çonf~ ~ e Or,
d .Hl storical.t.ical
and n e - the famous cartel latelv aareed on bythe-s.
. . , London : G .
Lyon, 1743.
'' ~avies,W
-
"
s of the m . e of Davi' r i barx,i&,
1, 70.
Davies, Memo_irs of the Life of David G a r a , 1, 73.
31 A series of IlCases" were made supporting both sides in the
dispute. We shall explore them further in our chapter on disputes
revolving around personalities and parties.
. .
Alvin Sullivan, (Ed
s.) , #
: Th-.uiL.can
Aue and t h e Aae of J o b o n . 1698-1788, Westport Conn. : Greenwood,
1983, 37-40. Philip Stevick, "Introduction," to James Ralph,
sase of Autbors bv Profession or Trade (1758) Tosether w1t.L(1739-1740), Gainesville, Fla.: Schslaxsl ~acsimiles &
32
Reprints, 1758 (l966), vi.
.
,
James Ralph, 3
critcril,
. .
.
.
pol1tical, DhilosoDhical and theolo-cal essaYs On the reiof the t o m , London: 1728; James Ralph, T h e e
.se==
fairlv states. in which 1s
t of the rise. proaress. and
ive view of the
manasemgntof,
1743 (New York: AMS Press, 1974).
34 Ralph,
caRe of our preswt. theatrical dimutes, 15. See
Ralph, The Touch-St1728.
33
35
Ralph, m e C w e of Our Present T b ~ u i c a lDisputeg, 10.
36
Ralph, The Case of Our Pregent Thegtrjcal Disputes, 8-10.
The Drury Lane account books for the 1749-50 season indicate
that f428 was spent on printing and advertising. Total expenses
Appendix D, ccxxxiv.
were £13,403. u,
37
A play by Thomas Shadwell first produced in 1710, altered by
Captain Thompson with a concluding scene of the "Great Naval
Review ."
'' Hopkins Diary 8, in Dougald Macmillan, D-akuki.~
1747-1776,-Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1938, 174.
4O London, 1/1740, 99-100.
41
Victor, m t o r v of the T b t r e s , 42-3.
William Worthen Appleton, Charles 9
,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960, 41; JlondonM a s a z d ,
2/1740, 3/1740.
42
43
Victor, TheHis-,
42-3.
Fleetwood's own "State of the CaseN admits to his failure to
stay on top of the situation. Lgndon Dailv Post, 29/1/1740.
44
m e S t u , September 24, 1809; F.H.W. Sheppard, (Gen. Ed.),
S u r v e v d o n Vol . 35 : Th= The&=
Reval Dru'?'
J'ane and The
m a l Opera House Covent Garda, Greater London Council, 1970,
93; The playbill for the evening featured the premiere of Thomas
Hslcroft's The Road to Ruin.
45
46
Covent
Garden
playbill,
19/9/1792.
see
Jesse
Foot,
A
London: printed for J. Owen, 1792.
Sheppard, Survev of London, 3. As Sheppard notes, this was the
first broach of the Restoration patent system.
47
48 Cibber, BI) A~olosv f o r A e Tlife, 1, 234.
Cibber notes that
what began as custom "at last ripentd into Right."
49
John Rich of Covent Garden theatre ofiered a 20 guinea reword
for help in the apprehension of the bottle tosser. London Dailv
p a n d a 1 Advertisa, 18/1/1740.
50
John Lough, J!ax-&re
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
s
a
m
Centuries, 77-8.
Richard Steele, TheTheatre,
No. 2, 5/1/1720, 5.
52
There was even a three act operetta which played for five
nights at Goodman's Fields, March 7, 1732.
ls
Fiel a , Dedicated to the Society of Footmen in Great
Britain. "Trim-Tram, like Master like Man." London: Henry Lintot,
1732. [Price 1/61
Servants often helped in the marital machinations that formed
the central problem of so many eighteenth century comedies and
farces. Garrick, The Tyina Valet, 1741.
53
David Garrick, S u h Tdfe Relow St;l;jys, 1759, Isaac Bickerstaff,
el
Clarisua, 1768; Isaac Jackman, 811 the Worldls A
1776. Furthermore, servants, like the rest of the
population, were also avid play readers. Jan Fergus, "Provincial
Servantst Reading in the late Eighteenth Century," In QE
ml
ed. Helen
Small and Naomi Tadmor James Raven, 202-25. Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
54
w,
56
on-D d v Post & G e a e a Advertisex, 11/2/1735.
J
O
&
,
22/2/1737. Garrick later satirized this
inclination in m e H i w l i f e Relow Stairs (1759) where two
servants, The Duke and Sir Harry, assume the airs and address
each other with the titles of their respective masters. Before
meeting in the Street, The Duke muses to himself:
What Wretches are ordinary Servants that go on in the same vulgar
Track evtry Day! Eating, working, and sleeping!---But we, who
have the Honour to serve the Nobility, are of another Species. We
are above the common Forms, have Servants to wait upon us, and
are as lazy and luxurious as Our Masters.---Ha!---Mydear Sir
Harry! - - Fitzgerald in the nineteenth century chooses to ignore the
an indispensable aid to theatre
event; TheLondon
research, points to the material that would explain, but instead
helps reinforce the common interpretation.
59
Letter to the Wv Advertisa, 10/3/1736/37. This was most
complete account. There is also a letter account of the event to
the Occasional Prompter, along with comment, in the
-,
22/2/1737.
61
e Dailv A d v e r t i s a , 10/3/1736-37.
60
According to Davies, DeVeil was a J.P. "employed by Fleetwood
to check the insolence of the footmen, who claimed a gallery at
the playhouse for their own use. Lifp of Garrick, 1, 33-4. see
llDeviliad,w
a poem by Taswell, judged by Davies to be I1neither
deficient in fancy nor humour.11
62
IV Adver-,
10/3/1736-37; London, Mar&
1737,
163.
The focus of the V
1
s account of both
incidents was the reading of the riot act.
64
E.P. Thompson, "The Crime of Anonymity," 0ion!q Fatal Tree.
e and Society in Eighteenth-Centurv lU&md,
Ed. D. HaY,
Peter Linebaugh and E.P. Thompson, London: 1975, 304. The
delivering of a threatening letter was a capital offense and an
extremely serious crime. Under the Black Act the writing of an
unsigned letter "demanding money, venison, or other valuable
thingl1 (283) was considered a felony. While doubtful this letter
would meet those conditions, even those loopholes were closed by
1757.
67
Gazetteex, 12/3/1737.
Theophilus Cibber, A serio-comic a~oloavfor Dart of the life
f. in w h i a
1 s contair)~d. a p r u a u e . gn e ~ i l o q u ~and
. a D Q S I U I U
Juliet b e h a s t revived in 1744, Dublin:
printed by A . Long, 1748.
71
~
l3
Victor, -tory
of the T h e a m , 1, 46.
and the ~ i t
r h u theatre,
printeà for M. Cooper, 1744, in
London :
1131.
77
"An Address to the Public," 20/11/1744 in the General
Adver-,
in Genest IV, 138-40.
'' Impartial Hand, Sta- goJ,.icv detected: or SOUE select pieces of
.
ln a 1 e t y t0 a terLheatriçal secret historv laid ,oP=n:
on his u u a g u a p >-cation
of hls late conduct,
London: printed for J. Robinson, 1744. Figures from Drury Lane
theatre some 20 years later indicate that the boxes and pit
accounted for 75% of the total potential box office revenues:
600 4/- 120.0.0
Boxes
500 2/6 62.10.6
Pit
1st Gallery
700 1/6 52.10.0
2"d Gallery
loo* 1/- 5.0.0
240.0.0
Total receipts
66.0.0
Expenses
*not including "free servantsn
cal -,
18, 16/4/1768.
79
on E v u a Post, 3-5/3/1763; see Cibber, ~ p ~ 1.y ,
'O
Percy Fitzgerald, claimed the evening was so arranged that each
part "might suit a different class of spectator. Fitzgerald,
nistorv of the Th-,
II, 186. However, as we will see in Our
chapter on content, while this made sense in the abstract, in
reality the situation was more complicated.
Reedls diaries starting from age twenty outline a busy theatre
going career from the outset. Manuscript diaries at
The
Folger
.
.
Shakespeare Library, also published as D a a c Reed Ruries. 17621804, Claude E. Jones, (ed.), University of California Press,
1946.
82
Davies, Life of Garrick, II, 15.
Hugh Kelly, is an another example, whose poems -,
176667, two popular, but damning accounts of the actors at both
patent theatres, incurred the wrath of theatre community.
a3
84
Thaddeus Fitzpatrick, An engyirv into the real merit of a
ar ~erformer. In a series of letters. flrst
- - - - - rhe ~
E4q; London: printed for M. Thrush, 1760.
Davies,
of GarII, 18.
David Garrick, The Fr&leria?,
1761.
86
London: Printed for J. Coote,
Charles Churchill, "The Rosciad, 153-60 in Laver, James, ed.,
s,-C
New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970
(1933). First published in March 1761, the poem and a following
"apologyn made Churchill's reputation as well as somewhere
between f750 and £1000. Churchill nearly fought a duel with the
actor Yates over the latter's treatment in the poem, xxi.
87
" Davies,
90
Life of Garrick II, 26.
Whitty, "The Half-Price Riots of 1763, 25-32.
Mw,1/1763, 7;
9f the l
a
t
e
e Theatres of .Drurv-J'ane
and
.
the
~ntersgersed with
-~ r m a l
t have been ~ubllshed on each Side of the
London: printed for W. Morgan, 1763, 5.
An Enemy To Imposition, T o t e r s , 1763.
Freauenters
of the Theatrw; One paper published this
claim, noting however, that they had not been approached to
insert an item by the protestors, nor to stifle by the
proprietors, n e London E v w u Post, 23-25/1/1763.
92
94
Victor, Kistorv of the -,
III, 45.
96
e JIMa-,
1/1763, 7. This account is interesting in
its lack of coverage of the encounter between Fitzpatrick and
Garrick, suggesting that the uproar began immediately.
Victor,
torv of the Theatreg, III,
99
In the prologue to "Fitzgig's triumph; or, The Power of Riot :
An Ode," Kearsley, 492 Garrick writes: "1 am a theatrical
politician, and can talk as learnedly in my field of politics as
you, or any of you correspondents, can do in your's. 1 can
remember the day when a Gray's-Inn Journalist, or a Herald, has
mauled a manager weekly, as ably as the Monitor or the North
Briton has lately attacked the Minister." Garrick was often
accused of manipulating the press. See David Williams, A letter
ser
actor at n r u r v - T a , London: printed for S. Bladon, 1772.
One account is interesting for its abbreviation of the events,
if not its appropriate typo "a hundred voices calling out, Hear
him, Hear him, while as many others called out, Hear the Pit; he
was asked from the Pit, 'Will you, or will you not, give
admittance for Half-price, g t e r d-t
Act, except during the
Evenba Post, 23first winter of a new Pantomine [sic]?"'X&il&n
5/1/1763.
'O2
rlcal & Succinct Accoyni, 18.
There
historians
Garden the
that there
is some contemporary dispute and carried on by
about whether there was this encounter at Covent
first night, but Whitty and my own research indicate
was.
Printed in Utor&al
and Sbicsiinct ~ o i i n t ,20-21.
ct ACCOU,
22; The Jlo&n
Ma-,
February 1763. As is often the case, the same accounts of events
were often repeated with little change in different publications.
A Historical & succinct Account was in essence a pastiche of
published accounts: from the daily press, of the distributed
handbills. The account of the Covent Garden episode is very
similar to the London for February, however the magazine
cites damages at "some hundred pounds, 57.
John Beard, ~
h
e
£
n thpa late DistWbDce at
re. Fairlv StatedS U t t e d to the Se. .
gf the Public in General, London: 1763.
Chapter 4
--
Riots Involving Personalities and Their Parties
Poet: Seconds, Sir! what are they? 1 never heard of
them before.
Player: Why 'tis a new Way to make a Play run, tho1
'tis never so lame; a sort of arbitrary Government
lately introduced into the Theatre with pretty good
Success... . 'Tis but getting a little Army of Friends
into the Pit, with good oaken Towels [sic], and long
Swords, to rnake them look terrible, and let them clap
you lustily, and no-body will dare hiss, for fear of
being knocked d o m .
m u r s of the CourL, 1732.
So far in Our thematic exploration of theatre riots, we
have examined issues of theatre management and mismanagement both
as topics of general concern as well as factors that could
instigate a theatre riot.
This chapter will examine issues
related to parties and personalities within eighteenth century
London theatre, noting as well how party issues could be starting
points in theatrical riots.
Animosity between individuals,
backed by their supporters, was one of the most common causes for
an eighteenth-century theatre riot.
More than one third of the
35 theatre riots we have identified in London from 1730 to 1780
were the result of factional disputes.
While it might be said
that al1 theatre riots involved opposing sides, in this chapter
the focus will be on disputes that primarily arose because of
conflicting group interests, which coalesced around an individual
whose cause the group then took up as its own.
In the majority of cases, theatrical personalities such as
Charles Macklin or Henry Woodward were at the centre of theatre
riots involving factions.
As noted earlier, there was a great
deal of public attention paid to theatre managers.
This was also
the case with stage performers, with their private lives the
subject
of
speculation
and
their
onstage
talents
widely
disc~ssed.~Actors were often compared to one another and the
rivalries that ensued sometimes led to riot. Woodward and Samuel
Foote, two popular
actors, each noted
for mimicking
other
performers, were involved in an ongoing rivalry that eventually
led
to
riot.
disturbances
There
involving
were
also
playwrights
a
significant
and
critics
number
of
from
the
disputatious world of British letters as with the reception that
greeted the plays of William Popple in the 1730s.'
Disputes
between writers and their supporters, underscore how deeply
integrated the theatre was in various sectors of the community at
large, especially the realm of print.
Moreover, disputes which arose entirely inside the theatre
often engaged the greater population, either as participants or
as onlookers, first within the theatre as witnesses to the event,
and then through the press, where the public continued to observe
and participate. Having been acquainted with the issues at stake
i n the dispute, largsly through the âgency ûf the press and
public discussion, members of the general populace would often
take sides in the matter, presenting their opinions through
letters to the editor in the periodical press, or in the form of
printed pamphlets contributing to the case on either side.
Theatre riots which centred around parties were significant
in two ways that represent degrees of both continuity with, and
change from, earlier post-Restoration theatre disturbances along
the lines earlier outlined in Our contextual chapter.
In one way
party riots were manifestations of the theatre as a place of
public quarrel and in another way they were vivid examples of
groups exerting their identity and influence in the theatre as a
contested public place.
theatre was
common
However, while fighting in public in the
to both
periods, during
the
eighteenth
century, the quarrels became public matters, with varying degrees
of
public
involvement, rather
than
just
private
affairs.
Furthermore, while the dispute may have originated £rom persona1
animosity between two individuals, it soon took on a group
dimension: sides coalesced around the individual and in a way the
dispute became the group's property.
Certainly this was the case
with the writer Hugh Kelly, whose play fi Word to the Wise (1770)
was
targeted by
Wilkes.
supporters of
the populist politician John
Kelly soon found that those who had taken up his defense
were not willing to follow his wish to capitulate.
As was the case with Kelly, party theatre riots were often
continuations of disputes that either started in print or were
related to an individual's literary achievements beyond
stage.
the
During t h e siyhteenth century we increaçingly find that
disputes in the theatre were fought with pens as much as swords.
However
there
remained
serious
consequences,
such
as
the
assassination of an individual's reputation, or even more deadly,
the skewering of their economic livelihood.
The chapter will begin with an examination of the impact
and display of personalities and party in a theatrical context,
including
the
different
groups
of
individuals
that
were
associated with the theatre and then how disputes between groups
developed into riots.
Initially there will be a discussion of
what is meant by the term 'party* in the context of this study.
The term can be confusing.
Next will follow an examination of
some of the constituent elements of a party riot.
Factional
disputes within the theatre were not unconnected with the general
populacets interest in public personae, a fascination with the
lives of notable individuals that was fuelled by the burgeoning
forms of public media that developed through the century.
We
will look at various aspects of the relationship between the
public figure and their public, focusing particularly on the
theatre.
After tying these elernents of party together, we will
then look at the sorts of groups that might assemble in the
theatre, as well as some of the factors that attended their
becoming the focus of disturbances.
Finally we will detail the
factional side of Charles Macklints theatrical career.
To begin it is essential to be clear what is meant by the
term 'partyl in the context of theatre riots.
We have chosen
'partyf to dsscribe the groups that chsracteristically assembled
around an individual and showed their support of that person in
exuberant fashion.
contemporary
The word is interchangeable with many other
terms
such
as
'faction,
*cabalt, * club ,
*association*,or even 'cartelt,although this latter expression
was more
often used
to describe what was perceived
collusion between managers rather than spectators.
As
to be
there are
political connotations with the term party, especially in the
modern sense of the word, as well as contemporary negative
connotations, caution needs to be observed. However, we find the
word
is used often enough in the eighteenth century to be
suitable for the purposes of the following discussion.
As
for
its contemporary usage, Samuel Johnson defines
Ilpartyu as 'la number of persons confederated by similarity of
designs or opinions in opposition to others . 1 1 3
This definition
provides some key parameters to the idea of party as will be used
in this chapter, not the least of which is the eighteenth century
understanding of what was meant by the term.
notion of opposition.
A
key idea was the
The existence of a party immediately
suggests the idea of conflicting opinion and opposing interests.
Of course, parties were not forma1 organizations in the modern
sense of the word, although within contemporary politics the term
could be applied to Whigs or Tories.
Another important aspect of Johnson's definition is the
confederation of similar designs and opinions that he describes
as being an element of a party.
Within the theatre, parties were
made up of theatre-goers with a comparable set of convictions,
whether about their politics or of their opinions about a certain
performer.
Because theatre going called upon audience members to
express their opinions, a party disturbance often involved an
element of criticism coupled with action.
The existence of party disputes in the theatre was greatly
heightened by
notable
the
eighteenth
individuals.
During
century public's
this
period,
attention to
Britons
becarne
increasingly fascinated with public personalities as shown by the
growth in popularity of biography and
consumption of
prints and
paintings.
the
increased public
Many
of
these were
political individuals such as Robert Walpole, William Pitt, Lord
Bute, and John Wilkes; but literary figures such as John Milton,
Alexander Pope, Colley Cibber, and Samuel Johnson were also the
focus of great public interest.
The foremost British man of
letters was William Shakespeare, a literary giant whose modern
image
was
largely
constructed
in
the
eighteenth
century.4
However, there were numerous others, whose fame was perhaps more
fleeting, but who nevertheless managed to catch the fancy of the
public at a certain point of time and the theatre was a place for
their public veneration.
One example of the theatre facilitating the public's
fascination with individuals was the attention paid to John
Milton, called "our W
century.'
h Homer," by one commentator near mid-
The efflorescence of interest centred on a performance
of Milton1s masque Cornus, a benef it performance for the author's
granddaughter, his
only
surviving relative.
A
number
of
different newspaper items promoted the event, one describing it
as an opportunity for " a Participation of Fame, with a celebrated
Poetu whereby discerning lovers of poetry
could show their
respect to a genius of British literature and their own their
good taste at the same time.
Who could refuse, asked one letter
writer, to lay out a "trifleI1 for an entertainment in gratitude
to Milton and in benefit of the writers only living relative,
l'for the Exercise of their own Virtue, the Increase of their
Reputation, and the pleasing Consciousness of doing g o o d ? ~ ~By
adopting the cause of one of the nation's venerables, a theatregoer could thus display their own good taste and do their
virtuous public duty.
This same sort of almost religious-like veneration was also
expressed for living theatrical personalities.
Dr. Campbell's
self-confessed pilgrimage to Covent Garden playhouse in the mid1770s has already been noted.
The visiting
Irishman also
demonstrated the same enthusiasm to witness a performance of the
great Garrick. On one occasion he refused a dinner invitation in
order not to miss the opportunity to personally revere the
eighteenth-century
Roscius.7
Georg
Christoph
Lichtenberg,
visiting from Germany in 1775, showed the same passionate desire
to personally witness the glow of Garrick's greatness.
In the
middle of October, after meeting Garrick in person, Lichtenberg
was able to write, "So now 1 have not only seen this remarkable
man in al1 his greatest parts, but also conversed with him.!l8
While other actors did not enjoy quite the same degree of
stature, they were never the less the subjects of much public
attention.'
This interest in individuals and personalities on the part
of the general public was complemented by the print industry, as
visual images of noted individuals were one of its most active
sectors. While painted portraits by the likes of Joshua Reynolds
and Thomas Gainsborough were commissioned by the elite for the
walls of their homes, the middling classes could purchase a print
of
some
notable
for
their
more
humble
residences.
The
availability of likenesses meant that the exploits one read about
in the printed press were complemented by a visual representation
of the personality referred to.
Dr. Campbell remarked that he
was able to readily recognize King George III in his chair after
being passed in the Street: "1 shd. have known him from his
picture if 1 had seen him in siberia."l0 Printed likenesses and
paintings of theatrical personalities and favourite scenes were
extremely popular .l1
These images were also printed on playing
cards and painted ont0 porcelain.
Amongst porcelain statuary,
actors
of
and
actresses
were
recognizable personalities.l2
part
the
select
group
of
There were even small circular
prints made especially for the inside lid of a pocket watch,
featuring players and scenes, so that an individual could check
the time and gaze at their favourite performer at the same tirne.''
While there was a trend for the public to raise noteworthy
individuals upon pedestals, if not their watch fobs, there were
also individuals who made the claim to public attention on their
own through self-promotion.14
An individual had to be in the
public eye in order to capture the public imagination. Of course
one
way
to
have
one's publication
draw
increased
notice
intentionally, or unintentionally, wae to become involved in a
public quarrel.
Writing had an advantage in that protagonists
could carry on their fights from their own fireside if necessary,
although they often still chose to make their cases face to face,
or rather face to faces, in the public coffeehouses and in the
theatres.
However, fame was fleeting and any hold on the public's
imagination was tenuous.
Fielding gives us an idea of the sort
of ups and d o m s a writer might expect in a scene from Eurvdire
You see here the Author of a mighty Farce at the very Top
and Pinacle of Poetical or rather Farcical Greatness,
followld, flatterld and adorld by a Croud of Dependants: On
a sudden Fortune changing the Scene, and his Farce being
damn'd, you see him become the Scorn of his Admirers, and
deserted and abandoned by al1 those who courted his Favour,
and appeared the foremost to uphold and protect him.15
On one level Fielding is making reference to Walpole, but on
another he is referring to himself and the reception his play
-dice
received at Drury Lane theatre.
We might briefly here consider one of the chief weapons in
a dispute, the use of satire.
In an age that was increasingly
concerned with reputation and appearances, satire on stage or in
print was an extremely effective way of attacking someone, in the
world of letters as well as on the stage.
Of course satire was
not new and had roots as far back as the classical times.
In
fact those roots were used sometimes to boost the prestige of the
satiric attacker.
It is not without reason that Foote referred
to himself as the modern Aristophanes, giving classical precedent
to his very contemporary attacks.
Foote alludes to the power of
satire in print in a speech by Puff, in The P a t r a (1764):
... why
who the devil will give money to be told, that Mr.
Such-a-one is a wiser or better man than himself? no, no;
'tis quite and clean out of nature. A good sousing satire
now, well powdertd with persona1 pepper, and seasonld with
the spirit of Party; that demolishes a conspicuous
character, and sinks him below Our own level; there, there,
we are pleasld; there we chuckle, and grin, and toss the
half-crowns on the counter.16
The use of satire reflects some basic issues related to
acting and actors that have a bearing on the tensions inherent in
the theatre.
Actors were extremely popular public figures, the
focus of considerable public attention and acclaim
in some
circles, and yet at the same time, they were often castigated in
the press and considered by many to be morally suspect.
The
resulting mix of popularity and suspicion created a strange
At the same time as there was this vulnerability
ambivalence.
inherent in the profession, there was also the possibility of
increasing one's social standing.
status.
Celebrity raised actors in
This increase in status is often cited in the career of
Garrick, but
the
extends
phenomenon
to
the
profession
in
general .l7
At the same time as it accommodated eighteenth century
societyls interest in individual celebrity, the theatre also
stimulated aspects of eighteenth century group identity. We have
already noted how the tripartite auditorium provided a physical
map for social definition.
Sections of the house were identified
with certain groups of individuals.
this most participatory of
While people took part in
eighteenth century art
forms as
individuals, they were also very much influenced by the group of
which they were a part.
changeable.
MoreoVer group identity pressures were
We have al1 felt the pressure of judging a painting
in a gallery while standing alongside someone else.
situation was
in effect with
A similar
the theatre, for as we
have
outlined, while the lighting was variable, the audience was in
view of itself.
We are not to suggest that the eighteenth
century audience was intimidated, far from it, but rather that an
individual's response in the theatre was a public act and was
subjected in some degree to group pressure.
A
faction in the theatre could sometimes be steered by an
initiative from within the group as much as by directives from a
putative leader. The tumultuous reception of Hugh Kelly's A Word
to the Wise (1770) is a striking example of how a group could
take up the cause of an actor or writer, and then later take the
issues out of the individual's hands.
Kelly is an intriguing
figure and his career provides examples of many of the themes we
have been discussing.
In 1760 Kelly abandoned his apprenticeship
as a staymaker in Dublin and moved to London to find work.
Self-
educated and only in his early twenties, Kelly soon became a sort
of coffeehouse commentator who managed to make a living penning
poetry, essays, criticisms, assessments of the theatre scene, and
theatre gossip.
According to Thomas Cooke, an early biographer,
Kelly embraced al1 aspects of being a writer:
He was vain of the character of an -or
bv ~rofessio~,
or, to use his own words, "of sitting in the chair of
criticism." He was likewise fond of dress, and though his
person, which was low and corpulent, did not aid this
propensity, his vanity prevailed, and he was constantly
distinguished in al1 public places by a flaming broad
silver-laced waistcoat, bag-wig, sword, &c.le
It did not take long for Kelly to achieve considerable financial
success in Londonfs writing community, as well as notoriety.
In
1766 and 1767 Kelly published a poem D e s ~ b ,in two parts,
commenting on the acting companies at the cityfs two patent
hou se^.^^ The poems, written in the vein of Churchilltsw,
generated a degree of controversy, with three pamphlets taking
sides on the merits of Kelly's c r i t i c i ~ m . ~ ~Soon after the
publication of the two poems, Kelly's first play, m s e n e k a c v
(1768) achieved a significant success onstage and in print .
The
author made £700 during its 21 performances in London and the
play enjoyed international success. The published version sold
l3,OOO copies in the first year.21 Still in his twenties, Kelly
had gone £rom being a young manual artisan in Ireland to a career
as a successful London writer, in some eight years.
As was common at the time with those moving in the world of
letters, Kelly studied law and was eventually admitted to the
bar.
He also began to write in support of the Lord North's
administration and was therefore viewed by supporters of John
Wilkes as a court hack, employed by the government to defend its
unpopular p ~ l i c i e s . ~
When
~ Kelly's second play A Word to the Wise
(1770) came out, a group of Wilkes' supporters set out to d a m
the play on its opening night at Drury Lane.
The play's
reception was further complicated by some injudicious criticism
Kelly had made in
ThesDis
of London's top actors including Mrs.
Clive, Mrs. Dancer and Mr. Moody, al1 of Drury Lane theatre and
Henry Woodward at Covent Garden, ail with supporters ready to
give the play a difficult
However, Kelly also had
supporters ready to take up his side in the affair and thus the
battle lines were drawn.
From the opening curtain the play was met with loud hissing
from Kelly's detractors and plaudits from his supporters.
The
ensuing noise threw off the actors and speeches were forgotten,
or left out for the sake of brevity.
Finally the play was
finished and given out for the following night.
A new contest
arose as to whether or not the play should be performed again the
following Monday.
Kelly was quite prepared to withdraw his play
and cancel the next performance.
The Drury Lane managers were
ready to announce Ç y m b e u instead; however a group of Kelly's
supporters, reported to be 200 in number, insisted that A Word ts
the Wise be performed once again.24 At that point the affair was
very much out of Kelly's hands.
Upon Garrick's advice on the
intervening Sunday Kelly
approached his friends and asked once more that they allow him to
withdraw his play.
However, the playwright was informed that
Ilthe cause was not his cause now, but the public~s,"or at least
the part of the public which chose to coalesce around supporting
the play.
Aiming for high moral ground the informant went on to
Say that Ilif party disputes [in the political sense] were once
introduced in the theatre, Our most rational amusements would
quickly be at an end;.. . al1 they contended for was a fair
hearing for the piece
--
and that they insisted it should have."25
Consequently on Monday night the play was presented once again.
However, it was soon stopped by protests and for three hours the
dispute went un with calls on the one hand for Ç q m b e l a and on
the other calls for Kelly's play.
Kelly finally suggested a
compromise and his earlier play Falçe Delicacy was announced for
the next night .26
The next evening the confusion ensued once more.
Those who
opposed Kelly had printed and distributed a handbill at the door
of the theatre in support of their cause.
Because Kelly had
offered to withdraw his play, the handbill attacked Kelly's
supporters who insisted upon the play's performance.
tried to make the case that -se
property, but
rather belonged
Garrick
Delicacv was no longer Kelly's
to
the
theatre. However
the
manager's reasoning had little effect and the third and final
performance was met with noise and the actors pelted with fruit.2 7
The point here is that although Kelly's play contained no
political content, the presentation of
the piece became
an
opportunity for a political faction to confront one of their
purported enemies.
The determination of Kelly's
supporters,
despite the author1s own desire to capitulate only increased the
conflict.
It was also a chance for supporters of some of
London's most noteworthy actors to get revenge for the public
ridicule of their favourites.
The groups that could be found at the centre of a theatre
riot varied greatly.
There were the first nighters that choose
the opening of a new play to counter what was presented onstage
no matter what, almost as a matter of sport.
This custom meant
that confrontations were quite common on opening nights.
While
of course events did not always explode into conflict, there was
always a potential for such behaviour, and this possibility leant
an air of added tension to the other concerns of exposing a new
play to an audience for the first time.
George Colman, playwright and manager of Covent Garden from
1767, gives us an idea of a party of first nighters in his
prologue to The (1774).
The individual giving
the prologue is playing an author whose play has been refused by
the theatre managers and has brought his supporters to damn the
opening performance of the play that has superceded his work.
His description gives a sense of the sort of opposition that
could be assembled:
Itvelinld the house in front, above, below;
Friends, like dried figs, stuck close in every row!
Some wits in ambush, in the gallery sit;
Some form a critick phalanx in the pit;
Some scattertd forces their shrill catcalls play,
And strike the Tiny Scribler with dismay.
On then my hearts! charge! fire! your triumphts certain
Oterhis weak battery from behind the ~urtain!~'
In Humours of the Court (1732) the author's friends were
compared to a duelistls second. ItAny thing will go d o m that is
du11 and out of the way, provided you have good Seconds; but if
you have not good Seconds, nothing will go d o m be it ever so
good.It
When the Poet asked what they were, the Actor replied
that it was
a sort of arbitrary Government lately introduced into the
Theatre with pretty good Success.... 'Tis but getting a
little Army of Friends into the Pit, with good oaken Towels
[sic], and long Swords, to make them look terrible, and let
them clap you lustily, and no-body will dare hiss, for fear
of being knocked
James Boswell was a confirmed first nighter."
He provides
several accounts of these adventures and they are worth looking
at in some detail for their exposition of several themes present
with party riots and theatre riots in general.
On the third of
February 1763, he made his way to first night of m e Discovery by
Frances Sheridan.3'
with a grudge.
On this night, Boswell was a first nighter
His prologue for the play had been refused, and
when he heard the chosen one it gave him some pain.
However,
Boswell, got over the sting and he, along with his neighbours,
soon took up their duties as critics.
"We had several judicious
and lively people round us, and kept up a clever enough chat.
1
wrought myself up to the imagination that it was the age of Sir
Richard Steel [sic], and that 1 was like him sitting in judgment
on a new comedy."
The judgment was unanimous on the part of
Boswell and his friends that the play was bad and "Dempster
proposed its damnation.I1 But Boswell was not feeling well enough
to protest, and despite Dr. Goldsmith sitting behind and saying
I1manysmart acrimonious thingsIt the play went on.32
Only two weeks earlier Boswell had set out for the first
night of David Mallet's F a a , even more determined to d a m the
piece, but was just as unsuccessful.33
To mark the occasion,
Boswell and his friends had walked from one end of London to the
other, and dined on beefsteaks. After refreshment at the Bedford
Coffee-house, the trio arrived at the theatre as the doors opened
four o'clock.
We sallied into the house, planted ourselves in the middle
of the pit, and with oaken cudgels in Our hands and
shrill-sounding catcalls in Our pockets, sat ready
prepared, with a generous resentment in Our breasts
against dullness and impudence, to be the swift ministers
of vengeance. About five the house began to be pretty
well filled. As is usual on first nights, some of us
called to the music to play - S .
l
But they did not
comply with Our request and we were not numerous enough to
turn that request into a command, which in a London
theatre is quite a different sort of public speech. This
was but a bad omen for Our Party.
Indeed, the house had I1been very well painted" with Mallet's
friends
and
although
Boswell
and
his
friends
hissed
encouraged others to join them, their efforts were
and
futile.
However, Boswell was able to carry on his protest in another
fashion.
'After
supper
[the threesome]
threw out
so many
excellent sallies of humour and wit and satire on Malloch and his
play that we determined to have a joint sixpenny cut, and fixed
next day for throwing Our sallies into 0rder.11~~
The verses never
made it to press, but the episode never the less provides a an
example of typical first night behaviour.
Boswell and his
friends used the occasion of a play's first night to go after an
individual the group despised.
There is then the recourse to
satire and ridicule when their attempt to damn the play failed.
The institution of first nighters, out to give a new play a
censorious reception, prompted another group of theatre-goers "the Author's friends." These were supporters of the playwright,
ready to champion the play with a warm response.
Of course they
were often there to counter the first nighters out to damn the
new play no matter what.
However, in the account at the
beginning of this chapter we can see that these vsecondsn for the
playwright, could also be quite exuberant in their s~pport.~'Dr.
Johnson was
an
authorts friend on
at
least one
occasion,
supporting his patron Robert Dodsleytsplay Cleone (1758).36
Edward Gibbon gives us an account from the perspective of
an authorts friend that provides some insight into how opening
night supporters organized themselves.
The play was David
Mallet's
Elvira, and Gibbon attended on the same night as
Boswell.
Mallet had tutored Gibbon, helped him to publish, and
had provided him with letters of introduction to friends in
France.
The young Gibbon had often dined with the author and
attended a private rehearsal of the play."
On the night of the
performance, Gibbon, like Boswell, had met
with his fellow
supporters before the performance at a tavern near the theatre,
the
Rose, where
they dined with
Mallet
and
"about thirty
friends.ll They then made their way to the pit, "where we took
Our places in a body, ready to silence al1 opposition. However,
we had no occasion to exert ourselves.
Notwithstanding the
malice of a party, Mallet's nation, connections, and indeed
imprudence, we
heard nothing but
a p p l a ~ s e . " ~ ~Despite the
presence of Boswell and others, Mallet's Scots background, and
his connections with the Earl of Bute (the play was dedicated to
the Earl) the play had succeeded.
Gibbon thought the play
deserved the applause, and indeed, it ran for thirteen nights,
including two performances during the Half-Price r i o t ~ . ~ ~
A
group of regularly sponsored first nighters were hired
fighters, sometimes professional boxers, most often local service
workers, or tradesmen.
In a sworn deposition during the 1749
riots against a French Company at the Little Haymarket, William
Davison identified that amongst Lord Trenthamls supporters, there
was a local waiter and others armed with cudgels and disguised as
chairmen.
Generally
these
individuals
had
little
direct
involvement with their targets, or the theatre for that matter,
but
came only as proxies for their sponsor to make noise,
intimidate the opposing party, and
fighting .
even engage
in physical
The
case
of
Leigh
the
tailor, who
was
convicted
of
conspiracy in the Macklin riots of 1773, gives an idea of how the
recruitment process might have worked.
Leigh went amongst his
fellow tailors 'telling them that a certain old villain of the
name of Macklin, of whom they knew nothing, and of whom he knew
as little, had given somebody, whom he did not know, some
affront, and, for the purpose of revenging that somebody, they
were
desired
to go
to
this playhouse."
Leigh
then
sent
lieutenants to the Dog and Phoenix alehouses to recruit others,
forty to fifty in each case. These individuals were then alerted
as to the signals to be used and what was expected of them.
For
their efforts they received free introductory refreshments, a
shilling apiece for their appearances, and a supper afterwards at
the Bedford Arms .41
Not unexpectedly, theatrical riots between parties were
most
often
performers.
associated
A
with
theatre
people,
disagreement
gradually
notably
rather straight-forward and vivid example unfolded
at a performance of Bononcini's opera, A & y a x u
a
most
between
escalated
supporters
into
a
for
violent
two
in June 1727 when
rival
sopranos
confrontation.
"The
Contention at first was only carried on by Hissing on one Side,
and Clapping on the other; but proceeded at length to Catcalls,
and other great Indecencies. "42 Finally, the singers themselves,
Francesca Cuzzoni
and
Faustina Bordoni
became
involved and
eventually physically fought with each other onstage.
This
battle of the sopranos shows how an arbitrary factor such as
persona1 taste could become a battle
line, with
each view
receiving group support, and eventually focusing on a conflict
between two individuals.
In the theatre we see this pattern
emerge again and again.
One theatre personality who along with his supporters,
figured in at least two major confrontations in the theatre, was
the actor Henry Woodward.
A popular and relatively versatile
actor, Woodward's portrayal of Harlequin in the Drury Lane
pantomimes rivaled that of the rolels progenitor, John Rich at
Covent Garden.
Woodward's success with the part allowed Garrick
to not only compete in the popular and commercially successful
realm
of
pantomime,
but
also
to
innovate,
including
the
~~
was a
introduction of the first talking ~ a r l e ~ u i n .Woodward
strong comic actor as well, and a noted Mercutio in Shakespeare's
JulU.
Woodward .was also a spirited and talented mimic of other
actors and
did
not
shy away
from publicly
ridiculing his
contemporaries. The actor had several confrontations with Samuel
Foote; confrontations that in turn rallied together supporters
for both actors, and were contested in print as well as in the
playhouse.
With Foote, Woodward was taking on a satiric master,
although Woodward
himself
was
not
lacking
in
this
regard.
Moreover Woodward was not one to back away from a conflict after
having thrown down the gauntlet.
The feud between Woodward and Foote developed over several
years.
It began with Foote mimicking Woodward in Piversions of
theMornins,
which was a vehicle for Footets caricatures of other
actors.
In March of 1749, for his yearly benef it, Woodward
,
performed Tit for Tat. or One nish of his own Chocolate, a
burlesque of p i v w of the ~ o x n j a g . ~The
~ performance was
preceded by a series of newspaper puffs by Woodward challenging
Foote and referring to their earlier rivalry in Ireland.
challenge drew forth a letter from Foote in reply.
The
The exchange
in the newspaper press no doubt helped to ensure a large house
and the proceeds of Woodwardlsbenefit were E286.45
Woodward took on Foote again the following winter when he
announced
the
intention
to
mimic
Foote
while
playing
the
character of Malagene in a revival of Thomas Otwayls FriOnce again Foote picked up the challenge with a
letter to the pgj3v Z+&~ertis~.~~lairningWoodward's many
defeats "sufferldin the Mimical Waru between the two, Foote went
on to warn Woodward not to provoke his "vengeance."47 However,
Woodward went ahead with his portrayal on the evening of January
22, 1750.
After only three acts the performance met with an
uproar from Footefs supporters who would not allow the piece to
continue. When the same play was announced for performance again
the following evening, Footefs party was enraged.
They called
for Garrick to corne onstage to explain, but as he was not in the
house, they proceeded to pull up the benches in the pit and tear
down the King's Arms.
Garrick's CO-manager, Lacy made his way to
the pit to calm the situation. Members of the audience explained
to Lacy that they had only chosen violence after a further
performance had been announced of a play they had so vociferously
damned. Members of the gallery then took affront that the troops
stationed in the theatre had been sent amongst them.
With some
difficulty and blaming the announcement of the disputed play on
the prompter Cross, peace was finally restored.4 8
A puff by Foote in the M l v Advertiser four days later
mocked Woodward and claimed victory in the contest between the
two actors.4 9
Towards the end of the piece Foote drew Garrick
into the fray with a threat of future retribution.50
We might
ask how much of this quarrel was drummed up by the two actors to
increase business.
supporters
took
But even if
it
seriously
that was
enough
to
the case, their
riot
and
risk
confrontation with the theatrels military guard.
Less than ten years later, factions became involved in a
contractual dispute between the actor Spranger Barry and the
Covent Garden manager, John Rich.
popular actors of the day.
Barry was one of the most
Originally from Ireland, he was
primarily cast as a romantic leading man, and played parts such
as Othello and Romeo.
He made his London debut at Drury Lane
theatre in the fa11 of 1746 and continued there after Garrick
took over the theatre the following year.
However there was not
room for two leading actors at Drury Lane and in 1751 Barry moved
to the other house.
He made his initial Covent Garden debut as
Romeo, with Anna Maria Cibber as Juliet. Playing to the romantic
strengths of each actor, the production offered great promise.
However, not to be outdone Garrick decided to take on the role of
the young lover for the first tirne.
On top of that he mounted
his Drury Lane production at the same time in direct competition
with Covent Garden around the corner.
For twelve nights the two
productions vied for the favour of the audience and is a striking
example of the hard-nosed competition between the two patent
houses.
By 1757, Spranger Barry was Covent Garden's chief draw.
Capitalizing
on
his
popularity
with
audiences,
the
actor
negotiated with the Covent Garden manager John Rich for a share
of the house on the nights he was playing, asking for one third
of the box office revenues above E 8 0 .
Initially Rich, was not
willing to pay, and Barry withheld his services.
As the two
sides in the dispute waited to settle, the rumour was spread
about that Barry has left England to act in Dublin for the
inter.^^
Finally at the beginning of December, a group of
Barry's supporters demanded that Rich rehire Barry.
Barry's return to the Covent Garden theatre a few days
later saw a crowded house.
According to the -al
E v e a a Post
the crowds were partially due to the expectation of a r i ~ t . ~ ~
One indication of Barry's audience appeal was that on his first
appearance, he
met
with
"a thundering
Peal
of
Applause."
However, there was also a group supporting the manager Rich who
objected to Barry's contract demands.
It soon became necessary
for Barry to step forward and inform the audience "that it ever
had been his study to contribute his utmost to the entertainment
of the town, and that al1 reports of his having been exorbitant
in his demands were injurious and totally groundless." Barry was
then bid by the audience to continue and "the disturbers of the
public were ordered to be silent or to be turned out of the
house.1154 Barry and his supporters had carried the day and won
the support of the general audience against the support of the
manager's faction.
On another occasion Barry was not so successful in winning
over the general public.
While in Dublin at the Crow Street
theatre Barry had a dispute with the actor Mossup who had
abruptly left to set up a rival venture at Smock Alley.
A "paper
war" ensued with Barry versus Mossup "in which the lowest and
most scurrilous abuse took place of al1 reason and argument.
The
rival newspapers became so disgusting on this account, that the
public at large took up [the matter], and either laughed at, or
reprobated, the conduct of these s o i - w t potentat
es.^^^
Henry Woodward satirized actors making their cases to the
paper in a scene in the .-
The production
appeared in the wake of a I1paper wartlover the displacement of
Mrs. Clive by Mrs. Cibber for the role of Polly in the Beaaar'ç
O~era. In the pantomime version, the play stops, the Beggar
(author) comes onstage to see why and is told by the prompter,
that "Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Hamilton are quarrelling who shall do
the first Colombine; they scolded as long as they had breath, and
now they have set themselves down to send letters to the public
papers, to inform the t o m of their il1 usage.ltS6
While actors ateracted supporters whose support included
public demonstrations on the artistls behalf, playwrights and
authors also headed, or were the targets, of parties within the
theatre.
The writer Arthur Murphy has some interesting insights
into the persona1
towards writers.
emotions behind
animosities between, and
He noted something of a pack mentality with
critics and their acquaintances.
When once a Writer is known, his Enemies will rail at
him, and his Friends will dam. him with faint Praise,
because he has dared to take the Lead of them. He
fares like one who meets with speedy preferment in the
army; the enemy will be sure to fire at him, and his
Brother Officers will hate him for being put over
their Heads.57
He also identified an interesting dynamic between envy and
emulation,
remarking
that
I1People of
the
same
Profession
frequently spend their Time in envying each other; whereas if
they were actuated by Emul.ation, and each would mind his own
business, every Man would find his Account in it." The same twin
. . .
themes found their way into D e New Plav Crlticlzed: or. The
U a u e of Fnvy, a play by Charles Macklin.
The character Canker,
an author, in a moment of self-realization towards the end of the
piece, remarks that a "slow but infallible Poison corrodes my
Vitals and destroys my Peace of Mind: Emulation? (Shakes his head
and sighs) 1 am afraid the World will cal1 it Envy.
Al1 mankind
has some, but Authors most; and we can better brook a Rival in
Our Love than in Our Fame.l f S 8
Some fifteen years earlier a correspondent to B e
-TI
Journal had warned, "Nothing seems to indicate a worse heart, or
produce more Evil than Envy. An envious Person repines at any
Excellency he observes in others and sickens at the sight of the
Good that befalls them.~~' This writer also notes the connection
with emulation, and that envious people will try to represent
their envy as only emulation. However it was suggested they were
quite different.
Emulation is a Desire to equal or excel others in what
is praiseworthy; acknowledges and approves good
Qualities, and desires to obtain the same, and, if
possible, to excel them. Envy is sorry, when it is
forced to acknowledge Merit in any; grudges the Goods
they possess; and is far from endeavoring to practice
w
u
what is laudable, tho' desirous of possess&
profit-.
Throughout this period envy was too often identified and too
often acknowledged to ignore."
It was a form of mental lust
after something that was not yours. This I1vulgar
as si on"'^ was a
significant tension in the theatre community, among writers and
actors and one that contributed to the potential for theatre
riots.
Even Garrick was not immune.
His biographer, Davies,
suggests that envy was the actorls greatest fault.'*
There were a number of factors besides envy, which might
stimulate the formation of a party against a writer and the
subsequent starting of a party riot in the theatre. One would be
revenge for an individual's writing elsewhere.
We have already
noted how Hugh Kelly's writing in the Public Ledgex summoned the
wrath of Wilkesites.
was
the
initial
Henry Bate suffered the same fate.
editor
of
publication in November 1772.
the
w
u
Post
which
Bate
began
One of the paperls features was
society gossip that was aimed at the elite, but attracted the
lower classes as well.
The paper sold puffs and would also
suppress disagreeable material for a fee, a practice that was
little more than journalistic bla~kmail.'~ With a sharp wit and
excitable nature, Bates' paper quarrels sometimes turned into
~
duels and he earned the nickname "The Fighting P a r ~ o n . ~ ~ 'In
February of 1776 a party used the opening of Batesf ~ackamoor
W
u at Drury Lane theatre to show their displeasure with
his writing in the m
u
Post, where Bate directed much
animosity at the surrounding writing community.
A group of
detractors took the opportunity of getting back at the writer by
disrupting performances of his comic opera for four nights.
On
the third night, blows were exchanged between "gentlemen of the
Stage boxesIl and Ilgentlemen of the Pit."
When disturbances
continued on the fourth night, the actor King went on stage and
told the house that the author had taken his script from the
prompter and was gone.65
Often it was the politics of the writer, even if the play
was not explicitly political that led to riot.
When The i l d u
Bevengg appeared at Covent Garden in January 1734, a report was
circulated ahead of time that the piece was a party play,
supported by the court.
The author William Popple used his
preface to explain his side of the events that took place on
opening night.
He indicated that a number of people came to damn
the play, but he noted that nevertheless the play went off with
"infinitely more Applause than Blame.
Nevertheless he made
changes for the second night and removed passages that had been
hissed.
However, despite these excisions and a successful third
night, a group of 8 to 10 young fellows still came out to damn
the play, after "dedaring p~blickly~~
their intentions first at
the Bedford Coffee House around the corner from the theatre.66
The actor Ryan speaking from the stage told the house that
there was nothing political
in the piece, but
a group of
opponents to the play raised their voices nonetheless.
The actor
Quin then went out and in democratic fashion polled the audience.
He then told them I1he found the House was divided, and as the
Majority was for hearing the Play, he hopld those who were not,
would go out.It
The house almost unanimously supported Quinls
request and cried out, "Turn them out, Turn them out.
The group
however saved the rest of the audience the trouble, "and retired
under the general Hiss of every Person then present. n 6 7
With this incident we can see that factions were not always
successful in exerting
their wills
and
sometimes could
be
defeated, not necessarily by another faction, but often through
the indifference of the general audience to the protestors'
cause.
In this instance we can see that the "votettof the
majority apparently carried the day.
they did not carry the campaign.
As it turns out, however,
In the preface to the published
version, Popple claimed that he pulled his play, fearing that the
malice of the faction, while not hurting his play "might affect
m.
Rich [the Covent Garden manager], by keeping Persons from the
House, who have no great Relish for Noise.
Popple was content
to publish the play instead and "refer himself to the Judgment of
every important Reader.~~'
The time frame for the evolution of this dispute is typical
and therefore notable for several reasons.
would
simmer and slowly escalate over a
Often a disturbance
series of nights.
Moreover, the timing took into account the traditional payment
schedule between a manager and an author for a new play.
During
its first run the profits from every third night typically went
to the author.
For the sake of a writerls pocketbook a manager
might continue with a borderline production, even if just until
the third night.
As we will see in Our chapter on riots over
content, by doing so managers ran the risk of incurring the wrath
of the audience.
This was yet another aspect of the day-to-day
running of a theatre which the ever-present possibility of a riot
complicated.
When
examining riots that arose from disputes between
theatre personalities and their supporters, as well as theatre
rioting in general, Charles Macklin shows up at the centre of a
number of major disturbances.
Macklinls stubborn
personality
A
theatrical jack-of-all-trades
and
strongly
individualistic
approach to the theatre contributed to frequent confrontations
with managers, other actors, and factions within the
A
transplanted Irishman, Macklin found his way to London and was a
prominent , longtime resident of Westminster from 1720.70
Macklin
was an irascible character with many detractors as well as
admirers.
Macklin started his stage career as a strolling player in
the provinces.
A contemporary during those early years recalled
that Itfrom his love of rioting, and other dissipations, he was
distinguished by the epithets of 'Wicked Charleyt and 'The Wild
Irishman. u 7 1
He made his London debut as a strikebreaker, hired
by the Drury Lane patentee Highmore when the actor Theophilus
Cibber led a company revolt against the fledgling manager.72
Macklin then stayed on to help Fleetwood who took over the patent
in the midst of Highmorels troubles.
Macklin had a violent
temper, which he made a conscious effort to curb after killing a
fellow actor, Thomas Hallam, by sticking him in the eye with a
cane during a backstage quarrel over a theatrical wig which
Macklin claimed as his own. Despite his attempt to reform, three
years later in 1738, Macklin had another fight with a fellow
actor, James Quin, pummeling him backstage and then challenging
him to meet at the obelisk in Covent Garden.
The two prepared to
fight a duel, until Macklin remembered he was due back on stage
back inside the theatre.73
Despite his temper, Macklin was able to run the theatre
well.
His managerial skills helped the impecunious Fleetwood
keep Drury Lane afloat .
Macklin was well established there when
David Garrick arrived in 1742 after his highly successful debut
at Goodman's Fields in the previous year.
season was a troubled one.
However, the 1742-43
Fleetwood had "farmed" out the
theatre to a gentleman named Pierson, who had lent money to
Fleetwood and then, later as his treasurer, recouped his loan
through the theatre ' s profits.74
Pierson treated the actors with
insolence and contempt and his relationship with them was not a
good one.
By the beginning of the 1742-43 season, Fleetwood was
faced with an actors' strike.
During the summer, about a dozen members of the Drury Lane
acting company including Macklin, Garrick, Havard, Berry, Mills
and his wife, Blakes, Mrs. Pritchard, and Mrs. Clive, had signed
a forma1 agreement whereby each would refuse to sign any contract
with the manager without the consent of all.
Garrick came up
with the idea, convincing the Company that they would have a good
chance to get a new patent with an appeal to the Duke of Grafton
as Lord Chamberlain that would allow them to perform at another
venue.
Macklin was for telling Fleetwood their plans, but
Garrick and the others were not.75
However, any support from
Grafton disappeared as a result of a discussion of actors' wages.
Finding that an actor could make ES00
per annum, the Lord
Chamberlain remarked that a relation who was a junior naval
officer risked his life for less than half that amount.76
Meanwhile, despite the strength of the aggrieved performers
collective action, Fleetwood still managed to cobble together a
company
of
strollers.
strikebreakers
With
from
amongst
the dismissal of
the
many
itinerant
their suit by
the Lord
Chamberlain and Fleetwood's resolve to go ahead with his season,
the striking actors were forced to negotiate with the manager.
After some bargaining, al1 were taken back except for Macklin,
whom Fleetwood blamed for organizing the ~ t r i k e . ~ ~
Not willing to become the scapegoat Macklin insisted that
Garrick observe the terms of the actors' earlier agreement and
refuse
to
perform
unless
Macklin
was
reinstated
as
well.
However, with Fleetwood's continued refusa1 to readmit Macklin,
Garrick tried instead to negotiate other arrangements that would
allow the company to return and still accommodate Macklin.
These
proposed solutions included paying Macklin out of Garrick's own
salary and obtaining a position for Mrs. Macklin with Rich's
company at Covent Garden.
However, these propositions did not
satisfy Macklin and he insisted instead that Garrick follow their
previous
arrangement.
Citing
the
welfare
of
the
other
signatories to their agreement, Garrick refused and sides soon
developed around these two individuals.
*
Near the beginning of December of the 1743-44 season,
Garrick finally returned to the Drury Lane stage, scheduled to
play Bayes in The Rehe-.
His return was not without protest
by Macklin supporters. Taking the higher ground Garrick inserted
a newspaper item informing the public that he was coming back for
~
the performance
the benefit of the other a c t ~ r s . ~However,
never took place, as supporters of Macklin, lead by his friend
Dr.
Barrowby, clashed
manager.*O
with
supporters of
Garrick
and
the
The rioters carried on the age-old practice of
forcing their way into the theatre and in particular amongst the
"many persons of Quality and Distinction" in the boxes.
This
description by a newspaper correspondent who sided with Garrick
shows that in this instance the disputants were divided by
contemporaries into two groups: the rough and refined.O1
A
letter to the London Dailv Post and Genaal Advertisey said that
Garrick had three times the supporters, but noted that despite
their numerical advantage they observed a "regard to Public
Decencyl1 and didnlt damage the theatre.82
However, Macklinls strong personality and unconventional
teaching methods left him open to attack by the public and the
theatre community.
Samuel Foote parodied Macklinls teaching
approach in a e Diversions of the Mornina with a scene between
Puzzle and Bounce that Foote acted with another noted mimic, Tate
Wilkinson.
Macklin was perhaps easy to caricature, for he had
such strong and revolutionary ideas about acting, originating a
more naturalistic style of performance.83
However along with
this visionary approach was a turbulent career path.
Macklin
worked back and forth between the two patent houses, retreating
to Ireland at one point and then returning to London, where he
tried a number of unique ways of pursuing his craft.
In 1773, Macklin became embroiled in another factional
dispute.
Once again supporters and detractors of the actor lined
up, and again Macklinls livelihood was involved.
The major
instigating factor in the dispute was Macklin taking on a new
character, a decision which certain members of the audience
resented.
Actors in the eighteenth century were linked in the
public's mind with certain roles, which ended up in some cases as
guarded possessions.
Davies pointed out that when Garrick first
started performing that he avoided particular roles.
Garrick
"did not wish either to offend, or risk a competition with either
Woodward or Macklin, by acting characters to which they had a
claim, not only by prescription, but the voice of the public.n84
Macklin
was
most
noted
for his performance of
Shakespeare's Merchant of Ve-,
as Iago, Sir Gilbert Wrangle in
Shylock in
although he also achieved note
Ref&,
and Sir Pertinax
Macsycophant in his own play, TheMan
which debuted
in Dublin in the early 1760s, but didnlt open in London until
1781.85
But at Covent Garden he was to try Macbeth, a role that
was more commonly associated with Garrick.
The idea of designated roles is an interesting example of
the negotiation tkat went on between an actor and the audience.
On the one hand it was in the actorfs professional interest to
try their hand at different roles.
In turn the audience was keen
to witness the attempts. The eighteenth century theatre-goer was
impressed
with
novel
offerings;
the
mysterious
performer was a potent box office draw.
first
time
However, audience
members were only willing to go so far in their acceptance.
In a
way the association of an actor with a certain part is the joint
creation of a public character combining the notions of the
author, the talents of the actor, and the encouragement of the
audience.
His performance of Shylock was legendary.
However, when he
tried to add another Shakespearean character to his repertoire,
he found himself once again involved in dispute.
Macklin had
joined George Colman's Company at Covent Garden for the 1773-4
season with the agreement that he would take over some of the
tragic roles played by the popular actor, "Gentleman" Smith, who
reportedly had been lured to the Little Haymarket.
played Shylock in t-
of V e n i ç e twice without incident and
then on Saturday October 23rd, pérformsd Ma&&h
tirne.
Macklin
for the first
As was often the case, the appearance of Macklin as
Macbeth was preceded by public discussion in the press and in the
coffee-houses.
Details were announced prior to the production,
with certain aspects the focus of public opinion taking.
One of the questions in the public's mind was Macklin's
age.
There had always been some dispute over Macklin's age.
While during much of his life he claimed to have been born in
1699, he confessed in his latter years that he had subtracted 9
years, which one of his earliest biographers supports.86
Either
74 or 83 is a significant age to take on an athletic role like
Macbeth.
Another point of dispute was the approach that Macklin
took to the play.
Not only was this a new character for Macklin,
but he chose to restage the play in significant ways, the most
revolutionary of
which
Scottish costumes.
was
the
introduction of
traditional
Although Shakespeare had a growing audience
through the eighteenth century (often in severely altered form)
it was performed in eighteenth century garb.87
Macklinls Macbeth was met with a considerable degree of
disapprobation. There were criticisms of the costume innovation,
and critics who thought his age was inappropriate for the part,
crowed over his memory lapses.
performance
were
followed by
The initial reports of the
letters, squibs
and
epithets,
although there were some positive reactions in the newspapers .
We might ask how this could arouse such passions, when of course,
we realize how troublesome the element of Scottish identity
within Britain was: the rebellion of 1745, Jacobites, and Scots
in
the administration, particularly
Lord
Bute.
considerable antipathy to Britaintsnorthern partner.
shows, the period
was
dangerous
even
for
There was
As Boswell
audience mernbers
identified as Scots.89
We might
dispute.
also consider the role of Garrick
in this
It was suggested that the instigators of the anti-
Macklin party, Reddish, an actor in the Drury Lane Company and
Sparks, an aspiring thespian, went with Garrick's blessing.
In
this instance Garrick declared his innocence by calling a company
meeting to find out who had disrupted Macklin's performance
short report of which made its way into the papers.
-- a
Reddish
stuck with his story however, to the point of claiming his
nightly wage for his 'performance1at the rival theatre.
Macklin's biographer, Cooke, suggested that Garrick was
jealous of the performance, but Genest considers it rather more
likely that he was upset he had not come up with the obviously
needed reform himself .91
ins before.
Macklin and Garrick had had their run-
There was the business in 1743 with Fleetwood's
refusa1 to rehire Macklin, but there were other episodes as well.
On his return from Ireland in 1750, for example, he went to
Covent Garden rather than Drury Lane, and it would seem that out
of spite Garrick opened his 1750-51 season with the
&z&mt
of
Venice with Yates playing S h y l ~ c k . ~ ~
In
a
way
Macklin
brought
events
on
himself
with
a
remarkable performance prior to the second scheduled performance
of the play itself.
Without costume Macklin made his way to
centre stage with a sheaf of newspaper clippings in his hands.
With
suitable
deference
he
asked
the
audience
for
their
indulgence and proceeded to identify a conspiracy against him,
centring on the actors Reddish and Sparks from the Drury Lane
company.
Although there was not a riot on the second evening of
Macklin's Macbeth, the glove had been thrown down, so to speak,
by Macklin's preshow defense.
Reddish and Sparks likewise took
the legal route and on the next day, a Sunday, swore affidavits
avowing their innocence of Macklints charges which were later
published.
Both claimed they had only spoken to each other.
Both reasserted that Reddish had not hissed.
Sparks confessed to
hissing, but claimed he was reprimanded by Reddish.
The third night of Macbeth was preceded by Macklin again
appearing onstage before the performance "in an undressn and
continuing to make his case against a party he claimed was led by
Sparks and Reddish, charging that they had conspired against him
on his first performance.
Citing several witnesses, Macklin
carried on for an hour before going backstage to finish dressing
for M a ~ b e t h . ~
By~ the fourth night, the battle between those in
opposition to Macklin and the supporters of the actor meant that
little of the first three acts was heard.
The conflict was
confined to the pit and the first gallery, with no participation
from either the upper gallery or the boxes.
This suggests that
both the supporters and detractors of Macklin came from the
middling orders.
Macklinls performance received a number of positive reviews
and he also had a number of keen supporters.
A large handbill
provides an indication of their position and their solution for
the dispute.
The handbill suggested that the manager Colman had
"snapt at this Noise of the factious Disturbers as the Public
llg4
~oice.
It claimed that a small party of
actors was
responsible for the disturbances, who were, in fact, nothing but
a party of vagabonds, l'for players at best are nothing else."
The handbillrs central suggestion was for a boycott of the
theatre. However, such a turn of events never came to pass.
That this dispute was very much the result of a faction
against personality, was demonstrated by
the fact that the
greatest amount of rioting occurred during a night when Macklin
performed a double bill, Shylock and Sir Archy in U v e a la Mode,
traditionally two of his most popular performances. After that,
Colman dismissed him.
Having had a considerable number of experiences with the
legal system, Macklin
brought
the
courts to bear
in this
instance, charging five in the court of King's Bench with riot
and
conspiracy .95
The
case
against
the
anti-Macklin
conspirators was eventually heard before Lord Mansfield, who
judged in Macklin's favour.
Mansfield later settled a suit
against Colman for breach of contract, awarding Macklin f500 in
damages .96
Cooke, Macklin l s original biographer , traced his
frequent use of the courts to #la jealousy of being imposed upon
by Managers.
He often did not see things in the clearest light:
he thought too, that he understood law better than he really
did . 97
Macklinfs treatment by the theatre public also received
judgment by the public at large and his situation was the subject
of at least two public debates.
On November 29, 1773, it was
debated at the Robin Hood debating society, "Was Mr. Macklinls
expulsion too rigid or uncandid?"
The question was carried in
Macklinls favour, with a number of explanations suggested for his
behaviour including that of his being an experienced player and
not brooking disfavour well, "his pride put him on the footing of
a bashful young performer; yet his taking so very eccentric a
step, must needs expose him to criti~ism.~'A month later, at the
Crown in Bow Lane, the more general question "Whether a number of
people
assembled with
a premeditated
design of
carrying a
favourite point at the Theatre have a right to assume the name
and authority of the town?" was debated.
After "the hackneyed
words of 'the Town, Macklin, Yates, Mossop, Lee &c. &c.' began to
disgust the auditors" and the question was voted upon with 10 to
1 against "theatrical meddlers . v 9 8
Conclusion
Theatre riots instigated by party rivalries were, by a
slight edge, the most numerous type of theatre riot during the
period 1730 to 1780. Moreover, the element of party was not only
present, but often aligned other theatre riots that were not
immediately about party-related issues.
Theatre personalities
were at the centre of most playhouse factions and in a way party
riots in theatres were matters that combined the ongoing business
of the theatre with the sorting out of persona1 relationships.
The eighteenth century was the age of the actor.
Through the
press and the visual arts actoxs were public figures.
their
pub1ic .
livelihood depended
upon
their
Moreover
relationship with
the
They were constantly having to garner support, whether
it was selling tickets to their year-end benefits, or in a
rivalry for a particular role. Needless to Say this solicitation
was done in public.
Rioting with the help of supporters, was
sometimes part of the bargaining.
Very often the dispute was
outlined and developed in the press.
Rioting was also a way one
could get some sort of revenge if one received a bad bargain.
See Shearer West, The T
a
1 the Visual
resatatann m the Aae of G a r ~ c kand,
New York: St .
Martin's Press, 1991. Especially chapter 1, "The Public Image of
the Actor: Criticism, Status and Audience Response," 7-25.
Poppie, William, TheLadies
1734, The Double Deceit,
1736.
Johnson, Pictio-,
in his definition.
1755. He also includes the term "factionu
The German visitor Lichtenberg observed that:
IlIn this island Shakespeare is not only famous, but holy; his
moral maxims are heard everywhere; 1 myself heard them quoted in
Parliament on 7 February, a day of importance; In this way his
name is entwined with most solemn thoughts; people sing of him
and from his works, and thus a large number of English children
know him before they have learnt their A.B.C. and creed." Letter
. .
V u i t s to Enaland. As Described in K h
10/10/1775, I&A&x&era's
.
.
, ed. translated and annotated by Margaret L.
J'etters
Mare and W.H. Quarrell, 1938 (New York: B. Blom, 1969), 16.
Victor, m t o r v of u a t r e s , III, 218.
6
al Advertiser,
28/2/1750, 28/3/1750, and 4/4/1750.
Fentl_emanls Ma-,
4/1750, 152. The event brought in El50
minus £63 charges. Cross in l&A, 188.
D
r
.
,
March 14, 1775, 51. Campbell noted of the
. .nor was 1 disappointed in my expectations, tho ' 1
performer,
7
Il.
cannot Say he came up to what 1 had heartd of him."
' Letter, October
17, 1775, Lichtenberg, Ybits to -,
102.
Philip Highfill notes "The fascinated focus of the journalistsl
telescopes on their activities." "Performers and PerformingluT h
on Theatre World 1660- 180Q, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 151.
David Garrick is portrayed in paintings and prints perhaps more
than any eighteenth century British figure (Alexander Pope comes
close, although many of his were posthumous.) Martyn Anglesea,
IlDavid Garrick and the Visual Arts,
M.Lit . dissertation,
University of Edinburgh, 1971, 1. see Yarbrough, Raymond C., Bow
porcelain and the London theatre: vivitur ingenio, Hancock,
Mich.: Front and Center Publications, 1996.
''
Persona1 observations of porcelain catalogues in the Folger
Library .
l3
Theu-,
Volume II, of eighteenth century
theatricalia in the Folger Library contains many examples watch
sized prints .
14
Arthur Murphy gestures at the phenomenon in the introduction to
a reprinted puff for his journal The:"The art of
praising onersself, is now become so much in fashion, that it is
practiced even among writers; so that 1 think myself as much
entitled to self-applause, as any of my brother authors
a
s
a
u
z
g
h
y
,
whatever...II Arthur Sherbo, New F
Michigan State University Press, 1963, 44.
l5 Henry Fielding, -dice
U's s Id or. A Word to the Wise,
London: Printed: And sold by J. Roberts, 1737.
.
l6
Samuel Foote, The Patron, 1764, 1, i.
l7 See Highfill for the changing status of actors. He feels, and
justifiably 1 think, that through the eighteenth century the
acting profession was increasingly middling class. Philip H.
ormers and Performing," in T h e a t r e
Highfil1 Jr . , I1Perf
iJorld 1660 1804, ed. Robert D. Hume, 143-80. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1980, 143-53.
Thomas Cooke, "Table Talk: Hugh Kelly," ,ll/l793, 421, cited in Gretchen Foster, I1Hugh Kelly," pico
f, Vol. 89, Paula R. Backscheider (Ed.) ,
University of Rochester: The Gale Group, 1989, pp. 232-248.
le
. .
or. A c r m c a l a ~ l ~ h 3 t i o ntheprits
. t
~ e r f o m e r sbelonaina to Dr~r-e
Theatre,
*
.
1766; I
o
n into the -em
erformers belonaino to - m e n
Thea-1
h
eK e u , London: T. Cadell,
1767. Both are in T
1778. (Facsimile: Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1973).
l9
Hugh Kelly, -is:
Walter; and S. Bladon, 1767; Brownsmith, John,
Williams,
1767;
Louis
Stamma, m e
rescue: or.
London: printed for J.
. ,
KeUyad: or a cr, London: printed for J.
Williams, 1767.
21
Foster, "Hugh Kelly, 232-248.
22
Kelly was also accused by Reverend Horne of writing a pro
government account of the Guildford trial.
Kelly defended
himself in an address to the public at the beginning of the
published version of A Word To the Wise. Hugh Kelly, hIarbS,
London: Cadell, 1778 (Georg Olms Verlag, 1973): 72-6.
23
Davies, U f e of GarEiçk, II, 135.
Colman, llPrologue,
29
H u m o u r d r . ,
of Rusigess, 1774, Page viii .
1732, in Nicholl, m t o r v of
P m , 11, 19.
na-
30 Boswell told Thomas Sheridan, "Do you know, Mr. Sheridan, that
we intend regularly to have strictures on every new play, and as
the boy always reminded Philip of Macedon that he was a man, so
shall we remind authors they are dull." Boswell,
182.
" Boswell, L s g Ü i U u U d . , 174-8.
32
Boswell, &
u-l,
33
Boswell, London JouUd., 152-5.
178.
34 Boswell, W n r l Journal, 155. A snippet of verse called IlThe
Turnspittiad1I survives. James Boswell, poswell's Rook of Rad
V e r s e , Jack Werner, Ed., London: White Lion Publishers, 77-8.
3S
Humourç,1732, 19.
36 Johnson to Bennet Langton, January 9, 1758, I
II went the first
night, and supported it, as well as 1 might; for Doddy, you know,
is my patron, and 1 would not desert him. The play was very well
received." James Boswell, Life of Samuel J&xxm, 1.
37 26/11/1762, çi$bonls J
O@
to J
28th. 1761,
Low, London: Chatto & Windus, 1929, 185-6.
ci. D.M.
ral Advertisa, 30/11/1749.
41
Fitzgerald, A New -,
II, 266.
'
1
David Garrick, Harleauin
s Invasign, 1759. In Garrick, David,
Plau. Printed from hitherto unpublished mss., ed.
Introductions and notes by Elizabeth P. Stein, 1926 (New York: B.
Blom, 1967).
43
mec
44
George Anne Bellamy,
179.
a ~ a ~ afor
v the life of Georae
en Th-,
London: J. Bell, 1785,
48
Richard Cross in
169.
According to the theatre commentator, Francis Gentleman,
Garrick's production garnered the m s t applause and Barry and
Cibber the most tears. Gentleman, Francis, #
al Comr>anion, London: Bell, 1770. In the mid 1760s Barry
and his new wife the former Mrs. Dancer, were a formidable acting
team with Garrick paying them a combined £1500 for their first
London season together. Cooke, Mernoirs of a l e s M a u , 1804,
169.
52
Cross, 8/10/1757. in ml 618. Barry did indeed leave for
Dublin the next season, managing to convince Woodward to join
him. Genest, T h e h Staae, IV, 520-23.
55
Cooke, #,
56
At Lincoln's Inn Fields, 3/1/1737 in Genest, III, 509-10.
57
Murphy ,
Thoughts
Journal, 35, 298, 299.
1808. 249.
On
Subjects, "
Various
.
S
m e
.
Charles Macklin, m e New Plav Cr1t1cized: nr.
ml 1, il 44, 1747.
Grav sPlaque of
The writer further notes that "Sir Francis R
a advises by no
means to come near, or converse with envious Persons; he thinks
some malignant Effluvia proceed from their Eyes, which may
fascinate, and be greatly hurtful.It m e London JO-,
16/10/1731.
59
60
See
"the Nature of Envy," Town and Country Magazine, 7/1776,
341-2.
''
-,
David Garrick, "Epilogue,
1767.
to George Colman~s,
Rn-
If..his
.
panegyrist Davies acknowledges that he never heard
[Garrick] speak warmly in commendation of any actor living or
dead.I1 Genest, T
he,
VI 502.
63
G.A. Cranfield, The Press and Society: From Caxton t~
cliffe, London: Longman, 1978, 72.
ry of National Biosra~hv,
Vol. VI, 103. For Batest
involvement in the ttVawhallAffray" see Kristina Straub, Sexual
62
Ideoloay,
Princeton University Press, 1992 16-23.
65
Hopkins Diaries, in David G a r d . DramaLhL, 12.
William Popple, "Preface, m e J -idvtsReve~ap, or The R o v ~
Brindley at the King's-Arms, 1734. Brindley
was Bookbinder to the King and the Prince of Wales.
66
mlLondon:
67
Popple, "Preface," W
68
Popple, "PrefaceIt1
=v1s
d
v
' Revens.
~
Revenqe.
69
Macklin worked in the theatre for six decades and his
theatrical talents included acting, writing, managing, producing
s of -les
M a c ~ ,
and teaching.
Cooke, William,
London: Printed for James Asperne, 1804 (New York: Benjamin Blom,
1972). Kirkman, James Thomas, Memojvs of the J.ife of
Fm,, 2 vols., London, 1799.
7O
Living on Bow Street at mid-century, Macklin was later
considered significant enough to be called as a political witness
before a borough of Westminster organizing cornmittee towards the
end of the century. News clipping in grangerized copy of Cookets
s of C w e s Ma-,
1804, in the Folger Shakespeare
Library .
71
Cooke, w
s of --les
MapJsl&l,5.
72
Victor, K;jgtorv of the Th-,
II, 19.
William W. Appleton, -les
M a u : An Actorts Jdfe, Harvard
University Press, 1960, 29-36.
73
74
Davies, Life of David Garrick, 1, 71.
75
Fitzgerald,
New m t o r v , II, 130-1.
AS Davies pointed out it was unfair to compare a junior
officer with a senior accomplished actor. Davies, U e of David
Garrick, 1, 74-5.
76
--
"
78
79
Davies, Life of David G
d
, II 78.
Davies, U f e of David Garrick, 1, 79-81.
v Post m
a
l Advertisa, 2/12/1743.
Cooke, W
s of -les
M a c m , 135.
Hugh Cunningham notes the importance of inter-class loyalties
based on respectability; key divisions which he labels as "in
essence those between the respectable and the rough."
Hugh
Cunningham, U u r e in the _Industrial Revolution, New York: St.
MartinUs Press, 1980, 11.
82
D&?L-EQS~~D~Genaal Advert-,
8/12/1743.
83
Downer, A. S. , "Nature to Advantage Dress 'd: Eighteenth Century
Acting," Publications of the Modern -se
Associati~n, 58,
December 1943, 1013-14. In a way Garrick captured and cemented
the appreciation of the age for agility and grace, but Macklin
was the one who discovered the emotional ambiguity of experience,
that strange mixture of action and comment - - the irony of
emotions.
a
84
Davies, fl~~emoirs
of David Garrick, 1, 59-60.
85
Macklin, being over 80 years old at the time.
.
87 This was not a new observation. In 1755 a critical treatise on
tragedy had noted that actors should be aware of both the time
and location of costumes. Reflections U ~ o nTheatrical ExDansion
Tra-,
1755, 11. And as Steevens was to observe in 1778, in
the play mcbeth Malcolm identifies Ross according to his dress
as one of his contemporaries. Genest, V I 414-5.
"Like Fielding's Kings his fancy'd triumphls past,
And al1 he boasts is, that he falls the last.I1 -al
Pos~,
28-30/10/1773.
Eveninq
When a group of his countrymen were met with "No Scots! No
Scots! Out with them!" from the upper gallery and pelted with
pippins Boswell rushed to help. Boswell, Londnn J o u r d , 71-2.
92
. .
Highfill, 'IGarrick, Fioaraphical Dlctiona~,21.
94
nt Garden al.l in an UDroar
95
Regjster, 3/1775, 147. Macklinls interest in legai
matters had dramatic beginnings as he had conducted his own
defense in the backstage killing of Hallam. Supremely agitated at
the time and unable to act while awaiting trial, he delved into
the law. It was a challenge as he had only picked up reading as
an adult. Hovever he conducted his case masterfully. Appleton,
31-33.
96 Shearer West, "Zeffanyls "Charles Macklin as Shylock" and Lord
Mansfield." Theatre Notebook 43 (1989): 3-9.
Donna T. Andrew, ed. -on
London Record Society, 1994.
. .
Debaans Soc~eties. 1776-1799.
Chapter 5
--
Political Riote
The inhabitants of the boxes, from the beginning of the
dispute, were inclined to favour the exhibition of the
Festival, and very warmly espoused the cause of the
managers against the plebeian part of the audience, whom
they affected to look down upon with contempt. The pit and
galleries became more incensed by this opposition of the
people of fashion, and entered into a strong alliance to
stand by each other, and to annoy the common enemy.
Thomas Davies, Ljfe of Dav-ri&,
1, 216-7.
To this point we have examined two types of theatre riots:
those that arose in reaction to theatre management and those that
were essentially public disputes between individuals and their
supporters.
Each type has its legacy from earlier times and
bears similarities to forms of audience behaviour that were
common in theatres during the decades prior to the period under
study: public quarreling and disputes over tickets and access.
These two types of
troublesome issues caused theatre riots
throughout the eighteenth century with some regularity until the
1780s.
However, with a third category of riot, the politically
motivated riot, it is much harder to find an incident either
earlier or later than the three to be examined in this chapter.
In fact, the politically motivated riot, which includes the
Chinese Festival Riot of 1755 at Drury Lane theatre, one of the
most well-known of theatre riots, comprise the smallest number of
riots amongst the set of categories outlined in this study.
Furthermore, the examples that do occur are confined to less than
two decades near the middle of the century.
Political expression in the eighteenth century theatre is a
somewhat contentious issue amongst scholars.'
The plays of the
period
presented
were
not
overtly political.
They
little
political theory or content, either expounding or criticizing the
power
structure, nor were
they
government or its opposition.'
directly
applicable to
the
This assessment generally rests
its case upon the purported effectiveness of the Lord Chamberlain
after the Licensing Act (1737) in purging from plays any content
that was overtly political.
This observation seems to be
particularly true when the period is compared to the decade
immediately proceeding the Act, when the Beggars Opera (1728) was
produced and Henry Fielding joined the opposition and led a field
of numerous theatrical ~atirists.~
However, taking a less rigid view of politics, there were
numerous
occasions
when
political
sentiments
were
vividly
expressed in the eighteenth century London theatres, and done in
numerous
different
ways.
Often
there
political references gleaned from plays.
were
unintentional
Innocuous lines had an
element of political comment due to the way that the audience in
the context of the time interpreted them.4 There were occasions
when the audience took exception to lines that werenlt there, as
when after the Licensing Act took effect, the audience stopped a
production of Dryden's The SDlines
from a
speech by
Frvu,
because an actor cut
character Raymond, referring to
a
government that was "scornld abroad, and lives on tricks at
home. II
Members of the audience "thought they had a right to the
whole speech, and therefore callld again and again for it," but
to no effect.'
There were also the strong celebrations of
patriotic loyalty, or recent victories, that were often found in
various songs, entertainments, or in the main pieces them~elves.~
With these considerations, the playhouse was not a politically
sterile environment.
However, even if we broaden Our view of politics and the
theatre during the eighteenth century, we do not
theatre riots that were overtly political.
find many
There were those few
we looked at in Our chapter on parties, where the political views
of an author, such as William Popple or Hugh Kelly, were punished
in the playhouse.
As we will see in Our chapter on riots over
content, there were disturbances over certain material in plays
that might be construed as being political.
riots that were overtly political
But the only theatre
during the eighteenth century
were riots in reaction to French performers on London stages,
expressing and contesting British nationalistic
ferveur.'
Manifestations of British nationalism appear at the centre
of at least three major theatre riots in the eighteenth century.
On the surface it would appear to be quite a straight-forward
issue.
These three riots occurred in the middle decades of the
century, a period when Britain was often at war with France.
Each of the riots was in reaction to French cornpanies appearing
The acts of violence expressed in the
on London stages.8
playhouse
were
simply
audience, roused by
British
stages.
sentiments of
the
the
nationalistic
the appearance of
However, we
will
audience were
not
sentiments of
the
foreign companies on
see
that
unified
nationalistic
and
different
sections of the audience responded in different ways, and that
the reactions were very much relative to other events.
These three protests were not only against the appearance
of Gallic performers on London stages, but were also coupled to
other political issues, which the appearance of French performers
managed to touch off. Interestingly enough, with the three riots
we will examine, these contexts can be seen to have operated at
three levels of political engagement: the local, the national and
the international.
In one instance it was the discontent over
the passing of the Licensing Act of 1737, in another it was the
tension of the 1749 Westminster bye-election, and finally another
during the early stages of the Seven Years War. Each riot took
place within a different sphere of nationalistic involvement. As
we will see, nationalism was not a factor in and of itself, but
also a flash point igniting other disputed issues.
Earlier appearances by French companies in the previous
decades had not met with riot. Through those years continental
companies had come to London on various occasions and were in
fact quite popular .
itself
in
London
A French speaking company had established
during
the
1734-5
season,
giving
performances, primarily at the Little Haymarket theatre.1°
1748 an English company translated the &ggiirlsOD@=
and performed it at the Little Haymarket.
116
In
into French
The performance was a
novel experiment, part of an effort "to equal the Foreigners in
everythingw necessitating the apology "that if in Our Performance
a little of Our Native Accent should be discoverld, we humbly
hope an English audience will excuse it."ll There were always a
great number of dancers and singers from the continent.
This is not to Say there were not hard feelings about
foreign material performed in London theatres.
This was a
tension that underlay the stage during this period, especially
during the middle decades of the century.
Although Britainls
xenophobia extended further to her other longtime enemy, Spain,
the major foe was France.
The two nations were adversaries on
the battlefield, cornpetitors in the scramble for empire, rivals
as world-wide commercial trading nations, and two of the key
players in the European balance of power.
The theatre was also a
place where elements of the contest were played out.
Yet,
while
relationship
there
between
the
was
a
strongly
two
nations,
confrontational
there
was
also
a
significant degree of ambivalence in the relationship between
,
Britain and France during the eighteenth century.
In fact there
were a number of aspects of French culture that were embraced by
certain sections of British society.
within
elite,
the
language.12
embraced
French
Francophiles, largely
manners,
fashions,
and
The influence of France was particularly true in
regard to the stage.
The debt to French theatre on the part of Britain was quite
substantial.
A great nuniber of the plays in the eighteenth
century repertoire were translated from the French.
In the last
half of the eighteenth century forty-seven plays, forty at the
patent houses, were "indebted to the French.1113 Many individuals
from the British theatre community spent time in France. Garrick
made two trips,14while Samuel Foote spent four years there, from
1748-52 .15
Another example of French influence in the realm of
theatre was the private theatrical where plays were mounted in
people's homes, with homeowners and guests taking part in the
productions.l6
Within the realm of theatrical entertainments
there were a variety of imported continental pleasures on London
stages, including music, singing and dancing.
There was also an
impact of France on the content of homegrown British plays,
whether it was caricatures of French manners, the inclusion of
French phrases in a play's dialogue, or a reference to the nation
itself .17 As such there was a great deal of attention paid to
comparing and contrasting, as well as assessing, the impact of
French theatre on the British stage.''
A letter to the Londonearly in 1749 points to
the ambivalent feelings some people had about the French.
The
letter was prompted by the revival of the afterpiece Lethe,
written by Garrick, featuring parodies of a poet, a drunken man,
and a Frenchman, played by the actor himself.
Addressed "A
GARIQUEIM the letter writer claimed that printing the
letter would oblige many of the publishertsWestminster friends.
In a fractured French the author then goes on to upbraid Garrick
for ridiculing "de Gentelmen Françoisttand promises to come to
the performance "vid de Cabal, that sa11 consiste of Garçon
Peruquiers, to hissa.ttThe author reasoned that now that there
was peace, it was only reasonable that "de Frenche should make
FortuneN otherwise why was peace made?lg
The letter writer was
referring to the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, signed the previous
October.
The comments were perhaps somewhat facetious, as the
peace with France and Spain was only a stalemate and did little
to resolve the rivalries.''
It is difficult to Say whether the letter was critical of
Garrick, or of those who would take offense at his portrayal, for
the play met with a mixed response, on one occasion with great
~~
way the letter is of
applause, with some h i ~ s i n ~ .Either
interest.
To begin with, there is the spelling of Garrick's
name, a reference to the actor's lineage.
Garrick was of
Huguenot stock and his grandfather, David de la Garrique, had
fled France in 1685 following the revocation of the Edict of
an tes.^^
The letter reminds us that London in the middle of the
eighteenth century was a relatively cosmopolitan city, and that a
significant
number
of
non-native Londoners
were
Protestant
refugees or of Huguenot ancestry. Many of the trades catering to
the culture of affluence were practiced by crafts-people from the
continent,
including
the
wigmakers
whom
the
letter
writer
threatens to unleash. The writer's true feelings are revealed in
the comment about French people in London making a fortune now
that there was peace.
There was obvious bitterness about the
state of affairs that saw peace benefiting Britain's enemies,
even if they were immigrants to the country."
A vivid example of this bitterness is seen in the riot that
greeted a French Company at the Little Haymarket in 1738.
riot occurred at an auspicious time.
The
There was a growing
discontent with the policies of Robert Walpole's administration
that had
failed in the early 1730s to implement a highly
unpopular excise scheme.
By 1738 there was much opposition to
the country's foreign policy; in particular, the administration's
ambivalent relations with Spain.
In March 1738 there were
debates in the House of Commons over how to deal with Spanish
naval activities in the Atlantic and
Caribbean and
in May
parliament took steps to strengthen Britain's naval squadrons in
opposition to Walpole's policy.
Within a year, the failure of
the Convention of Prado (an unpopular initiative to begin with)
to stop Spanish incursions against British shipping, would lead
Walpole to reluctantly declare war on pain.^^
More
directly
associated
with
theatre,
there
was
significant opposition to the Licensing Act of 1737, passed by
the administration of Robert Walpole.
While the Act was not
universally decried, it did put people on the alert for abuses.
There were substantial concerns about freedom of speech and what
the act might bode for the liberty of the press.25
The actual
effects of
the
Licensing Act
upon
London
theatres were immediately discernable. Two plays were censored,
and two theatres, Goodman's Fields and the Little Theatre in the
Haymarket were closed d o m .26
One consequential effect was an
increase in the level of unemployment in the theatre.
Moreover,
unernployed English actors had been imprisoned for debt.
In the
midst of these developments came the news that a French company
was being granted a license to perform at the vacant Little
Theatre in the Haymarket.
The company in question, led by
Francisque Moylen, had arrived in London in early October 1738
and numbered some seventy persons.
In the press the connection
was made immediately between the official sanction of the company
and the recently enacted prohibitory power of the administration
through the Lord Chamberlain's office.
v
-
Advert-
A correspondent to
remarked that it llseem[edl to be a little
unnatural that French Strollers should have a Superior Privilege
to those of Our own Country." A piece in the London W
n
s Post
continued the attack.27
With this sort of pre-publicity, it was not surprising that
the theatre was extremely crowded when the Company eventually
appeared on Monday, October 9th.
Benjamin Victor, a theatrical
writer and occasional administrator, arrived early and had a
place "in the Centre of the P i t . ~Victor
~ ~ provides an extremely
vivid account of the evening's events.
Amongst the audience
members assembling in the pit, he noted there were the justices
DeVeil and Manning, two Westminster magistrates.
Justice DeVeil
had been prominent during the Footmanls riots at Drury Lane
theatre the previous year.
As
was
often
the
case
with
an
eveningts theatrical
entertainment, people began gathering in the house several hours
before the performance was scheduled to begin. "The Leaders, that
had the Conduct of the Oppositionftwere in the pit and "called
aloud for the Song in Praise of English Roast Beef, which was
accordingly Sung in the Gallery by a Person prepared for that
pur pose.^'^^
The whole house joined in on the choruses and
ltsaluted the Close with three ~uzzas
!n 3 0
present
actually
sang,
as
Victor
Whether or not everyone
claimed
in
his
rather
enthusiastic eye-witness account of the events, others reported
that there was a remarkable sense of unanimity amongst the
audience. This is not something that was often a part of theatre
riots.
In most theatre riots there were divisions along class
lines, attenuated by the tripartite seating arrangements.
Very
often sides were aligned according to the theatre section in
which they sat. However, that was not the case on this occasion.
"Never appearfd at any Theatre a greater Unanimity,It wrote the
correspondent for the
At
this
point,
ond don.^^
with
the
play
still
some
time
off,
Magistrate DeVeil decided to cal1 this exuberant display on the
part of the audience a riot and made preparations to read the
However, in the close quarters of
Riot Act.
the theatre
auditorium his judgment was immediately disputed, and a public
discussion was Ifcarried on with some Degree of Decency on both
Sidesu as to whether or not this was actually the case.
DeVeil
then explained that he was there by the King's command to
maintain the monarchts authority and was backed by a Company of
guards, waiting outside the theatre.
While no doubt DeVeil was
concerned with the rapidly escalating demonstration, and was
anxious to exert some sort of authority over the situation, these
were the wrong words to use under the circumstances.
Victor
noted however, that there was a reasoned response from the
audience to
these most arbitrary ThreateningsIf and
the King's name.
-
Purportedly they replied back to DeVeil:
That the Audience had a legal Right to shew their
Dislike to any Play or Actor; that the common Laws of
the Land were nothing but common Custom, and the
antient Usage of the People; that the Judicature of
the Pit had been acknowledged and acquiesced to, Time
immemorial; and as the present Set of Actors were to
take their Fate £rom the Public, they were free to
receive them as they pleased.32
of
There are a variety of important eighteenth century themes
woven into this response.
At the heart of the issue was the
belief on the part of the audience that they had a legal right to
show their displeasure based on principles of common law and
Once again we see the idea of judgment as being a
precedent.
right and responsibility on the part of the audience.
The 'rule
of law' was a cherished idea in the minds of Englishmen and
central to their political identit~.)~Legal matters were the
subjects
of
much
interest
including questions about
for
the
the
contemporary
status of
observer,
common law versus
parliamentary statute.34
This initial interaction between the magistrate DeVeil and
the audience was a detailed example of the bargaining that was
involved with' the reading of the Riot Act in the confined, well
lit theatre space.
In outdoor demonstrations the Riot Act was
sometimes read in absentia and was not guaranteed the same degree
of focus as it was most times in the theatre.35
The confines of
the auditorium made the reading of the Act even more theatrical
than was the case outdoors.
This is not to Say that negotiating
didntt take place outdoors, but that inside the theatre the
process
was
performance.
snacted
in a place
that
was
constructed
for
On this occasion Victor was able to pin d o m
accurately the essentials of the bargaining that took place.
This initial encounter between DeVeil and the audience was
only
the
beginning
of
a
series of
statements and
statements from both sides in the dispute.
overtook the discussion.
counter
Moreover events soon
Near six o'clock, just prior to the
beginning of the performance, the honoured guests of the evening
arrived, including the French and Spanish Ambassadors with their
wives, and Lord and Lady Gage as well as Sir TSir Thomas Robinson), who
"al1 appeared
in
Rthe
(possibly
Stage Box
together!I1 Very soon after their arriva1 the stage curtain was
raised,
revealing
several
files
of
Grenadiers,
bayonets, bracketing the performers onstage.36
with
fixed
"At this the
whole Pit rose, and unanimously turned to the Justices, who sat
in the Middle of it, to demand the Reason of such arbitrary
Proceedings?"
Again the justices were caught in the spotlight.
They claimed to know nothing about the troops being called
onstage.
Outraged members of the pit insisted that Colonel
DeVeil, who earlier had acknowledged that he was their commanding
officer, should order the troops off the stage.
He quickly
acquiesced and then disappeared.
With the troops routed, volleys of sound, both vocal and
instrumental, greeted the initial dramatic performance.
The
level of noise drowned out any spoken words and a grand dance of
12 men and 12 women was begun.
However "they were directly
saluted with a Bushel or two of Peas, which made their Capering
very unsafe."
The entertainment, Arleauin P o u a r TiitArnou
was
then attempted, but that, too, was impossible above the noise.
Finally magistrate DeVeil again made his presence known, standing
on his seat in the pit, motioning for silence, and making the
following proposa1 to the house:
"That if they persisted in the Opposition, he must
read the Proclamation; that if they would permit the
Play to go on, and to be acted through that Night, he
would promise, (on his Honour) to lay their Dislikes,
and Resentments to the Actors, before the King, and he
doubted not but that a speedy End would be put to
their acting."
The audience replied "No Treaties, No Treaties!" indicating their
impatience with diplomacy.
DeVeil then ordered the Guards to be readied and proceeded
to ask for a candle to read the Riot Act.
Victor suggests that
DeVeil was only stopped by the reasoning of an individual close
by him in the pit , who warned that the appearance of soldiers in
the pit would lead to violence and the loss of life.
Turning
''pale and passive," DeVeil heeded the proffered advice.
The
performance onstage was restarted, but the uproar in the house
resumed as well, and soon after the resumption of the programme,
the French and Spanish ambassadors left amidst cheers from the
house.
Eventually, after the audience's repeated insistence, the
great curtain was finally brought d o m and the performance was
over .
During the course of the riot inside the theatre, there had
been little violence, either against the theatre property, or
between individuals.
Victor points to this with pride in his
closing remarks on the riot.
He was informed by a "Person of
Distinction" that his name was seen on a list "lying on the Table
of a great Dukettof individuals opposing the French players.
When asked about it, Victor replied "that as the Opposition was
conducted without Mischief" he was I1honoured by being in that
List ."37
Outside the theatre was a different matter.
The torch
of protest was passed, so to speak, and "the Mob in the Street
broke the Windows of the House al1 to pie ce^."^^
Furthermore the
Spanish ambassadors, having been driven from the house, had the
traces to their coaches cut.
In this instance, Victor no doubt summarizes the spirit of
many of the protesters, comparing the event to the heights of
Britainls military greatness: "1 will venture to Say, that at no
Battle gained over the French by the immortal MARLBOROUGH, the
Shoutings could be more joyous than on this Occasion.~3~
While
Victor's hyperbole situates the riot in the context of Britainls
conflict with her traditional enemies, France and Spain, the riot
had also been a successful skirmish against the administration
and a government that would pass a law so contrary to the spirit
of British freedom as the Licensing Act.
As has been noted above, during the French Strollers riot
there was a strong spirit of cornmon cause among the various
sections of the audience and the demonstration was a cooperative
effort between the pit and the gallery, with the elite in the
boxes offering little support to the French performers.
The
combined wrath of the audience was directed at a very select
target, one in absentia, an administration that had exerted
itself in a significant restrictive marner regarding the stage.
It was directly prompted by the Ambassadorial parties and their
hosts, the soldiers onstage and Justice DeVeil, and finally by
the blatant unfairness of a French Company being allowed to
perform
when
the
administration was
preventing
and
indeed
imprisoning English actors, even though only for debt .40
The 1738 riots at the Little Haymarket centred on political
issues at the national level, including the enacting of major
controls
over
the
theatre
by
the
administration, and
the
officially sanctioned appearance of a theatre company from a
nation that was seen increasingly as a competitive threat.
at
the
same
theatre
in
1749 provided
an
example
Riots
of
the
intermingling of nationalism and politics at the local level.
Once again it was a visit by a company of French actors which
served as the central trigger to the disturbance; however on this
occasion it was
a within the context of
local Westminster
political rivalries.
In November 1749, Jean Louis Monnet, a French entertainment
impresario, who had earlier revived the Opera Comique in Paris,
assembled a company of 15 actors to perform in
on don. 41
It was
certainly no surprise visit, as Monnet had been in London since
August, raising money through a subscription campaign.
The
company was helped further by a subscription benef it at White's
Chocolate House.
In fact, the actual planning for the London
performances had been under way for more than a year.4 2
At an international level, Britain's relations with France
were uneasy in the aftermath of a war that had left France strong
on the European continent and Britain strong in continental North
America .
The
Pelham administration managed
to negotiate a
stalemate peace that was essentially a return to the status quo.
At the national level an early election in 1747 had caught the
opposition off-guard and the administration managed to secure a
strong majority.
Westminster,
the
Two years later, at
incumbent
accepted
an
the
local level in
admiralty
position
necessitating a bye-election and the resulting contest was Ilone
of the most violent and vituperative struggles of the first halfcentury .043
Not surprisingly the entrepreneurially-minded John Rich of
Covent Garden was involved and his behaviour throughout the
affair points to the financial attractiveness, yet volatility of
introducing French culture into British theatres.
Rich had
approached Monnet in Paris in October 1748, and after meeting
later in London, agreed to sponsor the project in partnership
with the Frenchman.
Initially the promoters chose the Little
Theatre in the Haymarket for their performances, but Rich changed
his mind and decided instead to bring them to his larger Covent
Garden theatre. On hearing this encouraging news Monnet made his
final hiring arrangements.
However, some friends soon convinced
Rich that the venture with the French company would Itprejudice
him with the Public, and he began to extricate himself from the
arrangements. While he supported Monnetts application to solicit
subscriptions for the production, it would appear he did not
offer any money himself.
There are indications that he later
reconsidered bringing the company to Covent Garden, but once
again fear of the public reaction stopped him.
Rich would seem
to have known his audience we11.44
With Rich1s waffling in mind it is interesting to note what
had occurred with the remnants of the French company that had
received the audience's wrath at the Little Haymarket in 1738.
The performerst situation after the riot was an example of one of
the very real tribulations of the acting profession. While there
was a great deal of geographic mobility for performers, both in
Britain and Ireland, as well as to some degree between Britain
and the continent, performers could and often did get stranded.
After their prematurely shortened run at the Little Haymarket,
the only way the French actors could make their return passage to
the continent was to go back to the audience that had earlier
rejected them.
Within a month of the riot it was reported that
two members of the Company were thinking of performing at one of
the patent theatres.
While it was only a rumor, it was one that
was obviously dangerous enough that Rich felt obliged on a Covent
Garden's theatre bill to "certify to the Publick, that nothing of
that kind was ever intended, or wou'd have been permitted by him,
unless the same had been the general Consent of the T o w n . ~ ~ 5In
1749, for a time Rich had obviously thought "the Town1'might be
willing to consent once again, but the manager got cold feet,
when he realized that in the aftermath of the recent war, they
weren ' t .
Obviously
there was
a
commercial potential
in
presenting material from the continent, but one that was fraught
with potential dangers, including an audience riot, depending
upon the changing nature of relations between Britain and her
European neighbours.
Of course, in 1749 the situation was very much influenced
by considerations of Britain's relationship with France in the
aftermath of the War of the Austrian Succession.
The news of
Monnet's impending appearance initiated a series of responses in
the press.
One newspaper item appeared to argue for the
toleration of foreign entertainers "though he should come from
the extremity of the globe.'' However, the writer of this piece
was using the idea of foreign talent in a mixture of ways, for
after he stressed the virtues of cosmopolitan taste, the writer
turned around and took a quick dig at those who would support any
sort of talent as long as it came from abroad.
The writer's
support for both sides makes sense when one sees the piece was a
puff for Caratha the Turk, a slack-rope walker who performed at
the same theatre as Monnet's company on alternate nights.
In the
end, Caratha was actually quite safe from being considered a
foreign expert in the art of rope walking, as he happened to hail
from London.
In another newspaper item, published a week prior to the
actual riot, the writer was more pointed in his comments, using
the news of the French players as a chance to criticize the taste
of the elite.
After noting the coming appearance of the French
Players and an Italian comedy troupe, the latter performing
despite the absence of its best players, the commentator said,
"Possibly some Foreigners may think, that the worst Dramatic
Offals are good enough for the vitiated Palates of the E-----NO------and Gen--ry.tf47 Here was a squib rather than a puff,
and squarely aimed as much at a set of fellow countrymen, as the
French strollers.
The company finally opened their London run on Tuesday,
November 15, 1749. The disturbances which attended their several
performances were violent ones, not because of any action on the
part of troops onstage, or performers bombarded with peas etc.,
but because one section of the house attacked another over
several nights, and on at least one occasion hired bruisers were
marshaled
into
the
fray
by
a
local
Westminster
election
candidate, Lord Trentham.
The riot against the French strollers in 1738 had been a
picture of unanimity, with members of the pit, supported by
choruses from the gallery, championing the cause of traditional
English
liberty
and
rallying
against
the
state
and
its
representatives, along with its foreign allies. However, in 1749
the conflict was within the house itself, with one section of the
audience fighting with another, dividing largely along political
lines between supporters of the court party and supporters of the
independent
Moreover,
candidate
it
was
also
in
a
a
local
Westminster
conflict
between
by-election.
French
national
elements, with a large number of Londoners of French ancestry
taking part in supporting the French Company.
According to one
account Ilthe Pit was crouded [sic] with French Cooks, Barbers,
and Valetst1
However, as we might expect to find people of
this rank in the galleries, this was either a case of the Mornins
PPSt belittling the Frenchmen in the pit, or of the management
papering the house with supporters.
When the performance began, a cry of protest rang out from
the gallery.
But rather than being met
with a chorus of
approval, these protesters were attacked by a half a dozen men
with swords reportedly coming in from the upper side-boxes on the
right hand side of the stage.
There were a number of people
injured, one newspaper claiming "Three of the valiant Heroes beat
a
Boy
almost
to
Death!"
A
reward
was
offered
for
the
a s ~ a i l a n t s . ~ There
~
was rioting again at the performance on
Wednesday night as well as Friday.
And although there is no
indication of a disturbance on the following Monday, the Company
stopped after their fourth performance.
seem
to
have
been
deep
seated
The opposition would
enough
to
spur
the
city
administration into action, for on Thursday the 17th there was a
report in the newspapers that the city officers were under order
not to allow playbills for the French company to be posted in
their Liberties .50
While we donlt have the reports of an involved observer
with this riot as we had with Benjamin Victor in the earlier one,
there is no dearth of evidence.
The variety of sources vividly
demonstrates many aspects of the close interrelationship that
existed between the press and the features of a theatre riot
One notable exchange was carried on through a series of sworn
depositions,
arising
out
of
the
alleged
involvement of
a
prominent local politician on the side of the French company.
Lord Trentham, a candidate for Westminster in the 1749 election,
was reported to be the leader of the group that vigorously
defended the French company.
Trentham, who had been forced to
revign his seat after receiving a position in the Admiralty,
announced his decision to run again in the replacement election
less than a week after the initial d i ~ t u r b a n c e . ~ ~
The Tory George Cooke was initially nominated by supporters
of the opposition, but declined to run, and Sir George Vandeput
campaigned instead.
As the election proceeded, "one of the most
violent and vituperative struggles of the first h a l f - c e n t ~ r y , " ~ ~
Trenthamls involvement in the theatre riots became an oftrepeated point of criticism, cloaked in a variety of rhetorical
devices.
Immediately, alongside Trenthamls announcements
intention to
run
and
his
request
for
of
his
support, there were
aspersions of Trentham being a ringleader on the side of the
French performers.
A
notice in the newspaper by the opposition
"To the Worthy and Free-Electors of WestminsterN to meet and
chose a candidate to run against Trentham, ended with
the
facetious warning, "No French Strollers will be admitted."54
One form of criticism that appeared a number of times was
an
announcement, written
Trentham8s supporters.
in
French, purportedly
addressing
One of these items identified Monnet's
Company as being so closely aligned with Trentham that they were
suspending their performance until the election was finished;
t entierment o c c u D e s e u
II
Affaire.
s cette
Another advertisement in the London E v e h a Post,
was less circumspect and more direct in its satirical targeting:
de Westminster.
Electeurs ires diMESSIEURS,
VOS Suffrages et Interests sont desirés pour
J e tres
Mi Lord - - - - - Un VERITABLE Anglois.
N.B. L'on prie ses Amis de ses rendre a llHotel
Francois dans le Marche au Foin.56
I
The satire of this faux announcement was increased by the fact
that
the
legitimate notices
the General
Monnet's performances were printed in French.
Advertiser
for
The use of French
speech in the context of the stage is interesting.
It was
sprinkled into a great number of plays, it can signify either
pretension or sophistication.
Obviously, in the context of the
1749 Westminster election it was used to tar Trentham supporters
with the brush of cosmopolitanism and anti-English sentiment.57
Trentham's involvement with the riots was publicized to
such a degree that he saw the necessity of a newspaper denial
that ran alongside the repeated postings of his decision to
run.58
the
The allegations against Trentham soon made their way to
magistrates and
William
Davison
swore a
deposition on
November 24th that he saw a local waiter and others armed with
cudgels and disguised as chairmen, preparing to make their way to
the theatre.
It was purported that these men, some thirty in
number, had been hired by Trentham to protect Monnet Is Company.
The waiter, John Haynes of the "Sign of the GlobeM made an oath
before Henry Fielding on November 26th that he had never spoken
with Trentham about the French strollers.59
Furthermore Trentham
ran an ad in the newspapers alongside these two depositions
offering a reward of 50 guineas for the original affidavit from
Davison.
However, when Davison later showed up on the hustings
with it, Trentham refused to pay.
As for the election itself, Trentham eventually won with a
slender majority. As we have already noted, it was a vigourous
campaign and the accusations of Trenthamls involvement in the
riots at the theatre ran alongside mudslinging about Vandeput's
ancestry, reports of vote-fixing, and the publication by the
opposition
of
an
anti-bribery
oath.
Afterwards
Vandeputts
supporters submitted petitions to parliament protesting against
the activities of the returning officer, but these were ignored.
The
high
bailiff
intimidation
and
made
a
case
Alexander
against
Murry,
a
the
opposition
prominent
of
opposition
supporter, was charged with making threats and being in contempt
of the House of Commons.
His refusa1 to kneel to accept his
punishment caused an uproar in the house and he was eventually
sent to Newgate .60
Nicholas Rogers1 detailed analysis of the polling in the
election
highlights
some
important
background
understanding the demographics of the riot.
division
between
opposition was
a
genteel
court
somewhat blurred
by
and
the
issues
for
The traditional
commercially-minded
extensive
clientage
relationships to be found in the distinctive social order of
Westr :.nster.
As one of the wealthiest and widest constituencies
in the nation there were great numbers of craftspeople and
provisioners involved in the supplying of consumption goods .61
There is an intriguing pamphlet that gives us a more
detailed view of
these various tensions as they manifested
themselves in the riot.
Written in a popular eighteenth century
trope, the opinion of the author was laid out as a letter "from a
gentleman in towd to his friend in the country.lmo2 This format,
particularly common in theatrical reporting, allowed its author
to be "impartial" and newsy in his recounting of events at the
theatre.
He takes an almost anthropological approach describing
the group dynamics within the audience.
"Some Notice is taken of
another Set, now occupying that THEATRE" was announced on its
title page.
However, the piece soon became a polemic against
that set, who were the opposers of the French company, lashing
out at them in a number of ways.
The pamphlet is less than elegantly written - - the argument
is not well connected, with the author ranging from outright
ridicule, to an appeal to the principles of political economy,
nevertheless it does manage to strike home on many points.
The
author seesaws back and forth between a belittling of artisanal
opposition to the French company and a direct attack on the
theatre itself, comparable with the vicious criticism of the
theatre by Jeremy Collier earlier in the century.63Underlying al1
of
the
criticisms is the generous use of
the
rhetoric of
nationalism and an appeal to Britishness, but from the loyalist
perspective.
But while the argument is packaged in the shape of
a patriotic appeal, at its heart it is a party tract against the
political forces of the opposition.
Finally the print Britannia presents an vivid
visual image of the protagonists: the leaders, frock coated and
with swords drawn, the very picture of llgentlemen,"backed by
four rather more sturdy types armed with oaken bludgeons, an
obvious visual reference to Trenthamls hired bruisers.64
The
latter are shown spouting their support as well as making
reference tu the two-shilling price of their service.
They have
dragged forward a rather dismal-looking company of actors, French
of course, identified by their thinness and wooden shoes, but
Britannia will have no part of the foreign performers, content
instead with Garrick and Rich whom she nestles on her
There is an ironic sort of epilugue to the episode, for
Monnet's
fate
was
typical
entrepreneurial individuals.
of
many
eighteenth
century
Unable to recoup his expenses, he
was confined by the King's Bench for debt and was only able to
make his way back to the continent after a year-end benefit
performance at Drury Lane theatre .66
The Chinese Festival Riots at Drury Lane, the third of the
mid-century nationalism inspired riots also involved a performing
company
from
the
continent.
However,
as
was
noted
in
advertisements at the time, it would be inaccurate to cal1 the
performers French, as they were led by a Swiss Protestant and
largely made up of locally hired English dancers.
Nevertheless,
their set of performances during the late fa11 of 1755 became the
focus of anti-French feeling and despite the efforts and patience
of manager David Garrick, after continued displays of violence
and rhetoric on the part of the audience, the company was
eventually forced off the stage.
The planning for the performances had been going on for
more
than a year.
In the summer of
1754, Garrick began
negotiations with Chevalier Jean George Noverre, to compose such
dances Ilas would surprise and captivate al1 ranks of peoplet167
an3 to briny a Company of dancers to Drury Lane theatre to
perform them.
Within the discourse over theatrical taste, dance
occupied an important place.
Since the beginning of the century,
dances
of
were
key
elements
featuring novelty and spectacle.
the
theatre
They also introduced a number
of foreign elements ont0 the London stage.
dancers were
programme, often
A great number of the
from the continent, as were
the dance forms.
Moreover the subjects of the dances were often exotic and in this
way the London audience was often exposed to the rest of the
world .
Being
of
foreign origin, and
a
relatively spectacular
feature of the programme, the taste for dance was subject to
By the same token, it could also represent a higher
criticism.
cultural experience, being new and representing entertainments
that were popular with the elites of other European capitals.
In
his account of the Chinese Festival episode, and as a context for
Garrick's decision to hire Noverre, Garrick's biographer, Thomas
Davies was quick to point out that "Noverre's compositions in al1
the varieties of graceful movement had long been admired and
applauded by the connoisseurs, in al1 the courts of Europe; and
to convince the world he understood dancing scientifically, he
published a very learned and philosophical treatise upon that
subject . w 6 8
The appeals were to science, grace, and a touch of
cosmopolitan emulation.
There was also some sort of fractured
geography lesson in the ballet chosen by Noverre, for the subject
was China, and the custorns and costumes of the country were to be
the subject of the piece.
The Chinese Festival Riots were procieeded by a çeries of
comments
material,
in
the
some
daily press
leaked,
some
about
Garrick's plans.
puffed,
served
to
allow
This
the
opposition to build well in advance of the event. We might easily
ask if this tactic was intentional or not.
Garrick certainly
used a technique whereby his advance criticism would deflate
criticism closer to the event and also act like the "puff
col lus ive^ whereby the hint of scandal, even if couched in
outrage served to arouse attention and encourage ticket sales.69
However,
between
the
time
of
engagement
performance, talks between Britain and
and
actual
France over colonial
boundary disputes had broken d o m and hostilities were resumed in
North Arnerica.
Garrick was denounced for bringing such a large
number of French performers to a London stage in the rnidst of
such circumstances.
rioting
the Drury
Two nights prior to the first outbreak of
Lane
theatrels prompter
indication of the trouble that was coming.
the 3d Act
[of Jane Shore] with
Country's goodf
--
Cross, noted
an
"When Garrick ended
'Die wth pleasure for my
a person in the the Gall. cryld no French
Dancers then - wch seems to Say much resentment will be shewn
when the 24 we have engagld appear. It7O
In light of such
opposition, it was felt that with the King in attendance the
audience would be civil.71
The command performance opened on Saturday November the
8th.
An advertisement in the public Advertiser earlier in the
day met the circulating criticisms head on, indicating that the
contract between Noverre and Drury Lane theatre had been made
more than a year earlier.
Furthemore it explained that Noverre
and his brothers were Swiss Protestants from Berne, and that his
wife and her sisters were German.72
However large numbers of the
audience ignored the explanation, and greeted the company with
hissing, clapping and shouts of IlNo French Dancers.l1
Richard
Cross notes that there was clapping in support of the company
particularly the lead dancer, M. Delaistre.
The house was a
large one drawing £210, and no doubt benefiting from al1 the
public attention.
The presence of the King did not achieve the hoped-for
result .
There is, however, some variance as to his reaction; in
one account the King is said to have turned his back on the
confrontation; whereas in Daviesf account, written many years
later, he says that after being informed of the reason for the
uproar, the King "seemed to enjoy the folly of the hour, and
laughed very heartily . m 7 3 Whether the king had expressed disgust
or amusement, the fact that a disturbance had taken place in the
monarchfspresence roused the ire of many army officers who were
in attendance. They set out to avenge this affront to their King
and their honour at the next performance.74
The ballet was not performed again on Monday or Tuesday,
with
the
theatre
claiming
in
the
posted
bills
decorations wouldnft be ready until mid-week.
that
some
On Wednesday,
again
November the 12th, when the dance followed TheIncon
there was hissing and disturbance from the audience.
However on
this occasion the patrons of the boxes now sided very much with
the theatre, and men with swords drawn made their way into the
pit and gallery and turned out several of the protestors.
The
following night the melee continued and again supporters of the
festival made a foray into the pit and gallery to pick out
protesters.
A party made its way into the upper gallery to take
out a particularly noisy person, who resisted and with some
degree of
difficulty was
brought
adjusted without farther Mischief . u 7 5
backstage
"where al1 was
On Friday the audience had quieted considerably and there
was only a bit of disturbance.
However, this was only a lu11
before the storm and on Saturday the protest was renewed in
earnest.
When Garrick appeared as Benedick, one of his more
popular roles, he was greeted with flMonseurll
from someone in the
slips, or upper galleries. The play continued with some hissing,
but when finished there was "amazing noise."
An apple was
thrown, following which as Cross notesuye pit to ye Boxes crytd -
-
now draw yr Swords, wch makes us think, the Riot was occasiontd
by the Box people being so busy
&
turning some of the pit
&
Gall:
before. 76
Garrick
opposition
to
went
to
the
great
Chinese
lengths
to
Festival.
prevail
He
had
over
invested
the
a
considerable amount of money in the ballet and was obviously
anxious to recoup the investment. To try and entice an audience,
for the main plays of the evening, he acted several of his most
popular roles including Sir John Brute in The Provok'd Wife and
Benedick from W c h Ado About ~ o t m . 7 7 On Monday night the
dance was not performed, but at the end of the evening, when the
next night's programme was being announced, a significant debate
took place over when, or if, the piece should be performed again.
It was
"hotly call'd for by the Boxes,
few in the Pit .Il
&
strongly oppos'd by a
Garrick negotiated from centre stage and an
agreement was seemingly reached by both sections of the house
that it be performed three nights a week for the boxes, and on
the other three nights, other entertainments for the benefit of
the pit would be presented.78
However, the agreement was ignored.
On the next night, the
battle reached a climax, with broken heads ,and heavy blows on
both sides.
When the mainpiece ended, "a gentleman dressld like
a sailor, excepting a fine gold-lac'd waistcoatn jumped ont0 the
stage and insisted on speaking with Garrick.
A player who came
forward was attacked with a concealed stick, and as he ran for
reinforcements, the assailant whistled for backup from the pit.
The fight onstage "brought on a general engagementu including the
on duty soldiers, who were completely routed.79
and gallery were torn up.
Seats in the pit
Over and over the dance was attempted,
while physical fighting extended right d o m into the cellar,
where scenery movers fought with audience members from the Pit.
Justice John Fielding arrived, with another magistrate, some
constables and a guard, but could not be heard above the din,
although Cross is certain "ye ProclamationN was read.
As often happened when a theatre riot became destructive
Ifthe violence within the house was soon communicated to the
populace without, who vented their rage on the houses of the
Justice and Mr. Garrick."
At Garrick's house in Southampton
Street Stones were torn up from the Street and windows were
broken, ana soldiers of the guarù had to help protect it against
further damage. The resources and resolve of the protestors were
too much.
In the end Garrick was forced to give up the dancers.
Again a detailed examination reveals tensions that were not
necessarily between France and Britain, but between elements
within Britain itself.
In the tripartite arrangement of the
theatre it was a battle between the boxes and the combined forces
of the pit and gallery. An interesting addition to this division
was the participation of the military, with officers identifying
with the supporters of the ballet in the boxes, and sailors and
soldiers siding with the protestors.
The pamphlet, n e D-SI
D
d
,
advertised for sale
exactly a week after the first outburst of rioting, provides some
interesting dimensions to these splits.
Appearing to be a
verbatim account of the events in the theatre on the second night
of rioting, it is soon apparent that it is an allegorical defense
of the entertainment, setting the two sides within the discourse
of patriotism and nationalism, amplified by gender.
The pamphlet
is a battle of words between "the leader of the loyal Party...
who speaks for the gallery" and a figure called llReason,"who
descends from the clouds and speaks from the stage.
Reason
counters the xenophobic prejudices of the patriots, first by
praising them for their enthusiastic defense of their country,
but then shaming them for the results it has brought about. When
English dancers are called for as opposed to French, she counters
"ENGLISH dancers? You ought rather to thank your stars that your
genius does not lie in your heels!
is there a man of sense
The
amongst you, whs envies the French this e x ~ e l l e n c e ? " ~ ~
arguments of Reason play on the ambiguities in the relationship
between the two cultures.
She belittles the entertainment, in
order to belittle the protest of the galleries.
Back at the theatre there was a notable incident at the
first appearance of Garrick after the riots.
The appearance of
Garrick on any occasion caused excitement in the house.
There
was great expectation at this point, after he had fought so hard
to make the ballet succeed, and upon his appearance the audience
stopped the show with clapping and hissing.
Garrick stepped
forward and asked what offence he was guilty of, which was met
with further clapping.
As Cross indicates in his diary, the
actor/manager then asked "Let one Gentleman speak for the rest
1'11 give an Answer -- there was a moments pause
cry of -- Go on with the Play &c., al1 ceased -quiet.
&
&
&
then a general
al1 continuld
However there was no I1Old England" ready to speak on
this occasion, nor was there cause.
But momentarily, the forces
of opposition had reminded Garrick of their power with one last
display of their collective will.
Conclusion
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, politically
motivated riots were not a common event in the eighteenth century
theatre.
Moreover, they were confined to less than two decades
near mid-century. This is not surprising given the existence of
the Licensing Act to control political content in plays onstage.
However, as effective as the Examiner of Plays was in limiting
political content, along with immoral, libelous, and irreligious
material, this did not mean that material that appeared innocuous
might not be interpreted in the light of contemporary events in a
political way.
There were also other
forms of
theatrical
material besides those submitted to the examiner, such as dances,
pantomime, and songs, which could encompass political material.
Moreover an examination of the three riots shows, in fact, that
it was not the material onstage that was the instigating factor
in each of the riots, but rather the nationality or supposed
nationality of the performers.
But was it nationalism itself that caused the audience to
express themselves riotously?
As we have shown, in the theatre
there were many foreign influences, including the appearance of
performers from the continent.
And so rather, in the instances
we have outlined, it was nationalism in the context of other
political issues that led to riot, issues which occurred at a
national, local, and
international level.
In 1738 it was
discontent over Walpole's foreign policy, in 1749 a particularly
bitter Westminster bye-election in the midst of an unsatisfactory
peace, and in 1755, it was patriotic frustration amidst growing
tensions in North Arnerica with Britaints long-time adversary,
France.
What
does
this
analysis
have
to
tell
us
relationship of politics and the stage in general?
about
the
After the
reign of Anne, there was less conflict between Whigs and Tories
in London theatres and more opposition of a patriotic nature.
This quieting of overt politics was especially the case after the
Lieensing A c t of 1737.
At the same time the theatre became a
place to witness and react to the close relationship between
Britain and France.
For some it was a chance to share cultural
experiences in the shape of dance, music and translated plays,
but for others, especially at times of great tension, it was an
opportunity to actually fight against the enemy, even if it was
only their proxy.
In Britain, politics was increasingly tied to
the nation's commercial and imperial concerns. As a result, when
those issues were most at stake, as during the period of the midcentury wars, and there was instigation, such as the appearance
of French companies on English stages, the theatre became a place
for popular political display.
.
*
Gillian Russell, -patres
of War: Performance. Poiitlcs &
Society 1793- 1815, London: Clarendon, 1995, 16.
"The examiners of Plays wanted no criticism of English
institutions, or of English policy, to receive a hearing - and
except in a few notable instances they succeeded in delaying it
or suppressing it altogether." John Loftis, "Political and Social
Thought in the Drama," e
r
t
World. 1660-1804, Ed.
Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1980, 275. For another type of politics in the theatre see Susan
Staves, plavers' S c e ~ t e ~ gLincoln:
,
University of Nebraska Press,
1979.
. .
John Loftis, #,
Oxford:
Satire in the Aue
Clarendon Press, 1963; Jean B. Kern, -tic
gf Walpole. 1720-1754, Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1976;
Bertrand A. Goldgar,
. . to LiteratyTe. 1722-1742, Lincoln, Nebraska: 1976.
olifics
Leonard Conolly cites several examples of lines and situations
that were given political interpretations. "The conclusion we
should draw from the occurrence of political incidents at the
London theaters is not that there was still a flourishing
political drama in England between 1745 and 1789, but rather that
theater audiences were as politically alive as ever." Leonard W.
Conolly,
f E n D r a m a , San Marino:
The Huntington Library, 1976, 73.
5
London Ma
4/1739.
w,
Prologues and Epilogues often had strong nationalistic
sentiments, one of the most notable being Garrick's portrayal of
an inebriated likable sailor which ends with:
1 wish you landmen tho, would leave your tricks,
Your factions, parties, and damntd politics:
And like us, honest tars, drink, fight, and sing!
True to yourselves, your Country, and your King!
David Garrick, Prologue to David Mallet,
7
1755.
Newman, Gerald, B e Rise of :mA Cultural
K;istorv 1740-1834, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987; colley,
Linda, anthe N&on
1707-1837, New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1992; Wilson, Kathleen, "Empire of Virtue: The
Imperia1 Project and Hanoverian Culture c.1720-1785," in &
al state at war: B r. m . n from 1689 to 1815, ed. Stone,
Lawrence, London: Routledge, 1994, 128-64.
The Company targeted in the 1755 Chinese Festival riots at
Drury Lane theatre was actually quite cosmopolitan in makeup. Out
of more than 60 performers, nine were French. m l i c Advertise~,
8/11/1755.
1660-190Q, Vol.
Allardyce Nicoll, A Hjstorv of Rn&&J&ama.
II, Early Eighteenth Century Drama, Third Edition, London: 1961,
419-20; Emmett L. Avery,
"Foreign Performers in the London
olosi&
Theatres in the Early Eighteenth Century,
-,
XVI (1937): 105-23.
in Great
Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, a
n
theucal
in the 17th and 18th cent-,
London: Society for
Theatre Research, 1955, 17.
cornes
l2
L 1 0 ~ e r du
a Gueux at Haymarket 29/4/49
Newman, W
o
f
h N a t i o n a m , 14-18.
l4
David Garrick,
Michèle Cohen,
ae
in the
th cent=,
New York: Routledge, 1996. Cohen studies the
changing attitudes to the French language during the eighteenth
century, especially for gentlemen. Arthur Murphy points to the
importance of French for a gentlewoman:
l 3 Willard Austin
Kinne, Revivals alLUgQrtations of French
1749-1804, 1939 (New York: AMS Press, 1967),
246.
751..., New York: Benjamin Blom,
*
.
1971; David Garrick, The iournal of David GarEiçk: describinabis
. .
ted from the 0rig.ua.l
, Modern Language
Association of America, 1939.
l5 Susan Lamb, "The Popular Theater of Samuel Foote and British
National Identity," -tive
Dr-,
30: 2 (1996): 256.
Nicoll, V
s
h D r m , III, 22.
According to
Nicoll, the vogue for private theatricals was instigated by the
"scènes princièresl1 of Marie Antoinette, Madame de Pompadour and
the Duc dlOrléans. see Aldolphe Jullien, m t o i r e du Theatre de
Paris, 1874.
ur dit Theatre des -~etitscab-,
l6
l7
Within the Chadwyck-Healey English Verse Drama Full-Text
Database (Cambridge, l994), out of the 847 plays listed, 470
include the word "France" or "French," with a total of 2557
occurrences.
le
Foreigners "have been Instrumental in introducing Sound and
- -
Show, where the business of the Theatre does not require it, and
particularly a sort of soft and wanton Musick, which has used the
People to a delight which is independent of Reason, a delight
that has gone a very great way towards enervating and dissolving
their minds." John Dennis,
A Large account of the taste in
poetry and the causes of the degeneracy of it," 1702, in a
s of J o h n D e n nBaltimore:
is,
Johns Hopkins Press,
1939, 1,
Philip H. Highfill, K.A. Burnim, and E.A. Longhans
. .
(Eds. ) , "David Garrick" in A v
w
o
i
R
of Actors .
nd Other Staae
Pers~nnel in J l o m
1660- 1800, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975,
1. An ensign's commission was purchased for Garrick's father,
Peter, in Tyrrel's dragoons stationed in Lichfield.
22
23 Both Foote and Macklin cast aspirations on Garrick's Huguenot
ancestry. In the aftermath of the 1743 actorfs strike, Macklin
said he lost his position at Drury Lane Ilas a proper punishment
of my folly in relying upon faith, which is nearly allied in
every respect to Gallic fidelity." A Replv to Mr GaryjcklsAnswer
ço the w e of -es
M a u , in Davies, Life of David GarEiçk,
1, 107-8.
172724
Paul Langford,
1783, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 51-53.
26
Vincent J. Liesenfeld, n-~nsina
University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.
A d v e r t u , 4/10/1738,
a 28
Act of 1737, Madison:
Post 5-7/10/1738
Benjamin Victor, Zhe Historv of the Theatres o
1761 (New York: Benjamin Blom, 19681, 1, 54-60.
a,
f and
2 9 This popular Song by Richard Leveridge, had been first Sung at
his Covent Garden benefit in April of 1735, along with "The
Praise of Good English Beerm Sung to the tune of "Trade and
Navigation." Note that the dancing which followed Leveridgels
songs was by French dancers. 11/4/1735. BI 712.
30
Victor, astorv of the -,
1, 54.
Victor, ustory nf the The-,
1, 55-6. Although Victor
includes this as an actual speech in his account, the same words
were recorded as being part of a justification given by a
participant questioned later about his involvement in the riot.
Gentleman's Magazine, 10/1738, 533.
32
33
ItIndeed, the notion of the 'rule of lawl was central to
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Englishmen's under-standing
of what was both special and laudable about their political
system." John Brewer and John A. Styles, "Introduction," &
sh and Their Law in the Seventeenth
andEishteen
London: Hutchinson, 1980, 14.
David Lieberman, Thg-&ion
Determi-1
e l-u t h - c e n t u r v Rrit-,
Cambridge University Press,
1989, 1. See 219-240 for a discussion of contemporary critiques
of common law.
W. Nippel, "Reading the Riot Act: The Discourse of LawEnforcement in 18th-Century England," W t o r v a n d o l o q y , 1
(1985): 404-5.
35
Victor says two, while the Gentleman's says three.
lO/l738, 545.
36
37
Victor, H
i
S
3
o
f
t
h
e 11,
ItItI S therefore hoptd his Majestyls Justices of the Peace will
enquire into their Settlements [the French actors, referring to
the imprisonment for debt of an English actorl, and, if none,
order them to be whipptd out of the Kingdom - - But what will Old
Post, 7-10/10/1738
Fox Say to this?" w o n Ev-a
40
41
Deryck Lynham, Thp Chevalier Noverre: Father of M o u n B
London: Sylvan Press, 1950, 14.
u
,
42 A Gentleman in Town, An w a r t i a l state of the case of the
French C
O
.
actors. *hlverOr
s.strO1lers, whO lateIV
ket. In a letter from a sentleman
London: printed for M.
Shepey; R. Spavan; W. Myer; G. Woodfall, 1750, 19-21; Lynham,
ChevalierNoverre,
19, n.11.
ml
. .
a n d C i t i e
ofOxford:
,
Clarendon, 1989, 173.
43
Nicholas Rogers, 8
s
.
eAue
Theatre bill for -mes
a Man, Covent Garden Theatre,
13/11/1738. See pgblv Uvertisey, 10/11/1738.
45
49
16/11/1749.
vertiss,
16/11/1749,
don
Ev-a
P a ,
14-
The publication of a second edition of Tom Joneg was announced
on the first of December, "with an additional chapter by Mr.
Allworthy, &c. relating to Plays in general, and the French
playhouse in Particular". . . "at 25. 8g. sewld, 33. bound.
Robinson, the printer, offered the extra chapter gratis to those
who had purchased the earlier edition. -al
Advert-,
4/12/1749.
"Le Public est averti que les Comediens Francous donneront
relache au Theatre jusqulce que llElectiondu Membre du Parlement
pour Westminster soit finie;" General Advertisa, 30/11/1749.
55
'
For a discussion of the divide between cosmopolitan and
localism see, Dror Wahrman, "National society, communal culture:
an argument about recent historiography of eighteenth-century
Britain," Social ~ t o r v ,17 (1992): 43-72.
This notice was printed in the General Advertiser for a week.
30/11/1749.
Murry was released during a parliamentary recess and chaired
from prison. However, like Wilkes some two decades . later,
.
he
173became both a hero and a fugitive. Rogers, W - s ,
4.
'
Rogers,
. .
168-96.
of the case of the French c o W - actS. Who latelv
f frled
t. . . . In a letter from a s
inthe
London: printed for M. Shepey; R . Spavan; W.
Myer; G. Woodfall, 1750.
Jeremy Collier, A Short View of the I m m o r & L l a n d n e s s
Staqg, London: Keble, 1698. see Sister Rose
Anthony,
Jeremv Collier Staae Controversv, 1937 (New York: B.
Blom, 1966).
or an Invasion
London: 1749. Below the print is "The Third Chapter of Tearfem
the Son of Goretam, in the Apocripha.I1 It is a narrative of
events surrounding the election written in the form of biblical
verse. In reference to the hired bruisers verse 36 says, "And
they hired Men of
to swear for the Lord Tear'em in the
Face of the People; but it availed them not, for the Multitude,
even their own Tribes, rose up against them."
There is a significant difference between the version of this
print in the Lyson Scrapbook, Folger Library, and the one
published alongside exerpts from the Pronq&sx, especially for Our
purposes. In the former one of the stalwarts is shouting "Huzza
Tearem for ever," an obvious reference to Trentham.
67
Davies, itifeof David Garyiçh, 1, 213
i
f
e
,
1, 213. Noverre was only 27
Davies, L
when engaged by Garrick and later went on the write a great deal
- L
about dance including Jean Georges Noverre,
gt sur les b u , 2nd ed., A Londres; et se trouve à Paris,
chez la veuve Dessain junior, 1783.
. .
Sheridan, a e Critiç, 1,ii. Sheridan's character Puff explains:
"Puffing is of various sorts---theprincipal are, The Puff direct
- - - the Puff preliminary - - - the Puff collateral - - - the Puff
collusive, and the Puff oblique, or Puff by implication. - - These al1 assume, as circumstances require, the various forms of
Letter to the Editor ---Occasional Anecdote - - - Impartial
Critique - - - Observation from Correspondent, - - - or Advertisement
from the Party.... "
69
72
Davies, JAfe of David Gar-,
1, 214-5.
lic Advert*,
8/11/1755.
73
Davies, Life of David Garrick, 1, 215.
74
Colly Cibber to Victor, 21/11/1749, in Victor, tIigtorv of the
II, 209.
7'
-,
76
&
Cross goes on to note "being Sat: Our friends were at ye Opera,
the common people had leisure to do Mischief."
77
Davies, Ljfe of David Gauiçh, 1, 216.
Devil to Pav at the Old House,
Printed for R. Griffiths at the Dunciad in Pater-Noster Row,
1755, price six-pence, 11-12. Publication was announced
vert-,
18/11/1755. See A Spectator, The Nowiad:
hherOl~
BO
a P l a v ~ . London: A. More, 1755.
Chapter 6
--
Riots over Content
10/12/1763 - A new Comedy [The Dupe] wrote by Mrs.
Sheridan. - - This play was very well acted, - - but the
Subject much displeased. - - In 4th. Act much hissing,
and so on to the End. - - When Mr. Havard told the
Audience as some Passages in [the] Play had given
Offence, they should be omitted the next Night, much
hissing and many cryed out, 'No more, no more.'
12/12/1763 - This Night the passages that seemed to
give Offence were omitted. - - A little Hissing, but
not so much as the first Night.
-
A very bad House - - Much hissing and
groaning, but got throl and was not given out again.
13/12/1763
d H o m ' Diarv (Drury Lane Prompter)
The final category of theatre riot to be considered in this
study
is
the
disturbance
dissatisfaction with
onstage.
that
some aspect
arose
of
from
the
the material
audience's
presented
The offending material could take a variety of forms.
It might be a character portrayal bearing too close a resemblance
to a known individual that caused the audience's disapproval or
it might be the moral makeup of a fictional character.
Sometimes
it was the way a particular group was portrayed onstage, or even
the fact that the group was being portrayed at all, that would
bring about a riot.
On one occasion there was a riotous reaction
to the inferior quality of the props that were used in the
production.
The disturbances to be examined in this chapter are
riots in response to what the audience actually saw and heard
onstage.
Riots over content can be seen as a form of critical
response on the part of the audience, albeit at the extreme end
of the behaviour spectrum, but essentially they were disputes
arising from a negative reaction to some aspect of the material
presented
onstage.
Some of
dissatisfaction were
not
these
wholly
expressions of
different
from
audience
the printed
criticism of plays and the theatre that went on within the
newspaper and pamphlet press, or verbal discussions that took
place in London coffee houses.
However, with theatre riots over
content the audience members were actually there in person to
judge the performance.
Nor was the audience's
judgment made
according to the forma1 rules of criticism, with classical and
continental roots.
disputes that
The reactions that led to theatre riots were
arose from responses directly related to the
morality of the day or pertinent issues of the period.
More
often than not these were visceral reactions, offenses to the
audience's
sensibilities,
their
morality,
or
their
pride.
Whatever was the disputed point in the material, in a very vivid
way, riots over content demonstrate a form of direct audience
power over the content of what was performed.
This chapter will examine content riots in the following
manner.
particular
First of all, given the difficulty in defining this
type
of riot, riots over content issues will be
cornpared to riots from the other thematic categories examined in
earlier chapters.
We will then look at the different sorts of
material that were found to be offensive and could instigate a
theatre riot.
Finally there will be an exploration of the
riotous reception that greeted The F o u d U l g (1748) by Edward
Moore at Drury Lane theatre near mid-century.
Deciphering the
reception of Moore's play, with a strong initial response, both
positive and negative, we are reminded of the difficulty of
coming to terms with this type of theatre riot.
In many ways riots over content are difficult to discern,
as they are not far removed from the normally expected behaviour
of the audience.
With riots related to content issues, the
audience's basic role as paying customers was being enacted.
After all, theatre-goers were expected to purchase their tickets
and then react to the material presented onstage.
As we have
seen, these reactions included a wide spectrum of possibilities.
As has been noted by historians, as well as visitors to London's
theatres from the continent, the audience was respectful for the
majority of performances.'
However, audience exuberance could
very easily ratchet up through a series of levels until it became
riotous.
It is hard to delineate exactly when disapproval turned
into disruption.
To a large extent rioting was a case of
generally accepted audience behaviour that simply got out of
hand.
This was especially true when considering theatre riots
over content.
Hers we are getting back to the crucial definition of just
what was a theatre riot.
discern.
The extreme examples are easy to
The tearing up of benches and scenery was clearly a
riot, marked as it was with the removal of women from the house.
The hand to hand combat that sometimes went on between members of
the audience was less clearly riotous.
the show to a halt?
And what about bringing
What about calling out the manager onstage
to answer to the displeasure of the audience with his choices?
What about forcing the early retirement of a new play?
We have
chosen to consider the stopping the performance for an extended
period of time as the indicator of a theatre riot.
close to what was thought at the time.
A
This is very
key notion in this
regard is the idea of damning a play; the audience deciding on
the spot the immediate demise of the production.
For the
purposes of this chapter we might consider damning a play to be
the tastes of the audience ultimately expressed through r i ~ t . ~
As we have seen with the other categories of theatre riots
we have outlined earlier, it is difficult to isolate a public
disturbance over the content of a play from other contentious
issues.
There was certainly a dispute with the management over
their choice of material.
account by
the
The managers were often called to
audience, sometimes in print
and
sometimes
summoned onstage to explain why a disputed play was or was not
being announced for the following night, as Garrick was with G U
in 1751.
Often there was a form of bargaining that went on
between the unhappy patrons and the management.
( 1765) ,
D e Tutoi:
by the Reverend James Townley was thoroughly disapproved
of on its first night and the disturbance on the second night was
violent enough "that nothing Sut a Promise from the Stage, that
it should be acted no more after that Night, could procure it a
Hearing . " 3
After 1737, material of a political nature was largely
curtailed by the examiner of plays, although there were still
incidents where an audience could become activated by political
content and as we have seen, allusions to political events were
interpreted by the audience in ostensibly nonpolitical material.
Soon after the Licensing Act, speeches in older plays that might
be considered as political were left out of a performance, but
the audience, knowing the play well, stopped the action until the
actor replaced the questionable ~ p e e c h . ~
There were often times when parties would form for and
against the play with questionable content, especially in the
case of a dispute that took place over several days.
The
reception to m e F o u n u ebbed and flowed. In these protracted
disturbances we can often see the sides involved using the
strategies and tactics outlined in previous chapters, taking the
dispute forward in the press or assembling the author's friends
for support in the coffee-houses and theatre.
While we have
explored the persona1 side of Party, in these instances the
animosity was not personally directed against an individual, but
very much against the play.
There were a number of points of contention with regard to
a play's content.
In some instances the audience's displeasure
was moralistic, when their sensibilities were offended.
Johnsonfs much awaited tragedy,
Ir-ene
Samuel
(1749), met with such a
The play did not go over well on opening night and in
response.
particular
the
auaience
strangling of Irene.
was
not
pleased
with
the
onstage
Garrick, Johnson's close friend, had in
fact suggested this rather dramatic bit
of
stage business.
During the scene someone from the gallery shouted "Murder!
Murder!"
and after the second performance there was
enough
audience displeasure for Garrick, on subsequent nights, to have
it
"removed to a greater distance.n 5 The play ran for nine
nights, which meant that Johnson was able to receive al1 the
possible customary author's benefits.
An author could receive
three, or every third night of the play's first run.
indicates that
the
play's
longish run was
Boswell
largely due
to
Garrick's support.6
However,
possible.
getting
to
the
third
night
was
not
always
n e T u t u (1765) by Townley only made it through the
second night with negotiation.
The D
u
(1764) by
Frances
Sheridan, fared slightly better, but not without some struggle.
According to the Drury Lane prompter Richard Hopkins, the play
was well acted, but in the fourth act the audience began to hiss
and continued to do so until the end of the play.
When the actor
Havard came onstage at the end of the play to announce its
repetition for the following night, he added the proviso that the
offensive sections would be removed. Still there were many who
cried out IlNo more, no more!"
It is likely the members of the
audience took offense at the rather frank account of the duping
of Sir John Woodall by his former wife, and the somewhat strident
and down ta earth advice f rom his neighbour, M m Friendby (played
by M m . Clive), on what to do in the situation.
The following
evening, with the offensive passages omitted, there was still
some hissing.'
After a poorly attended third, the piece was not
performed again.8
Writing about the play some years later, the
theatrical chronicler David Erskine Baker, noted that there were
"a few passages which the audience thought were indelicate.I1
However, in his opinion, Baker felt that the audience was perhaps
a little "foo delicateu in their judgment.
Although he went on
to note that
the rigid assessment passed on this unfortunate play
redounds greatly to the honour of Our modern
audiences, who, whether mistaken or not in their
judgments, have herein shown, that they will tolerate
nothing which has but the least appearance of being
offensive to the laws of d e c ~ r u m . ~
Sometimes the audience's disapproval was roused by more
Wife by Mrs. Griffiths, which had a
than one issue. c -
short run at Drury Lane theatre starting Thursday, January 24,
1765 was "severely treatedN according to Victor for two reasons.
In the first place the lead female character in the play "was not
a Platonic but a Romantic Wife, who had taken a Disgust at her
Husband for having abated of the Attention and Gallantries of the
Lover after Marriage!'
As with Thg-pe,
the audience seemed to
disapprove the suggestion of explicit sexual situations, as well
as a woman being the one to note their occurrence. The author in
the advertisement to the printed edition speculated upon further
explanation:
The foible ridiculed in the tale is, perhaps, the only
one imputed to Our sex which has never yet been
exposed by a theatrical representation. It is a
simplicity, not a coquetry; it is the error of a
delicate and elevated mind, unacquainted with the
manners of real life, or the general frame of the
human heart.10
Secondly, two other characters in the play did not receive enough
rehearsal and were poorly portrayed.l1
Moreover the audience also disapproved of a major design
element within the play.
Two
important props, a pair
of
portraits depicting the wife in the play's title that were key to
advancing of the play's plot were highly criticized.
"An eminent
artist" newly arrived from Italy had offered to paint
the
portraits, featuring the actress Mrs. Yates in the role, and then
donate them to the theatre afterwards.
The managers chose
instead to commission one of their scene painters, and the
results,
which
were
likened
to
tavern
signposts,
caused
"alternate fits of laughing and hissing, that the performance
continued interrupted and embarrassed while these l a r m e remained
before the curtain."12
Again we find an element of theatre
criticism, and the expression of disappointment that the visual
experience was not as refined as the audience believed was
possible.
The
reaction
to
Charles
Macklin's
play,
m e
a
e r t b illustrates the way that a content issue could offend,
simmer, escalate slowly, and then break out into a violent
disturbance.
Within the play, which opened at Covent Garden in
1761, there was a characterization that offended some Scottish
nobles and their supporters in the audience.
play
ran for nine nights, it did
so
And so while the
"through a continual
opposition."13 At the heart of the discontent was the chaxacter
played by Macklin, Lord Belville, "an elderly noblemanu with "an
insatiate passion for women."
Kirkman, Macklin's biographer,
attributes the root of the problem to the belief that Macklin had
a particular person in mind, although it was not clear to whom he
might
be
referring.
The tension surrounding the play was
certainly contributed to by the growing opposition to Lord Bute
and anti-Scots feeling in general.14
A
letter to Macklin written by H.F. of the Middle Temple
midway through the run gave two suggestions to help guarantee the
success of the play.
His first suggestion was that Macklin
"bring in a claque of friends to counteract the noise of the
Scots Lords who are opposing it." Secondly he suggested a number
of revisions to the play.
play was far too long.
His over riding cornplaint was that the
H.F. advised Macklin to "shorten it and
give the house notice that you have so done."
He suggested that
one way to do this was to curtail the overly didactic tendencies
of some of the characterizations.
to this advice: "this will
...
There was a practical aspect
take away that heavy, lazy and
sleepy (however just) part which makes your friends languish and
grow cold, and gives your enemies an opportunity to improve their
rancor and malignity . l5
What changes Macklin made to the play are unknown, but
either he or the Covent Garden manager, John Rich, appears to
have taken the first advice to heart and hired bruisers for at
least
the
second Saturday performance.
The
indicates the llseveralriots ensued, occasioned by a number of
Jews lwho included several boxers and bruisers] assembled for
that purpose in the two shilling gallery."16
It was not usual
for a riot over content to develop over time that way.
More
often the riots occurred spontaneously, relying on the immediate
response of the regular audience.
The way a particular group was portrayed onstage was often
a point of contention.
Individuals from the Temple took offense
that Dickls Coffeehouse, near Temple Bar, one of their favourite
meeting spots, as well as its proprietors, Mrs. Yarrow and her
daughter, were depicted in James Miller's 1737 play, The Coffee-
House.
While this was denied by the author, the engraver's use
of the coffee shop in question as a mode1 for the frontispiece,
confirmed the affront in the eyes of the Templars and the play,
as well as each subsequent play by Miller, was damned.l7
Fa Mode
(1761) by
J~oveA
Charles Macklin aroused the ire of North
Britons living in London.
Ironically, their displeasure at the
character of Archy Mcsarcsm contributed to the popularity of the
piece, with people coming to witness their reaction.le
Almost a decade later, George Colman's play Jbe O m a n ig
(1770) a
comedy at Covent Garden, caused considerable
consternation among Irish members of the audience. Their affront
was over the play's portrayal of a group of Irish sharpers out to
befriend and bedevil a pair of recent graduates.
The play is
quite relentless in its portrayal of an ignorant, untrustworthy,
Irish stereotype.
As he is exposed at the end of the play
McShuffle, the ringleader of the group is made to rue, "If 1 once
got well out of this shame scrape, upon my shoul I would not
pretend to be a jontleman any longer, but would beg my way back,
as 1 came here, faith, with a hay-fork in my hand.l t l g
In his
dedication to the play, Colman introduces an element of class
superiority into the dispute.
By claiming that "The gentlemen of
Ireland appeared the foremost in his defense," Colman was stating
that even Irishmen of a higher status, saw their countrymen of a
lesser standing in the same negative light as presented in the
play.2O
The presence of the Irish in the theatre as well as their
representation onstage is worth considering.
Throughout the
century, in London as well as in the nation's provincial centres,
there was growth in the Irish population.
Their assimilation was
not without problems and in the summer of 1736 there were antiIrish riots in the London's
tradesmen."
theatre.
East End parishes by
laid off
The Irish also had a considerable presence in the
The number involved in writing and acting has already
been noted.
They were also characterized in many plays, often in
~ only one of many
either a negative or a humourous f a s h i ~ n . ~In
examples Macklin tied them very closely to the law in his
prologue to A Will
No Will (1746). In this short scene which
portrays a section of the pit awaiting the play, there is a comic
Irishman in the tradition of the wise fool. At the same time it
is a barb at Irish members of the legal profession. When asked
his
name
the
Irishmann
replies :
My
name
Langhlinbu11ruderrymackshoughlinbulldowny1 at your service.
is
And
if you have any friend who is indicted for robbery or murder at
any time, or has any other law suits upon his hands at the Old
Baily or Hicks's Hall, I should be proud to serve you and to be
concerned in the cause likewise . "23
In some notable situations the Irish were not necessarily
seen in a negative sense, but as force within the audience to be
reckoned with.
In the paper war that accompanied Garrick's feud
with Macklin through the fa11 and winter of 1743, Garrick made
note near the ena of a pamphlet of one of his opponentls false
assertions:
1 most take notice of a most cruel and false report, which
is not foreign to the subject, as it has been raised on
purpose to hurt me at this time, which is, that 1 have
spoken disrespectfully of the gentlemen of Ireland. 1 do
hereby solemnly avow never to have spoke, or thought even,
with indifference of that country, of which 1 shall ever
have the most grateful remembrance for the many signal
marks of favour 1 received there.24
Garrick certainly had some early success playing in Ireland.
That it should be necessary for the actor to defend himself
attests to the degree of power exerted in the theatre audience by
individuals of Irish descent and it is little wonder that they
took offence to Colmanls vicious stereotypes.
Another group of theatre-goers who took affront to the way
they were
portrayed
onstage were
Reverend James Townleyls &uh
household
Life Relow
servants.
Stairs,
The
produced at
Drury Lane in 1759, caused a considerable stir in London and in
Edinburgh amongst domestic workers.
The play's criticism was
doubled barreled.
It was an indirect critique of the manners and
morals
above
of
those
stairs
who
fopperiesN aped by their servants.
had
their
But more particularly it was
a strong attack on the morals and manners of
themselves.
eyes
of
the
"follies and
the servants
Erskin Baker felt the play was meant "to open the
great,
and
convince
people
of
fortune
what
impositions, even to the ravage and ruin of their estates, they
are liable to, from the wastefulness and infidelity of their
servants.~~5
After receiving an anonymous note about the disloyalty of
his servants, Lovel, 'la gentleman of fortune," decides to go
amongst them in disguise to find out the truth of the matter.
It
is interesting that again we find an anonymous note from a
servant, although this time it is benign and helpful, instead of
threatening, as it was in the Footmanls gallery riot in 1737.
Moreover, in this instance the servant is not showing solidarity
with his colleagues, but rather spying upon them.
Robert, the
protagonist Freemanls old reliable servant, is discovered to be
the author of the warning.
When asked to tell what induced him
to write the note Robert says: III will tell truth; 1 have seen
such waste and extravagance, and riot, and drunkenness, in your
kitchen, Sir, that, as my masterts friend, 1 could not help
discovering it to you." 2 6
In the play a number of pretensions are satirized.
First
of al1 there is the overall pretension, that of the servants
mimicking the airs of their employers. This was played out with
the servants assuming the names as well
as airs of
their
employers. There are Duke and Sir Harry, as well as Lady Bab and
Lady Charlotte. The Duke is introduced through soliloquy
Duke: What wretches are ordinary servants, that go on
in the same vulgar track every day! eating, working,
and sleeping! - - But we, who have the honour to serve
the nobility, are of another species. we are above
the common forms, have servants to wait upon us, and
are as lazy and luxurious as Our masters.27
The Duke and his cohorts then go on to satirize the pretensions
of their masters.
They banter ebout the turf, imported snuff and
gambling with dice.
They make much of speaking French, with
Kitty observing that Ilone is nothing without FrenchN and later
she reads a short passage frsm a self-impxovement book entitled,
'The Servants1 Guide to Wealth, by Timothy Shoulderknot, formerly
servant to several noblemen and now an officer in the customs.
Necessary for al1 Servants."
There is even reference to a duel
over the virtue of a Song, "The Fellow-Servant; or Al1
in
Livery . l1
With these various jabs &ah
both servant and master.
Jife Relow St-
thrusts at
However much of the play's humour is
extremely rough on the servants, and even the virtuous ones are
portrayed as rather humourless in their subservience. In the end
the play blames the servants1 faults on the manners of the
rnasters.
However, there was a twist.
If the upper crust lived
up to their station, "it would be impossible that their servants
could
ape
them; but
when
they
affect
everything
that
is
ridiculous, it will be in the power of any low creature to follow
their exarnple.
This was not a very generous coda to the
appreciation for servant loyalty expressed only lines bef ore.2 8
When
the
play
appeared
in
London, it
opposition from servants in the house.
met
with
much
They "were in a ferment
of rage at what they conceived would be their ruin." Servants in
the upper gallery hissed and groaned at the performances and
threw handfuls of half-pence at Philip, Lord Duke and Sir H a r r ~ . ~ ~
However, its popularity with the rest of the audience was strong
enough to quickly overcome the opposition after only two nights.
As we have seen, London servants had been defeated two decades
earlier in their attempts to rnaintain their seating privileges in
the upper gallery.
However, in Edinburgh, three months after the
London opening, a protest
against the play
was mounted by
Highland f~otmen.~' In this case, word of the insulting nature of
the play was communicated to a number of servants before its
arriva1 from London.
Once again, the protagonists in the dispute made use of a
threatening letter.
Prior to the second nightls performance,
Love, the manager, came forward before the curtain and read an
anonymous
note
he
claimed
to
have
received.
Its
author
threatened the playhouse and the managers, claiming that if they
presented the play that some 70 persons "had engaged to sacrifice
fame, honour, and profit, to prevent
it [s performance] . 1131
Despite the threat, the audience insisted that the play be
performed.
However, when the farce began, there was a noisy
response from the gallery.
Immediately members of the pit told
the noise-makers to behave or they would be turned out. Moreover
masters identified their own servants amongst the protestors and
spoke out to them directly.
However, the protest from the
gallery did not stop. Masters then made their way amongst their
rebellious servants and aided by the city guard, overpowered them
and routed them from their places.32
The removal of servants from the gallery on the evening of
the riot was mirrored by the more long-term removal of their free
gallery privileges.
Moreover soon after the riot, vails, or the
customary cash tips servants received from visiting guests, were
also ~ t o p p e d . ~ ~
As we have seen in a number of the examples we have chosen,
dissatisfaction over a play's content was often felt only by a
small group of people.
The rest of the audience might well enjoy
the production as with U a h Life Below Strun and was often revived.
Fo-
which had a long
by Edward Moore was
also a popular play that met with a mixed response. The play was
mounted at Drury Lane in 1748 where it met with almost "universal
applausew and played for 11 straight nights.
However there was
enough offensive material in the play to make its initial run an
ultimately troublesome one.
Moreover, it was quickly dropped
from the repertoire.
The problems with the play were complex.
audience's
Ostensibly, the
main complaint was with the character of Faddle.
Faddle was described by the Gentleman's as "a needy
mercenary
fop,
cowardice . "34
capable
of
any
villainy,
consistent
with
Played by Charles Macklin, the portrayal was
suggested to be a take off on a man about t o m , Russel, an
operatic dilettante who was "caressed for some years by several
leading ladies of qua1ity.I'
It was later noted that Macklin,
"who never had in voice, figure or features much capacity for the
fop cast, yet struck out some things in Faddle, that have not
been since equaled, particularly in marking the obsequious knave
throughout .
However,
it
was
not
characterization that brought on the hisses.
just
Macklin's
There were problems
with the script, the part of Faddle was too lengthy and it was
cut back by the author after the initial disapproval.
The
author, Edward Moore, wrote in the dedication to the printed
edition of the play that the "Disapprobation" which greeted the
character "made it necessary for me to shorten it in almost every
S c e n e . ' ~ ~Indeed,
~
the Larpent manuscript shows numerous changes
including the substitution of rake for whoremaster and the
removal of suggestive passages.37
However, this
continued
on
did
subsequent
not
stop
nights.
the
protests, which
The
battle
lines
were
were
established with members of the pit, and in particular a group of
Templars for the play, and a group of Lords against it.
Events
rose to a head when, after seven straight nights of performance,
Lord Hobart arranged a party to damn the play for running too
long and were met by a party of Templars I1armed with syringes
charged with stinking oil and with sticking plasters for W b v I ~ s .
fair hair."
And though these weapons were not actually used,
catcalls were, and an apple was tossed £rom the gallery at
Mackl in.
However, there was enough popularity surrounding the new
production to keep it going as long as possible, although this
required a careful monitoring of the audience each time the play
was announced for a future performance. On the 29th of February
there was (according to the prompter Cross) a "Great Threatening
among ye Lords [and] the managers to prevent tumult gave out
[King Lear] .
Despite this opposition however, it was clear
that Garrick would have to run the play again, for sake of the
audience and for his own pocketbook.
There were a number of people who had purchased box tickets
for the cancelled night and they were allowed to use those on the
following Saturday when once more the play was to be perfomed.
However, there was no room for al1 the box holders so that those
denied access made their way into the gallery where they added to
the
potentially
explosive mix.
As
things
turned
out
the
explosion never took place and events gradually petered out.
Illness by Garrick caused the cancellation of one night and the
play was only performed four more times that season.
Given this protracted response to a e F
Q
,
we might
question whether or not it deserves to be called a riot about
content.
Horace Walpole, who provided a number of details about
Lord Hobart in one of his newsy letters to Horace Mann, felt that
the Lords went to d a m the production "merely for the love of
damnation;' Cross the prompter felt it was because of their pique
at being denied access backstage.
The Lords themselves claimed
their opposition had been to the lengthy run of the play."
However, the initial fuss had been immediate and as we have
indicated, largely focused on the character of Faddle.
Al1 this should not be allowed to hide a more subtle
content issue.
Content was not something that existed at one
immediately discernable level.
almost a revolutionary play.
In some ways 2 F o u n w was
In "the tone of the French drame,"
the play linked the sentimentalism of the early part of the
century with the latter.41
Steelets ,-snoC
It was in the spirit of Richard
but
without the demeaning servants.42
traditional devices.
as one commentator remarked,
And the plot has many of the
However, it is on closer reading a rather
improbable tale and demands much suspension of disbelief around
several issues.
a
-.
Its improbability was much discussed, including
lengthy analysis and
43
counter analysis in the Wtleman's
Moreover, there was a strangely ambivalent morality
to the piece and it becomes almost melodramatic in places.
Considering the reaction to
Fo-
as we
have
described it above, it is interesting to briefly note the playis
stage history.
Initially it was very popular, running for eleven
straight nights and then four more nights before the season
ended.
from
As we have seen however the audience reaction was far
unanimous.
Gentleman's Ma-,
Besides
the
lengthy
discussion
in
the
criticism and defense of the play was also
conducted in the pamphlet press.44
However, despite this initial
flurry of interest and life within the repertoire, the next
season there were only three performances, and in 1749-50 only
one.
After that it was not performed for another decade, and
then, less than ten times through the 1 7 6 0 s . ~ No
~ doubt, part of
the play's initial success was due to its stellar cast, with
Garrick, Barry, Havard, Sparks and Yates, joining Macklin in the
male roles, alonj with Mrs. Woffington and Mrs Cibber in the two
female roles. But 1 would Say there was something about the tone
of the play, its emotionalism mixed with moral ambivalence that
caught
people's
attention,
engendering
riot
as
well
as
popularity.
Conclusion
As is evident, riots over theatre content were not often a
unanimous response on the part of the audience.
In fact by their
very nature they were often the cry of a single, outraged group,
a group that could be overwhelmed by the reaction of the general
audience, as was the case in the servant's disruption of a Hish
With the difficulty of defining a theatre riot over content
in mind, it is somewhat troublesome to assess their prevalence
through the period of Our study.
However, there does seem to be
a surge in content riots from the late 1740s until the 17709, at
least with those of the show stopping kind.
audience could
still be
vociferous
when
After that, the
their
tastes were
offended, but not nearly to the same degree as earlier.
There
still were noisy reactions to various plays, but not ones that
stopped the show, or brought the managers out on stage to
apologize.
Except for "four occasional exceptions, the public listened
attentively to what the actors had to Say and permitted the
action to proceed without interruption." Allardyce Nicoll,
S t a ~ ,87-8. See Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz's comment,
chapter 1, note 51
See George Colman and David Garrick, m e Clzmk&ine -,
1761. The epilogue featrues a party returning from the theatre
and reporting on their attempts to damn a play:
Lord Minum:
And isnlt it damntd,Miss?
Miss Crochet:
No, my Lord, not quite:
But we shall d a m it.
Col. Trill:
When?
Miss Crochet:
To-morrow Night.
There is a Party of us, al1 of Fashion,
Resolv'd to exterminate this vulgar Passion:
Victor, Ustorv of the Theatrea, III, 62-3. Diary of Richard
Cross, in Macmillan, V
e Calendar, 73.
4
don M a g a z à u ~4/1739.
P.H. Highfill. Jr.,
K.A. Burnim, and E.A. Longhans (Eds.).
.
cal n i c t i ~ ~of~ yActors. ActreSseS. n a n w s , Manaserç
el in ilondon 1660- 180Q, Carbondale :
Southern Illinois University Press, 1975,
"Garrick, 19 ;
Davies, Life of David Garrick, 1, 157; llIntroduction,lt
Irene,
London, R. Dodsley, 1749 (Scolar Press, 1973).
"Mr. Garrick's zeal carried it through for nine nights, so
that the author had his three nights' profits; and from a
receipt signed by him, now in the hands of Mr. James Dodsley,
it appears that his friend Mr. Robert Dodsley gave him one
hundred pounds for the copy, with his usual reservation of the
~ .-J
right of one edition. James Boswell, J k f of
7
-,
Frances Sheridan, m e
w,
1764.
Richard Hopkinst Diary, 10/12/1763, in Macmillan, prurv
101.
Baker,a-
Dr-i,
II, 180.
Elizabeth Griffith, ThePlatonic 1765. Mrs Griffith also
pointed out in the advertisement that she chose to "submit this
performance to the candor and clemency of the public, after
having, perhaps, too adventurously hazarded their criticism and
censure.
11
Victor,
l2
Baker, P
13
Genest, Some Account of the En-
8
III, 61.
,
i
o
w rire, III, 160-1-61.
Staae, IV, 624-5.
James Thomas Kirkman,
sefo#
Macvols. of London: Printed for Lackington, Allen, and Co,
1799,
l4
ml 2
l5 Letter is in an extra-illustrated version of Kirkmanls Life of
M a c u , in the Houghton Archives, Harvard. Cited in
841.
u,
17
Baker, Piou-
18
Davies, Life of Ga&&,
19
George Colman, The
20
George Colman, T
h
e, IV, 158.
21
Stevenson, Popular D i s t u r b a n c ~ E n g l a n d ,61.
n r w t i c a , 11, 111-12.
1, 325-6.
Q
1770,
u
II, ii.
,
an
See J. O. Bartley,
v of the -est
Irish W e l ç h S c o t t C h a r a c t e r s
Plavç, Cork University Press, 1954.
23 Charles Macklin, F Will a
n
dLavers,
London, 1746, Prologue, ln62 .
22
24
r Garyickls m w e r to Mr. Macklinls Case, 7/12/1743, in
Davies, Life of David Ga-,
101.
25
Baker, pioar-a
D r a n a m , II, 302.
--
Chapter 7
Conclusion
We then went to the Bedford Coffee-house and had
coffee and tea; and just as the doors opened at four
o'clock, we sallied into the house, planted ourselves
in the middle of the pit, and with oaken cudgels in
Our hands and shrill-sounding catcalls in Our pockets,
sat ready prepared, with a generous resentment in Our
breasts against dullness and impudence, to be the
swift ministers of vengeance.
19/1/1763.
James Boswell, ThP London JO-,
During the five decades between 1730 and 1780 covered by
this study, riots were a relatively common occurrence in London's
three major theatres.
highly
interactive
They were a characteristic element of a
theatre
experience.
Eighteenth
century
audiences were boisterous and responsive, loudly supportive of
what they liked, and equally demonstrative of their dislikes.
Theatre riots were part of the spectrum of audience response.
Moreover, the reactions of the audience were closely monitored by
theatre managers as guides to what they should produce within
their theatres.
To a great extent the roots of the audience's power can be
traced
to
theatre.
the
commercial nature
of
the
eighteenth
century
Unsubsidized by the state or ruling elite,' the success
of a theatrical concern depended upon the ability of a theatrels
managers to attract a paying audience.
If that audience could be
brought in, there was significant money to be made, not only for
the theatrels proprietors, but also for playwrights and actors.
However, this was only possible if there were people willing to
buy tickets.
This situation gave the audience a significant amount of
power. Through their freedom to choose whether or not to attend,
the members of the audience were responsible to a great degree
Granted it was a situation where the
for what was performed.
management both led and followed the taste of the a~dience.~
Managers were often willing to try
süt
new attractions as Garrick
did with the Chinese Festival ballet.
However, these new
productions were only added to the repertoire if the people
accepted them and were willing to buy tickets.
One way the new
attractions were sometimes turned aside, was with a theatre riot.
Of
course
there
were
other
choosing to buy a ticket or not.
audience
could
have
a
more
responses
besides
simply
Once inside the theatre the
immediate
reaction
to
the
presentations onstage, whether at the expected points in the
programme or spontaneous.
Here we come to one of the major
functions of a theatre riot.
It was a form of response to a
play, in the line of claps or groans, although with rather more
dramatic consequences.
However, theatre riots were not simply
reactions to the material onstage. Other issues from outside the
theatre were fought out in the theatres.
~lthoughcertainly the main activity was to partake of the
evening's entertainment, the audience was not just at the theatre
to attend the play.
As
There were other attractions and activities.
a public place in a busy section of the metropolis with a fa11
to spring schedule that mirrored the fa11 to spring 'Season,'the
theatre was a prominent social meeting place.
To a great extent
people were also there to watch and interact with each other.
Moreover, through discussion and analysis in the press and
coffee-house culture, the theatre experience was extended into
the community at
the same time, because of
large. At
the
interrelationship, issues from the larger community had an impact
on the theatre in return.
While these general conditions provide the fertile setting
for a theatre riot there were many grounds for the actual
disturbances.
We have classified those causes and it would be
worthwhile to discuss their changing prevalence through the
period we have chosen to study.
Riots caused by public quarrels between personalities along
with their supporting parties, accounted for nearly half of the
riots we have listed.
period
and
quite
We find that they occurred throughout the
naturally
they
often
involved
theatre
personalities.
In the 1730s authors were the prime targets,
largely
because
leanings.
chosen
of
their
alleged
pro-administration
William Popple was a victim twice, altering his play
on the first occasion and two years later withdrawing his play
after one performance.'
After mid-century the quarreling rivals
are most often actors along with their supporters.
In this
regard three individuals stand out, Macklin, Barry and Woodward,
al1 highly popular and talented performers.
actors were highly esteemed.
In the Garrick era
One can make claim that there was a
paucity of good plays during this period, but there was certainly
not a lack of stellar performers.
And while not enjoying the
financial success or fame of Garrick, by eighteenth century
standards these actors were paid very well
and had strong
followings.
Theatre riots of a political nature were the fewest in
number during this period, accounting for only three riots.
Moreover
they
al1
occurred
between
1738
and
1755.
Not
surprisingly they took place during a period of great tension
with France, Britain's commercial and imperial rival.
And while
the ostensible onstage targets were companies of French actors,
in each case political issues from outside the theatres fuelled
the disputes. And while in 1738 there was little support for the
visiting
Company, in 1749 and
significant numbers of defenders.
1755 the
French actors had
As a consequence the latter
two riots were extremely violent with significant damage to the
theatres and grave injuries to some of the people involved.
Riots over management-related issues occur primarily in the
early decades of the period.
This distribution of prevalence
reflects a turbulent time in London theatre history when the
independent, vibrant theatre community that developed through the
1720s and 30s was severely limited by the Lord Chamberlain at the
behest of Londonis two patent holding managers.
The riots which
greeted Charles Fleetwood's attempted price increase were very
much
a
part
of
the
post-Walpole concern
with
management
corruption and accountability, and marked only the beginning of a
sustained examination of theatre practice and administration.
David Garrick did a significant job in getting theatre management
under control, taking an active part in al1 aspects of the job,
and showing great insight into the theatrical desires of the
public.
While he was confronted with other types of riots, there
were not many that questioned his management.
exception was the Half Price Riots in 1763.
the most notable of al1 theatre riots.
The one major
These were amongst
To some extent this is
because they were extremely well organized, but also because they
were the only riots to visit both of the large patent theatres.
The final category, content riots, is perhaps the hardest
to discern, in that they most closely follow the continuum of
expected audience behaviour.
They were after al1 a direct
response to the material presented onstage. There are many times
when a play was met with a deafening chorus of catcalls and
jeers.
We would have a longer list if we included them all.
Of
those we have classified as riots, we find examples throughout
However there is a concentration between 1748 and
the period.
The
1765.
morality
of
the
nation
was
under
increasing
examination during those years, and it is not surprising that
managers sometimes had trouble pleasing the tastes of everyone.4
Moreover, the material in question was not always unanimously
censured.
Although a play like
Foudling
i1748)
did not
enjoy the lasting success, during its initial run it had a
significant number of supporters as well as detractors.
We began this work with a comparison of theatre riots and
riots
out-of-doors
and
we
might
briefly
revisit
that
consideration. While troops were brought onstage during the 1738
riots which greeted the French Company at the Little Theatre in
the
Haymarket, and
the
Riot
Act
was
read
to
the
footmen
attempting to retain their special seating arrangements at Drury
Lane in 1737, there was not a great deal of officia1 response to
theatre riots during the eighteenth century.
Riotous behaviour
can be judged by the intent of the rioters and by the actual
impact of the riot.
significant
damage.
With theatre riots we see there was often a
impact, with
injuries
and
substantial
property
But for the most part the intent was focused inside the
theatre, and generally in keeping with the interests of the
governing elite.
In those riots where there are legitimate
challenges to the power structure, as with the Footmenls riots,
there
was
a
significant
backlash,
with
arrests
made
and
individuals charged. It was there that the Riot Act was read and
that special seating was denied.
While the actual end of rioting in London theatres takes
place beyond the period under consideration, we can draw some
conclusions about its decline during the middle decades of the
eighteenth century.
It might be asked if there were changes in
the composition of the audience that contributed to the decline
of rioting.
In particular, was there a change in the gender
balance of the audience during the 1780s and 90s that had an
ameliorating influence on the behaviour of play-goers?
It has
always been difficult to determine the actual makeup of the
audience, but from the evidence we do have, there were not
significant changes in the ratio of men to women amongst the
theatre audience.
1730s,
the
Whether it was "Shakespeare's Ladiesu in the
fernale
audience
members
who
appeared
in
many
conternporary prints, or the many women theatre-goers referred to
in the plays themselves, the evidence indicates that the theatre
was relatively well attended by women throughout the period.
The
reasons for the decline in rioting lie elsewhere.
We have spoken of riots as a form of the audiencefs active
involvement in the theatre experience.'
To some extent riots
were related to an overriding concern with freedom of choice on
the
part
of
theatre-goers
and
the
perceived
responsibilities of both audience and managers.
rights
and
"1 think every
Man has a Right to draw his Pen against you, when he sees you
rnisapply the Power that is plac'd in you," wrote a parnphleteer to
Garrick in 1748, soon after he took over Drury Lane.6
However,
Drury Lane was a much different theatre by the tirne Garrick
retired and sold his patent to Richard Sheridan.
Garrick had
made many innovative changes in lighting, and in set design, but
he also made a number of enlargements.
With a capacity of over
2,360 seats in 1776, the theatre Garrick left was nearly twice
the size as when he had started managing in 1747.'
By the end of
the century the theatre would hold more than 3,500.
By the end of the 1770s the theatre was no longer the
intimate space it had been even up to the beginning of this
study.
Theatre riots were much less effective in the great
expanse of the larger spaces.
Irnprovements in lighting meant
that the audience could see the stage in better fashion, but at
the same time this brilliance would increasingly contrast the
stage with the house itself, again diminishing the impact of the
audience's performances.
Besides, the
increasing amount of
spectacle and scenic effects meant that theatre audiences were
more prone to watch the performance than to participate anyway.
Moreover, after the violence and destruction of the Gordon Riots
in 1780, the act of rioting itoelf was seen as much more
threatening and dangerous than it had been earlier.
By the end
of the century, the age of the theatre riot was largely over.
1
The opera, on the other hand, was supported by subscription.
Poet: m e a r e .
Michael Dobson, m f eo - M
Authorship. 1660-1789, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992,
208.
3
don Dailv Post and GenAdvertisa, 28/2/1736.
4
"Satire or self-satisfaction, the common responses of the
Augustan age, were replaced by analysis and constructive
criticism.
But the most dominant note is a growing moral
imperative, and insistence that human virtue can be measured only
by its immediate social value, an attitude of mind which could
justify both reform and repression." Plumb, Ensland in thr:
eenth Pen-,
1957, 84.
This active audience involvement can be contrasted with the
nineteenth century experience. In September 1879 it was remarked
by a correspondent to the magazine Theatre, "English audiences
are painfully cold, and in fashionable theatres indifference is
In Booth, "The social and literary context: The theatre
m d i t s audienceN, 24.
6
Letter to Mr G - - - - - - k, 1749, 6.
7
Harry William Pedicord, The Theatrical
- P
rick, New York: King's Crown Press, 1954, 15. The theatre held
1,268 persons during the 1747-8 season.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Daily Advertiser
Daily Gazetteer
Daily Journal
Daily Post
Evening Advertiser
General Advertiser
Grub-Street Journal
London Chronicle
London Daily Post and General Advertiser
London Evening Post
Public Advertiser
Magazines
The Adventurer
The Connoisseur
Covent-Garden Journal
The Craftsman
Gentlemen's Magazine
Gray's Inn Journal
London Magazine
The Idler
The Rambler
Theatrical Monitor
Town and Country Magazine
Play Collectione
Literature Online, Version 00.3, March 2000
http://lion.chadwyck.com/home
English Prose Drama, Version 2, Chadwyck-Healey, 1996-97.
Backscheider, Paula, ed. m n t h - C g n t u r v E n W h Dr-,
York: 1979-1984.
69 vols. New
mec
York: Readex
Wells, Henry W., ed.,
Microprint, 1953-.
CenUJries of
D r a , New
Monographs, Pamphlets, and Broadsides
---
A clear stage, and no favour: or, tragedy and comedy at war.
Occasionld by the emulation of the two theatric heroes, David and
Goliath. Left to the impartial decision of the t o m , London: printed
for J. Huggonson, 1742.
--d M o g u e in tire green-room w o n a d i & u z b m e
London: printed for George Burnett, 1763.
in the nit,
letter to Mr. Garrick on the o~enisa of the Theatre. with
ct of -S.
to actors. a m r s .
, London: printed for
J. Coote, 1758.
letter to Mr. Garrick. on his h
a
v
e
d
a DateDr for
e ~lav-house,London: printed, for J. Freernan, and to be
had of Mr. Lewis, 1747.
London: 1742.
letter to Mr G - - - - - - relative to bis treble ca~acitv Qf
or:
some reLethe. , London:
printed and sold by W. Reeve; and A. Dodd, 1749.: 1749.
letter to a certainatmtee: in w h i c h e cn-t
of muagers
v
r m e d : and a fpw
es~ht-d
w
o
etseb-e~
as
of the DU.
Mr. G - - - Mr. F - - - - Mrs. P- - - - &c .
, London: printed for H. Mumford; and sold at the pamphlet shops in
London and Westminster, 1747.
--- A
,
London: H.
- - - Letter to the Town, concer-a the
Jeffery, 1752.
the Rot*,
London:
1749.
st o t h a
ed to Mr. Lee
. . .
k w e s . w o n u s exhibition's le-e
heads., London: printed for the author, and sold by J. Macgowan,
1780.
---
a ~ ~ e ato
l the D
D
London:
printed for Wilson and Fell, 1763.
--printed for Thomas Hope, 1761.
The wology, London:
h
=ch
ce to Mr. G- - rr- - sk..
, London: printed for J. Roberts, 1747.
W
A
~ i e c eof secret
Side of the Ouestion., London: printed for W. Morgan, 1763.
ai state of U r e s e n t dl F
te belqnqina to His Map.sty's
at the Theatre, London,1733.
-
of Westminster, London: 1749.
---
on the o
F
a Letter to the Author, London:
1748.
broke o ~ e n .In a letter to Mr. G - - - . , London:
printed for M. Cooper, 1748.
-
---
the way
:-t
o new overture u
D
1-b
o
or.
n
e
to the favourite airs in o o p a
Sumpter, print and bookseller, at the Bible and Crown, three doors
from Shoe-Lane Fleet-Street, 1763.
---
ed: or. the U
m t f o r d , London: printed for W. Nicoll; and W. Harris, 1768.
~roloau~s.
eoilocrues. and o u c e s never before
ated
for wit.
d
levers of theatri-1
diversion, whether b
v
a
h-st
f a ~ A 1 a E t s .j e s e s - .1egUlllesbeaus
.
les. but more in g
a
x
t
i
c
a
l
London: printed for and sold by the booksellers in Pater-Noster-Row,
at the Royal-Exchange, and at al1 the pamphlet-shops, in London,
1756.
ute bewW. Bickerton, 1743.
faction of the D
ck. in regard to the
the manaser., London: printed for
, -
London: Printed for J. Roberts in
Warwick-Lane, 1743.
--ghe
me Conguleratiws on the E s t a b l i s h m e n t stroiers:
behaviour of their bullv-champions. and other s e a s o u
London: R. Freeman, 1749.
---
me reflecfor J. Cooke, 1760.
---
e,
t
o
b
nn the
of a
mlLondon: printed
[London]: 1. Strutt and E. Burns, 1800.
e Case Retween t h e u e r s of t h e TWO Theatres.
Actprs. F U v S t a t e d . Submitted to the Town , London:
Printed for J. Roberts in Warwick-Lane, 1743.
---
. .
e -lad:
or. a few modest auestions ~roposed to &
peverend author of The R o s c u , London: printed for J. Williams; and
T. Lewis, 1761.
---
ct of the Four sof Covent-G-n
Theatre.
f r e e l v a n d a r t h l l v e>ramiried. both wi th r e s a r d i r Dresent
es.
their -~ a s t.
t
n
r
Rv a Freauater of
theatre, London: 1768.
e Covent-Garden JO-.
the oreseet k!eaW.wter
To be ~ u b m l donce everv month.
election. By Paul Wronqbead. of the
Printed for T. Smith, R. Wells, and S.
Johnson, and sold by al1 the people of London and Westminster; where
persons who bring advertisements or letters to the author are taken
in, 1749.
el
---
e c u r t u lecture: or. the manager run ru&. A u
e between
a stage-duector and his wlfe. , London: printed for J. Howel, and
sold by the booksellers of London and Westminster, 1758.
---
to pav at t
d l
price
six-pence ed. Printed for R. Griffiths at the Dunciad in PaterNoster Row, 1755.
res. and t h e u
r to a friend., London: Printed
for Jacob Robinson, 1744.
---
the Director of D
L the Pit Potentates,
1744.
e Rosciad of
By a u e n t l e w , London: printed for the author: sold by
H. D. Symonds, 117871 .
---
. .
. .
. .
e £&.se Ridicule
m a Fr-,
Bibliotheca Curiosa, edited by Edmund Goldsmid, F.R.H.S.,
privately printed, Edinburgh, 1885 ed. London: 1747.
---
e Rosclad of C- -v - - nt - G - - rd-n, , London: printed
author, and sold by J. Gretton; and W. Nicoll: 1762.
Theatre's lsicl Royal &c ...,,
London: printed by
&
for the
for J. Roach,
1792.
well
d on T h w d a v the 3à
en. bv M e s s l e u
Feard. Smith. Woodward. ~it . boxes.
*
a
ted to the favourite airs the ooera of Art-es.,
Printed for J. Williams, Fleet-street, 1763.
--le: or. the D- - printed for E. Nutt; and A. Dodd, 1733.
---
es. A satire,,
[London]:
London:
tic satire, London: printed for
T. Lownds, 1751.
---
,D-er
London: W. Owen, 1753.
. .
al bouguet: cmtainins an alDhabetica1 arransement of
es and e-u h g u e s . which have been ~-d
bv
d wits ...,, London: Printed for T. Lowndes, 1780.
for Jacob
Robinson, 1743.
P....
RV a
u ,London:
printed
for G. Burnet, 1763.
- - - ricks of the T
G e ~ ~ m e London:
n,
1746.
en: or. A C o m o n for Coiantry
Antigallican, The mock officers. Be-
an ad-ss
to the t o m . Or,
Antigallican, An, An Ode to a Plaver, London: A. More, 1755.
. .
Archenholz, Johann Wilhelm von,
. .
m
l
London:
printed for Edward Jeffery, 1789.
Ashton, James-Brown , The ode on d
e
u
a b m a . &Author,
Dramatic, A d e f e n c e k . in inqwer to the letter-writer.
state of
S a o e . Rv,a
-rd
London: printed for R. Stevens, 1759.
9
Baker, David Erskine, W
i
.
a Dramatica.on
to t.he
Rees, Orme and Brome, 1812.
Beard, John, #
IV Stated.&
S U t t e d t a h e Sense of the
ic in G u , London: 1763.
Bellamy, George Anne, Z u a ~ U u y for the life of
te of Covent G a r d e n T h e a t r e . ,
J. Bell, 1785.
Boaden, James, W
Colburn, 1831.
*
ceorae
AUE
London:
s of Mrs Si&&na, Vol. 2 vols. of London: Henry
Boswell, James, London JO-
1762-1763, New York: Mcgraw-Hill,
1950.
Boswell, James,
c o r r e ç D o n d e n c x o f Jamesoswell with David
E
Rurke. andEdmond
London: Heinemann, 1986.
Briton, North, A Foote. es-wer
to his
a~oloav/ bv a North B r u , Edinburgh: P. Williamson, 1771.
. .
Brown, John, E s t i m a t e e r s U PrucLgles of the Times,
1757.
Brownsmith, John, Thie D
r
m
l Monitor:
es-Royal..., London:
Printed for J. Almon, 1767.
.
O
Brownsmith, John, The rescue: or. T h m a n scourue. R e b u a critical
to the merit of a -poem. eaitled. Theapis. With some
d-er
oniece, London: printed for J. Williams,
1767.
ci-3
Chetwood, William Rufus,
Present ,Chetwood, William Rufus,
W.Owen, 1749.
Con-ss:Art
London: 1743.
a
State of the
General Hintory of the Staae, London:
. .
. .
Chetwood, William Rufus, n e R r i t m Theatre: C
m
a the L i v e ~
ic Poets. With an Account of Al1 Their Plavs:
. . l Actors, As Weil As
T
o
%
t
h
e
r
a
e Poets: to Whlch 1s Prefaced. a Short View of the Rise and
ess of the EnqllsbStaae, Dublin: P. Wilson, 1750.
Laver,
,
James, (Ed),
Churchill, Charles, Poems of C h a r - l ~ ~
London: Methuen, 1970.
Cibber, Colley, 8
2 ,
vols., 1740 (New York: AMS Press, 1966).
Cibber, Theophilus, A serio-comic a ~ o k a yfor part of the li fe
er. c m a n . Written bv himgelf. in which
n e ~ u a u e ,an3 a ~oern.wroteqn_the d a y
Bpmeo .rida first r~vivedin 1744, Dublin: printed by
Long, 1748.
of
US
of
A.
5 Vols., 1753.
Cibber, Theophilus, TheLiveç
Cibber, Theophilus, W e D i s t l e f r o m l e r . to David
are onre-ed.
some occasverses,
. .
petitions.
&c., London: Printed for R. Griffiths . . . and to be had
also of Mr. Cibber . . . , 1755.
Cibber, Theophilus, Two D u e r t a t h on the Theatres, London, 1757.
. .
Clif ford, James L., ed. Dr. Can@ellls niarv of a Visit to Enghuà
1775, Cambridge University Press, 1775 (1947).
as manaaer of thp Th
F.E., Mr. G a r r i c k ' s c t ,
v-Unp. c-ed.
In a letter m e s s e d to him., second
edition ed. London: printed for C. Corbett, 1747.
Fielding, Henry,
-on:
a DroDer index to th= t-,
T. Waller, 1766.
. .
s-c
a ~eries of papers,
To e&
of
is a
u
Third edition ed. London: Printed for
Fitz-Crambo, Patrick.,
triwgkmt.1 &ci l-tv
lost: the
O s
t
r
e
d
e
d
.
.
.
on the famu
gr. Wtorical. c r i t i c a l . a n d D r o D h e t i c a l s
çartel latelv aareed on b,v the w t e r s ..., London: G. Lyon, 1743.
Fitzgerald, Percy Hetherington, T
h
g
p
o
f
c
k
: From
lished
Sources, 2 Vols. London: Tinsley, 1868.
Fitzgerald, Percy Hetherington, A New m o f h
stase:
From the R
t
o
r
R
* in cmthe P m t Housea, 2 Vols. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1882.
Fitzpatrick, Thaddeus, An w u i r y into the real merit of a c e r u
~ e r f m .
In a series of letters. first w h e d in the
With an introduction to n - - - , London:
printed for M. Thrush, 1760.
Fleetwood,
Charles,
Foote, John Parsons, w i r s of the life of Samuel E. Foote. bv his
, Cincinnati: R. Clarke & CO., 1860.
Foote,
Samuel,
8
com4v
. ,
cçm&kld
and
d an e
n t o the merit of the o r w t comlc actorg, London: Printed for T.
Waller ..., 1747.
Foote, Samuel, A treatise on theDassions.
so far as thev r e w d the
theatrlcal merit of Mr. G-k.
ered in the art of Lear. the
çwo last ogposed in O t u , London: printed for C. Corbet, 1747
(AMS, 1976).
F-B-L-1
T
h
e
.
on a more extensive-
P
-
. ,,
D-ers.
Wilkie, 1767.
Garrick, David,
m.
London: Printed for C. Parker; and J.
Garyickls m w e r to Mr. Marhlinl~case, London:
1743.
[Garrick, David] , An essav on actiga: in Jahich will be c
m
viour of a c e r t a i n 1e faultv actor. . . . TQ
. . .
dded. a short ~~~~~~m on hisactincr Mad2eL.h. ,
London: printed for W. Bickerton, 1744.
Garrick, David, j4n ode on t u a t h of Mr. P e w m . , London:
printed: and sold by M. Cooper, 1754.
[Garrick, David1 ,
1
a letter to John Rich. Fsa: , London: printed for
J. Cooke, 1759.
Garrick, David, B e Fribb-,
London: Printed for J. Coote, 1761.
Garrick, David,
sick nlpnkey. a fable, London: printed for J.
Fletcher, and Co., 1765.
Garrick, David, m e Poetical Works of David Garrick.i~owEirst
O Two V
o
l
~
t
o
r Notes,
v
London: G.
Kearsley, 1785.
Garrick, David, E i n s ~ m o f s t flavour: or. A selection of
ed letters of the Enaluh Roscius. David Ga~rlck,
New York: Russell & Russell, 1930 (1967).
of David Garrick. Descr~h,na His . Vis&
.
ed From the 0rlqJ.Ed
W New
i
ÇhakesDea
e
ra
Y
ro
k
r: The Modern
n
Language Association of America, 1939.
Garrick, David,
3
JO-
,
9
.
Garrick, David, n e J,etters of David Garrick, 3 vols. London, 1963.
Garrick, David,
Diarv
a Record of Xki
. . of David G m c k : Be&$
le Trio to Paris in 1751.., , New York: Benjamin Blom, 1971.
Genest , John, # Staaf= from
1660 to 183Q, Vol. 10 vols. of New York: Burt Franklin, 1832.
Gent leman, Francis,
TheD
Vol.
9
3
2 vols. of London: Bell, 1770.
Gentleman, Francis, " A Short Dissertation on Theatrical Management,"
TheDramatc London: Bell, 1770, 2: 451-56.
. .
Gilliland, Thomas, T h e t i c M i r x C o n t a i n l n u the Historv qf
Staae.. .Of Al1 the Dramatic Writers From 1660. a n d 0 of the
. .
Most D
M , Vol. 2 vols of London: Printed for
C. Chapple, 1808.
Impartial Hand, U s e policy detected: or some select ~ k c e sof
1 secret-_hifitory laid open: in a letter to a certain
. .
. .
on h14 -tiftification
of h i s e comuct . , London:
printed for J. Robinson, 1744.
H.W., A Letter to David G a r r i - e t h e ,
1769.
Haldane, John, Tbe ~ h y e x sscourse: or a detection of the horrid
o r t a
and esbecially of t h e e b r u 4 w e owan w t s , . . - who were
[Edinburgh?]. : 1757.
Hay-market, Rope-dancing monkey in the,
y of D r u
London: printed for J. Pridden, 1767.
e. on theEarl
Hill, Aaron,
Blom, 1966).
and
William Popple,
Prompter
: The
al Paber 117'34-17'361,1734-1736 (New York: B.
Hill, John, t
u
-:
a New
hlPEh, London: R. Griffiths, 1755.
Hill, John, Qb-as
preseat r e w o n a&
J. Jackson, 1759.
on t h e - k
~ 0 - 1 ~ mrovements, London: M. Cooper and
. .
. .
. From I t s First
Jackson, John, H i s t o r v r 2 - 1 ~scotcish Stase.
L
Edinburgh:
I
Printed for P.
Hill, 1793.
P
.
1
John Boyle, Earl of Orrery, A
n
v W o o d w ~ ~ ~cornedian.
d.
~ i t hsome o c c a s i o n a l k s on the
auUWmmR
t
.
London:
,printed for M. Cooper, 1753.
. .
Johnson, Samuel, A Compiete V i n d i c a t i o n e r s of L k
of Mr Frooke,
1739.
Johnson, Samuel, A D i c u v of the
a-nF
8
.
London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton, 1755.
proloaue. bv S m e l -OJ
Johnson, Samuel, n e Dr-np
id Garrick 1747: re~roduced in t w e - f a r. u.l e from
. .
the edition e e d by W. Webh , London: Oxford University Press, H.
Milford, 1924.
. .
Jones, Claude E., ed. Isaac Reed Diaries 1762-1804, University of
California Publications, 1946.
Kelly, Hugh, m i s , Ta a
.i .
t
o
n into &
a
to Druv-il=
-
Theatre, London: Printed for G. Kearsly, (No. 1) in Ludgate-Street,
1766.
. .
Kelly, Michael, #
a bs T
hs a ~eriodof e a r b wf a cenYork: B. Blom, 1969).
h
e
,
London: 1748.
Kenrick, William, T
Kenrick, William, r
e
. b&a
the
lamentation,
London: printed
for J. Wheble, 1772.
Kenrick, William, A letter to navid Garack. F m . o c c w d bv Iiis
UvkvL, London: printed for J. Wheble, 1772.
Kirkman, James Thomas, Mernoirs o f e
2 vols., London, 1799.
Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph,
#
,
of -es
.
Macklin. Es&,
,
&
les r17741, 1938 (New York: B.
Blom, 1969).
to David G a r a , London: printed for the
Lloyd, Evan, &I ~D-P
author: and sold by Messrs. Richardson and Urquhart, 1773.
Lloyd, Robert, Bn e~istleto C. CkuxdU1. author of The Rosciad,
London: printed for William Flexney, 1761.
Lloyd, Robert, #
Bl-.
the W h o l ~EmbelliçhID with ~ h ~ g t r i~i
~~l
RandolDh Schwabe, London: C.W. Beaumont, 1926.
S
I
Loftis, John (cornp.), tt
. .
riodic&,
Los Angeles: Williams Andrews Clark Memorial Library,
University of California, 1960.
Luttrell , Narcissus, A b r i e f L & 3 3 C i i L L
fEom September 1678 to m i l 1714, 6 vols. Oxford, At the University
Press, 1857.
Macklin, Charles,
1743.
D e
Macklin, Charles,
ca-e of Charles Machlin. c
-
I
o
~ London,
,
1
Dapers. w h c h have ~ublickly a~Deared.
o r t a n t u t e . , London: printed for J.
~oberti;and A. Dodd: 1743.
Macklin, Charles, The of t t h e * . h t k
on cause -wn.
whv an
. .
tion should not be exbbited agg+~lgt
John
Stepben
James,
.
.
Jo~ephClarke. Fsws. R a U h Aldus . . . Willi-es,
James
de&
citizen of the
world. London, sold by J. Williams, 1774.
Moore, Edward, An ode to G a r r i c k .
London: printed for M. Cooper, 1749.
of the toyn,,
2 vols. London: J. Wright,
Murphy, Arthur, TheLife
1801.
Murphy, Arthur, T h e . n o f H e n r v e 1 Johnson.
With Essavs F r a t h e G r a v l S D JO-,
Introd. by Matthew
Grace, Gainesville, Fla.: Scholarsl Facsimiles & Reprints, 1968.
Nick-all, J., An a ~ u a yto the t o m . fore London: Printed for B. Dickinson, 1749.
OIBlaney, Murdoch ,
bottle,
A new s o ~ u .To the tunp of;
ç
t
a
n
d
,
[London]:
Printed for Tristram Shandy, Fleet Street, 1763.
Pasquin, ZLnthony [John Williams], f
a t r i c a , London:
H.D. Symonds, 1793.
Place, Francis, I1A Brief Examination of Dramatic Patents,
v Ma-,
(1834 March) .
2 k
Portal, Abraham,
U, Vol. 3rd ed. of Edinburgh: W. Gray, 1770.
1
Pratt, Mr., Samuel Jackson, & g r ick
s -001
art of
o
t
n
~
.
m e stase.
. - ~ A g
Decwated with
ic S
.
Bv the w
r of * * * * * . , London: printed and
sold by T. Evans: by W. Wilson, Dublin: and by W. Creech, Edinburgh,
1776.
Purdon, Edward, A letter to David G b c k . Fsa: on 9the
he is told how hp ouaht t~
mlLondon: printed for 1. Pottinger, 1759.
Ralph, James, m e rase of Authors by Profession or Trade (1758)
Facsimiles
&
Reprints 1966).
Ralph, James,
Tom-Stonp. or. H
i
i
t
. o.
ORO
. .
r
J
c c
diversions of
a e t o m , New York: Garland Pub., 1973.
Reed, Issac, (ed.), B A W a dramatica...., 3 vols. 1812.
. .
Reed, Issac, Isaac Wed .
D
1762-1804, Claude E. Jones, (ed.),
University of California Press, 1946.
Reresby, John, Sir, #
Llj34-1689, London: Longmans, Green, 1875.
Reynolds, Frederic,
JLfe and Times of
London: H. Colburn, 1827.
Fre-ick
Re-,
Reynolds, Joshua, Sir, portraits:
s - C
of Oliver
With 0David Garr~ck. ToDiscovered Bmpns Lhe Private P a u
Now First Published., London: W. Heinemann,
1952.
Sir Nicholas Nipclose, baronet,
London: J. Bell, 1772.
Theatres:
A
goetical Usectign,
Spectator, l h g noriiad: an heroic Doem... humbiv inçcr ibtd to the
~
r
e
a
.
.
critical. Bv a s m t o r , , London: printed for M. Cooper: 1755.
Steele, Sir Richard,
(1962).
me
Theatre, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1720
Stockdale, J.J. ed., The Covw._tCZGden
J
o
~ 2 ,vols., 1810.
3
Thomas, W. Moy, ed. 8
2 vols. London: George Bell ansd Sons, 1898.
y
Wo-
-,
Thornton, Bonne11 and Colman, George, The / b
. . and censor-seneral, 3rd ed. ed. London: Printed for R.
çritic
Baldwin, 1757-.
An Old man of the t o m , Three or- . .
letters to a fri&
in the
v.
on the cause and of the late riot at the Theatre..,, London: printed for T. Becket, 1763.
Town, Gentleman in, An
wtate of the case of the French
w
s
.
1
~
olatgbvened a
actors. ~
v--et
.... In a letter from a s- w t l e w in t o m
in the CO-,
London: printed for M. Shepey, R.
Spavan, W. Myer, G. Woodfall, 1750.
Ufrontorio, Dolorio, An e~istle from the bottle coniuors to the
ter of the Acts of the
ee arts .... London: printed
for R. Freeman, and B. Habrin, 1749.
Victor, Benjamin, m e Historv of the m t r e s of London and D
3 vols. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1761 -1771 (1968).
Victor, Benjamin,
London: 1776.
.
*
u
,
J~etters. D r m t i c Pieces. and Poerlig,
Walpole, Horace, #,
Compiled by Edwine
M. Martz with the assistance of Ruth K. McClure and William T. La
Moy, ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Wilkes, [Thomas], A,
London: J. Coote,
1759.
Wilkinson, Tate,
1790.
Wilkinson, Tate, p
F
.
u Pateaee: Or. a Historv of the
ed W i u
Most of the P e r f m r s in the Three -K
F (London: Scolar Press, 1973) .
Williams, David, A letter to David Garrick. Esa. on his conduct u
e. , London: printed for S.
Bladon, 1772.
Woodward, Henry, B letter from H w v Woodward. comeaan. the mee c t g r o f
.
,
the ureatest of d l characters;
(
ç
e
e
,
London: Printed for M. Cooper, 1752.
.niatirB-taerG
Woty, William,
sb-a-club:
a mock kroic. comico. f u i c o .
Rv the author of The Robin Hood societv: a
e r m e D-.
satire., London: printed for R. Withy, 1758,
Secondary Sources
Monographe and Articles
Agnew, Jean-Christophe, Yorlds Agart; The Mayket and the Thegter Fn
b a l 0-Ameyjçan Th0-t.
1550- 1754, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Allen, Ralph G., IlIrrational Entertainment in the Age of ReasonIt1a
ae and P
I
I
a
1
.
p
v Theatre,
Ed. George Winchester Stone Jr., Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1981, 90-114.
Allen, Robert J.,
University Press, 1933.
Clubs of,-uA
Cambridge: Harvard
P h e u d Sadlerls Wells Thea-,
Allen, Shirley S., -el
Ct.: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.
,
Altick, R.D., m e Shows of L
Middletown,
Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1978.
Altman, Janet Gurkin, I1Postscript. Epistolary Acts and Literary Careers
in the Eighteenth Century: Permutations of Public Sphere and Private
Persona among Writers," ç e n t a h t C o r r e ~ c e sfrom the
h Cent-,
Ed. Alan T. McKenzie, Athens: University of Georgia
Press, 1993, 201-228.
0
.
Anderson, Benedict, Imgined Cornmunitles: Ref1ection.s on the Or, London: Verso, 1983.
. .
Andrew, Donna T., ItPopular Culture and Public Debate: London 1780,
~ s t o r i c a lJO-,
39,2 (1996): 405-423.
Andrnw, Donna T., IlThe Code of Honour and its Critics: the Opposition to
5:3 (1980): 409-34.
Duelling in England, 1700-1850," Pocial -,
. .
Andrew, Donna T., ed. w o n Debgtiga Societies. 1776-1792, London Record
Society, 1994.
Anglesea, Martyn, "David Garrick and the
dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1971.
Visual
Arts,
M.Lit.
Appleton, William Worthen, a l e s M a c m : An Actorts Jbife,Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1960.
1559-1900: a
Arnott, James Fullarton, Ensliçh Theatriral Jliterature.
.
Incor~oratinaRobert W. Jlowelsa B i b l i o g x a g k u c a l ~ c c o u n t .of
2
h T-cal
JLterature. d-P
Theatre Research, 1970.
Atherton, Herbert M. ,
in 1888, London: Society for
. .
t
A Studv a
:
, Oxford: Clarendon, 1974.
Avery, Emmett L . , "Foreign Performers in the London Theatres in the Early
Eighteenth Century,"
XVI (1937): 105-23.
Avery, Emmett L., "The Defense and Criticism
Entertainments in the Early Eighteenth Century,'
tory, 5 (1938): 127-45.
of
the
Pantomime
Avery, Emmett L., "Private Theatricals in and near London 1700-1737,N
Theatre Notebo&,
13 (1959): 101-05.
Avery, Emmett L., "A Critical Introd~ction,~~
m e J~ondnn Staae Part 2:
1700- 172.2 , Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1960.
Backscheider, Paula, SDectacular Politics: tbeatrical Dower
culturein
Johns Hopkins, 1993.
9
Baer, Marc, r
Clarendon Press, 1992.
.
t
Barish, Jonas,
-trical
California Press, 1981.
Oxford:
e Georgian JI-,
Prei-,.
.
Berkeley: University of
. .
. .
Barker, Hannah., Newspapers. ~ o l i U c % .
~ ~ b l io
cD W o n
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
-Barker, Hannah, and Elaine Chalus, ed. nhiC
d: Rnles.
seitildna#R
1997.
.
*
.
.
in
late
, London: Longman,
Barnett, Dene, IlThe Performance Practise of Acting: The Eighteenth
Centuryl1!Theatre Research Int-tiow,
N.S. 2:3, 3:1, 3:2, 5:1, 6:l
(1977 -8, 1980-81): 157-86, 1-19, 79-93, 1-36, 1-32.
Barnett, Dene,
,-
.
.
.
.
art of aesture: the nractices a n d i n c i ~ l e sof 18th
1387.
- .
Barrell, John, Enaliçh L
i
survev, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983.
. .
a eHiçtorv.. wide
. .
Barrell, John, m e Political T h e a r u o f a
from Revnolds to Hazlitt;
&licu, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
.
,
Barrell, John, poetry. m u e . and Politics, Manchester University
Press, 1988.
.
.
,
Barrell, John, The Birth of Pandora and the mvlsion of Knowledae.,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
. .
. .
Barrell, John, ed. &LU&U'ICJ
the Politiçs of Culture: New Essavs on
Art. 1700-1854, Oxford University Press, 1992.
Barry, Jonathon, lfConsumerslPassions: the Middle Class in Eighteenth
Century England, astorical J o u r a , XXXIV (1991):
Barry, Jonathan; Christopher Brooks, ed., m e Mi-a
Sort of Peo~le:
1550-1804, St. Martin's Press,
1994.
Bartley, J. O., #an Çawnev:torical Studv of
Cork:
Cork University Press, 1954.
Barton, Margaret, Garrick, London: Faber and Faber, 1948.
Batel Jonathan, ~ ~ $ t h e _ E n c r l i s n R o m a n t i s I u ~ tOxford,
ion,
Oxfordshire: Clarendon Press, 1986.
. .
S
.
.
Bate, Jonathan,n Constitutbs : Polikzs. Theatre. CrlticUm
1730-1834, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Beattie, J.M., Çrime a d t h e Courts m
Princeton University Press, 1986.
Belden, Mary Megie, t
university press, 1929.
d
a
: 1660-1804,
Princeton:
, London: Oxford
Bergquist, G. William, Ed., W e e CeaLu$$e~ of R a s h
1500-1800: United States: 1714-1834, New
York: Hafner Pub. Co., 1963.
Berkowitz, Gerald M., David Garrick: A Reference Gui&,
Hall, 1980.
Bernbaum, Ernest , T
h
e
b
S
.
Boston: G.K.
*
a
r
n
a
o
f
b
b
tic Tragedv. 1696-1784, Gloucester,
Mass.: P. Smith, 1958.
Bertelsen, Lance, T h e s e Club: Jliteratureand P o ~ d a rCulture 17491764, Oxford, 1986.
Bevis, R., llCanon,pedagogy, prospectus: Redesigning 'Restoration and
D ? a a a , 31,1 (1997): 178.
18th-Century English Dramat, l1 -ve
Bevis, Richard W., Comp, -teenth
Oxford University Press, 1970.
Centyrv D r m : Af ter~ieces,London:
Bevis, Richard W., TheLaushina Tr-on . .
: Staae Comedv in G
Pay, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980.
Bierce, Ambrose,
Press, 1958.
Black, Jeremy, N
J
a
t
. .
1
I
u
r
a
l
'
w &'
Mount Vernon: Peter Pauper
v
theEishteenth 1986.
Black, Jeremy, TheEn
London: Croom
Helm, 1987.
Black, Jeremy, nIdeology, History, Xenophobia and the World of Print in
. .
. .
Eighteenth-Century England,l1 Culture. Politrcs
Societv in B r i t u
1660-1804, Ed. Jeremy Black, Manchester University Press, 1991, 184-216.
. .
Black, Jeremy, ed. #,
NY: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
1660-180Q, New York,
. .
Black, Jeremy, and Jeremy Gregory, ed. M t u r e . Polltlcs and Societv in
1660-1804, Manchester University Press, 1991.
Bogorad, Samuel N., "Samuel Footels primitive puppet-shew, featuring
Piety in patterns: a critical edition,I1Theatre Sunrc-v, 14,la
. .
Bohstedt, John,vtCambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Wal~ales. 1790-
Bohstedt, John, I1Gender, Household and Community Politics: Women in
English Riots, l79O-l8lOI"
120 (1988): 88-122.
Bohstedt, John, "The Myth of the Feminine Food Riot: Women as Proto. ,
Citizens in English Community Politics, 1790-1810,u-en
Politics in
Çhe Aue of the D e w a f i c Rovolution, Ed. Harriet B. Applewhite and
Darlene G. Levy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990, 21-60.
Bohstedt, John, "The Moral Economy and the Discipline of Historical
Context, Journal of S o c i a l t o r v , 26 (1992): 265-84.
Bond, Donovan H. , and W. Reynolds McLeod, ed. New3letters to NewsDapers ;
teenth-C-v
,
O
J
Morgantown: 1973.
Booth, Michael R., "A Defense of Nineteenth-Century English Drama,"
WT
1974, 26: 5-13. h e a
Booth, Michael R., l'Public Taste, the Playwright and the Law," i n a .
Bevels -tory
of Drama in E u L h h 1750- 1884, Ed. Clifford Leech and T.W.
Craik, London: Methuen & Co., 1975, VI: 29-57.
Booth, Michael R., "The Theatre and Its Audience," j . ~The Revels i-btorv
of D r a in En1750- 188Q, Ed. Clifford Leech and T.W. Craik, London:
Methuen & Co., 1975, VI: 3-28.
Borsay, Peter, #Al1 the Town's a stage:' Urban Ritual and Ceremony 16601800," T
h
e
o
n of of& Provincial Towns. 1660-1800, Ed. P.
Clark, London: Hutchinson, 1984, 228-58.
Borsay, Peter, The En-
Urban Reenaissance: Culture and Societv ig the
. .
V
Oxford:
I
Clarendon, 1989.
Botien, S. et al, "The Periodical Press in Eighteenth-century England and
and France: a Cross-Cultural Approach,It W a t i v e S t a e s in Societv
tory, 23 (1981): 446-90.
Bourne, Henry Richard Fox,
Newspêper~: Cbapters in the
O
,
New York: Russell, 1966.
torv of J
Bradham, J.A., "Polemics Behind the Laughter: The Causes of Catherine
14 (1994): 95-106.
Clive, Theatre Hj&gry Stu-,
. .
Brewer, John, W t v I d e o l o m Po~ular Politics at the Accession of
Georae IIL, Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Brewer, John, "Theatre and Counter-Theatre in Georgian Politics: The Mock
Elections at Garrat, Radical>-!,
22 (1979 -80 Winter) : 7-40.
Brewer, John, IlThe Wilkesites and the Law, 1763-74: a study of radical
h
Jiu
notions of governance,lVt ~ n c r o v e r n a b l e -ir
, Ed. John Brewer and John A.
Styles, London: Hutchinson, 1980,
~ ~ Rirth of a C o n ~ m
Brewer, John, "Commercialization and P ~ l i t i c s ,The
I Ed . Neil McKendrick, John Brewer and J.H. Plumb, Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1982, 197-262.
S
Brewer, John, The CoChadwyck-Healey, 1986.
People
. .
Politics. 1750-17905, Cambridge:
h StateEnslish
1688-
Brewer, John, t
1783,New York: 1989.
Brewer, John, and Ann
Routledge, 1996.
Bermingham, ed. Xhe
C-ion
of Culture,
Brewer, John, and John A. Styles, ed.
t
London:
Hutchinson, 1980.
Brown, Laura, Englhh D r u t i c Form 1660-1760: An Essav in G e n e
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
Browning, J. D., Satire
1983.
_isi
the 18th centuy, New York: Garland Pub.,
Bruster, Douglas, Drama the market
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
in the ase of Shakespeare,
Burling, William J., and Robert D. Hume, "Theatrical Companies at the
The-,
1986, 4:2: 98-118.
Little Haymarket, 1720-1737," m y s
Burnim, Kalman A., David GarEick. Birector, University of Pittsburg
Press, 1961.
A Studv of C o n v e n L i i n t h e Theatre
Burns, Elizabeth, -itv:
Social Lifrr, London: Longman, 1972.
ig
Calhoun, Craig, ed. Habermas and the Public S
rof - Campbell, Donald,
2715-1965, Edinburgh: Mercat, 1996.
Terry,
, MIT Press, 1992.
~cotland:torv
- of the Scottish stase,
Canfield, Doug, and Deborah C. Payne,
R~stpEation
18th C e n w v E u h The-,
Castle,
m
ed. -al
R e u s- s ig
U of Georgia Press, 1995.
. . .
Ma~uerade and
Civilization:
the
Carnivalesgue
ig
, Stanford University
Press, 1986.
Charlesworth, Andrew, and Adrian J. Randall, tlMorals,Markets and the
114 (1987): 200-213.
English Crowd in 1766,t1Past,
Chartier, Roger, The C
Princeton University Press, 1987.
. .
u
.
l
c
*
Cohen, Michèle,:vtN
u Identitv and w
e i- s m t h mlNew York: Routledge, 1996.
,
a
e ig
Colley, Linda, Brit~ns: Forqigu the Nation 1707-183'2, New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1992.
Conolly, Leonard W., "The CensortsWife at the Theatre: The Diary of Anna
Margaretta Larpent, 1790-180OIt1
~
g 35 (1971):
49-64.
Conolly, Leonard W., T
h
e Dofa
Marino: The Huntington Library, 1976.
7
"
, San
11/37-1024
Corfield, P.J., ttClassby Name and Number in Eighteenth-Century BritainIM
ustory, 72 (1987): 38-61.
Corman, Brian, "What is the Canon of
teenth-CWurv Studieç, 1990, 307-21.
English
Drama, 1660-1737?,t1
Crouch, Kimberly, "The Public Life of Actresses : Prostitutes or Ladies,"
En:
Roles. Re~resentation and
313
Ed. Hannah Barker and Elaine Chalus, London: Longman,
Damrosch,
Leo,
e
Profession of Emhteenth Centurv Llterature:
titu!-,
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1992.
Danchin, Pierre, Uoloqaes and F
e
s
1760, 2 vols.
of the eigbteenth centurv, 1737-
Danchin, Pierre, The Prolp_aws anLEpilogues of the Eighteew Centurv: A
. .
lete Edltiw , 4 volumes vols. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy,
1990.
Circle: Essavs on the Cirdation of J,iterature
Darnton, Robert,
th-Cestury Ruro~e,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.
Davis, Tracy C., "Review Essay: Riot, Subversion, and Discontent in New
Victorian Theatre Scholarship". , V i c t o r b S t u , 37,2 (1994 Winter) :
307-.
~eelman, christian, T
1964.
h
e
e
a
r
e Jub-,
Art. n
Denvir, Bernard,:London: Longman, 1983.
London: M. Joseph,
e
e
Dobson, Michael, t
1660-1789, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
s
i
n
,
,
gnd D
,
. .
Donald, Diana, The aae of caricatiare: satirical
a
s in the reian of
Georae III, New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies
in British Art by Yale University Press, 1996.
Downer, A.S., "Nature to Advantage Dressvd: Eighteenth Century Acting,"
. o n , 58 (1943 December) :
se A s s ~ .a t i
1002-37.
Dunbar, Howard Hunter, The n r w i c W e e r of ArModern Languages Association of America, 1946.
. .
Ellis, Aytoun, n e Pennv Universities: A -y
London: 1956.
mlNew
York:
of the Coffee ho us^,
. .
1714-1830: r
t
Endelman, Todd M., B e Jews of Geore in a -al
societv, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1979.
England, Martha W., "Garrick's Stratford Jubilee: Reactions in France and
Germany," in V
e Survev: An Annual Survev of ÇhakeçDeariar-v
Pro-,
Vol. 9, Ed. A. Nicholl, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1956.
England, Martha W., "The Grass Roots of Bardolatry, The Rulletin of ThfL
New York Public Library, 63:3 (1959 March) : 117-33.
Fergus, Jan, "Provincial Servants1 Reading in the late Eighteenth
e
d
o in eadinanam, Ed.
Century,Il The P r a c t i c e d R
Helen Small and Naomi Tadmor James Raven, Cambridge University Press,
1996, 202-25.
t #
Fiske, h
Roger,
Oxford University Press, 1973.
CenCentUEy, London:
Fletcher, Anthony, and John Stevenson, ed. -der
piode-,
Cambridge: 1985.
and nisorder in
Foster, Gretchen, I1Hugh Kelly," P i c t i o w v of Literarv Riouréphv. Volume
th-Centurv DrWifitu, Ed. Paula R.
Backscheider, The Gale Group, 1989, 232-248.
. .
George, M.D., u a u e of P o l u ~ a l and Personal Satira, Vol.
London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum, 1935.
5,
. .
Gerrard, Christine, W ~ o l e
a n d t h e s : Pobtics.
Poety. and Mvth,
1725-1742, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Goldgar, Anne, -te
J I e dvtinaummo:~t-C
o
f
,
Yale University Press, 1995.
in the EP-
Goldgar, Bertrand A . , hlalpole & the Wits: The Relation of Po1it)cs t~
J
Lincoln, Nebraska : 1976.
9
,
-
.
Goodman, Dena, B e PepUbSic of Tlnttprfi: A C W a l Hifitory of the
,Ithaca: Corne11 University Press, 1994.
.
. .
Gray, Charles Harold, -cal
C
r
B. Blom (Columbia University Press), 1964 (1931).
.
c
, New York:
,
Greenblatt, Stephen, ÇhakesDearean Negotiations: The-dation
of
e EhghuJ, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1988.
Greene, Donald, "Samuel Johnson, JournalistIuNewsletters to New~pègers:
v J o u r , , Ed. Donovan H. Bond and W. Reynolds
McLeod, Morgantown: School of Journalism, West Virginia University, 1977,
87-101.
Habermas, Jurgen, "The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article,"
. .
Germant
1974, 1:3:
Habermas, Jurgen, a Structurai Transforfofre
: &
to a Cateqorv of B o w i s Society, Cambridge, Mass. : MIT
Press, 1989.
S
.
,
Hobsbawm, Eric J., -ive
r ~ b ~ l sstudies
:
in ar-c
forms of social
mov~ment in the 19th and 20th centuries, Manchester: The University
Press: 1963 (1959).
Hogan, Charles B., "A Critical Introd~ction,~~ Jlo&on Staae Part 5
J776-1800, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968, 1:
Hogan, Charles Beecher, An I
n
d
e
x
a Patentee bv Tate
. .
Wilkinson,
London: Society for Theatre Research, 1973.
Holderness, Graham, Shakigearels W t o r v , Dublin: Gill and Macmillan,
1985.
Holderness, Graham, TheShakesDeare
University Press, 1988.
Holderness, Graham, &&es~eare:
University of Iowa Press, 1988.
Howard, Douglas, llSamuelFoote,"
the
Pbv
Manchester:
of
Historv,
Manchester
Iowa
. .
U
urv D
r
,
Backscheider, The Gale Group, 1989, 127-147.
Ed.
City:
V
V o u
Paula
R.
Hughes, Alan, "Art and Eighteenth-Century Acting Style: Part 1:
Aesthetics; Part II: Attitudes; Part III: PassionsIu Theatre Not~bonk,
1987, 41: 24-31; 79-89; 128-39.
Hughes, Leo, A Centurv of E r i u - h
1956.
Farce, Princeton University Press,
Hughes, Leo, #
on Au-,
Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1971.
Hume, Robert D., "Goldsmith and Sheridan and the Supposed Revolution of
lLaughingl against ISentimental1 Comedy,"
of ftorv.
1640-180Q, Ed. Paul
pevolution: As~ects
J. Korshin, Menston: Scolar Press, 1972, 237-76.
Hume, Robert D., ed. m e Loden Theatre World 1660- 1804, Carbondale :
Southern Illinois University Press, 1980.
Hume, Robert D., "The Multifarious Forms of Eighteenth-Century Comedy,"
Theatre, Ed. Stone George Winchester
California Press, 1981, 3-32.
Jr., Berkeley: University
of
Hume, Robert D., "English Drama and Theatre Research 1660-1800: New
Directions in Research," Theatre Survev, 1982, XXIII: 71-100.
Hunt, John Dixon, 1
Chadwyck-Healey, 1985.
and LQnçlonls Garden The-.,
Cambridge:
. .
Hunter, Paul, "The World as Stage and ClosetIf1British
Theatre & t&
Qther Arts. 1660-1804, Ed. Shirley Strum Kenny, Washington: Folger
Shakespeare Library, 1984, 271-287.
Kaufman, Paul, "The Reading of Plays in the Eighteenth-Century," Bulletin
of
1969,
,
73: 562-80.
Kavenik, Frances M., B
York: Twayne, 1995.
. .r
i
t
i
s
. . 1 Historv, New
h
e #
in R~volution.
Kaye, Harvey J., sed.
r-010
Protest.: s a c t e d essavs of Georae R u a , New York:
Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1988.
. .
Kelly, John, #
iZxlUzy, Princeton University Press, 1936.
T
Kenny, Shirley Strum, "The Publication of Plays," The London bTorld ~ 5 6-01800, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1980, 309-36.
. T
, P- a. -h
Kenny, Shirley Strum, ed.
Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984.
Kenny, Shirley Strum, "Theatre, Related Arts, and the Profit Motive: An
Overview,I1 T
h
e
a
t
r
e . .
a n d e other Arts. 1660-1804, Ed. Shirley
Strum Kenny, Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984, 15-38.
Satire in the Aue of Wal~ole. 1720-1754, Ames:
Kern, Jean B., -tic
Iowa State University Press, 1976.
Kinne, Willard Austin, Bvivals U o r t a t i o n s of French C o w u in
1749-1804, 1939 (New York: AMS Press, 1967).
Kinservik, Matthew J., "A sinister Macbeth: the Macklin production of
1773, W v a r d Jibrary Rulletiq, 6:l (1995): 51-76.
Kinservik, Matthew J., "Love a la Mode and Macklinls Return to the London
Stage in 1759," Theatre Survu, 37,2 (1996): 1-22.
Klepac, R.L., "The Macklin-Garrick riots," T h e a t r e & , 52,1 (1998):
8-17.
Knapp, Mary Etta,
Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.
C
~ New ,
Lamb, Susan, IlThe Popular Theater of Samuel Foote and British National
Identity," -ative
D r u , 30,2 (1996): 245-65.
Langford, Paul, A
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
d
1727-1783,
Langhans, Edward A., IlThe Theatres,
Jdon-tre
World 1660- 180Q,
Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980,
35-65.
Le Bon, Gustave,
1952.
r
,London: E. Benn,
Crowd: a studv of the ~ o u a U
h
#
Leacroft , Richard,
Eyre, Methuen, 1973.
Ploftheuse,
London :
Lears, T.J. Jackson, "The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and
Po~sibilities,~~
& e r i c o s t o r y Revieu, 90 (1985): 567-593.
Leiberman, David, T h e e of J l e q . M & b n Determined: Leqd theorv in
teenth-c-urv
FritCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Liesenfeld, Vincent J., B e JIicen4j.xlgAct of 1737, Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1984.
Liesenfeld, Vincent J. (Ed.), The &
e
s
a
t
S
New York: Garland, 1981.
Lillywhite,
Bryant,
Coffee
JIice&nu
A
Houses :
Act 1729-1739,
Refwce
Rook
of
Coffeehouses
, London : George Allen
&
Unwin, 1905 (1964).
. .
Linebaugh, Peter, T h e a e d : crime and civil societv in the
c e n w , Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, 1991.
- CI.,
- #
Lipking, Lawrence
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.
-,
Loftis, John,
n a #
Clarendon Press, 1963.
. .
ofn-,
Oxford:
Loftis, John, "The Limits of Historical Veracity in Neoclassical Drama,"
th Centurv: Essavs on
Culture and Societv, Ed. H.T. Swedenburg Jr., Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1972, 27-50.
Loftis, John, "The Social and Literary Context," ig The Revels Kbtorv of
London: Methuen, 1976, 1-80.
, -
Loftis, John, ltPoliticaland Social Thought in the Drama, The J , o m
Theatre World. 1660-1804, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1980, 253-85.
Logue, Kenneth J.,
Edinburgh: J. Donald Publishers, 1979.
ces
~ o u g h ,John, P
a
Centurieç, London: 1957.
i
r
in
Sco-d.
s
1780-1815,
d Eltheteenth
Love, Harold, "Who were the Restoration Audience?," W o o k of EnStudies, Ed. G.K. Hunter and C.J. Rawson, Modern Humanities Research
Association, 1980, 10: 21-44.
Lynch, James J., t
o
n
'
s
London, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953.
Lynham, Deryck , #,
Sylvan Press, 1950.
London :
Mackintosh, Iain, The Georaian Plavhouse: Actors. Artists. Audiences and
ltecture 1730- 1834, London: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1975.
Macmillan, Dougald, Prurv
1747-1776. cornpiled from the
glavbillg, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1938.
Macmillan, Dougald, Catalogue of the w e n t pbvs
in the -H
u,
San Marino: 1939.
Marsden, Jean 1., ed . m e Apro-on
. .
of S m e M v ~ New
,
York: St. Martin's Press,
1992.
. .
Mayer, David, i
n
:
Havard University Press, 1969.
Element: E n W h.-P
1806-1836,
Milhous, Judith, "Company Management,l1 The Ilondon Theatre World 166018OQ, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press,
1980, 1-34.
Mittman, Barbara G, Spectators on the Paris stage in the Seventeenth .and
teenth C e n u , Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1984.
Nationalism: A Cultural Historv 1740Newman, Gerald, The Rise of En1838, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987.
Nicholson, Watson, m e Struaale for a Free Staae in T l o n ~ ,New York:
Benjamin Blom, 1906 (1966).
Nicoll, Allardyce, A W t o r y of FingJ.ish D m . 1660-1904, Vol. II, Early
Eighteenth Century Drama of Third Edition ed. London: 1961.
h of~ncrliçh, 1660-1904, Vol. III, Late
Nicoll, Allardyce, A
Eighteenth Century Drama 1751-1800 of Cambridge: 1970.
Nicoll , Allardyce, T b m c k Staae : Theatre-th Cent=,
Manchester University Press,, 1980.
Nippel, W., "Reading the Riot Act: The Discourse of Law-Enforcement in
18th-Century England," -tory
a n d o ~ o l o q y ,1 (1985): 401-26.
Nolte, Fred O., Tb@ Earlv M i d d l e a (1696- 1774), New York
University Ottendorfer Mernorial Series of Gerrnanic Monographs, No. 19,
Lancaster, Pa., 1935.
OtGorman, F., Yotprs. Patronseformnreform~?d Electorate of
1 7 3 4 - m l Oxford: 1989.
Pedicord, Harry William, m e -al
New York: King's Crown Press, 1954.
Public the Time of Garrick,
Pedicord, Harry William, "White Gloves at Five: Fraternal Patronage of
London Theatre in the Eighteenth Century,I1 philoloaical Ouarterly, 45
(1966): 270-88.
Pedicord, Harry William, "The Changing Audience, m e J~ondon Theatre
id 1660- 1804, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1980, 236-51.
Pedicord, Harry William, Z
ver at t h e m e
Theatre Research, 1991.
T
s
.
1
H o w e of
h
e'
z
d II ..
1714-1804, London: The Society for
Pettit, A., llCulture and evidence: Recent work
eighteenth-century theater [review essayIlt1-te&
ret-,
38,l (1997): 79-87.
Plumb, J.H., -teenth
Books, 1957 (1950).
Cenhxy,
on restoration and
Centurv Theorv &
Harmondsworth: Penguin
. .
Plumb, J.H., #
England, University of Reading, 1973.
o
r
t
r
a
i
Pointon, Marcia R., Hmginu t u e a d : ~
New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon
Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1993.
Price, Cecil J.L., m t r e in the A Q ~of Garrick, Oxford: Blackwell,
1973.
-'
Randall, Adrian J. and Andrew charlesworth, .ed,. m e t s . u k e t culteenth-Centurv R
r
Ireland, Liverpool
University Press, 1996.
Ravel, Jeffrey S., #
Cylture. 1680-1791, Ithica, N.Y. : Corne11 University Press,
1999.
Raven, James, Helen Small, and Naomi Tadmor, ed.,
orstipe
res-on
of r u u in
New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
u,
D
. .
Rea, Robert Right, -sh
Press in Politics.
1760-1774, Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1963.
Redmond, James, "Philippe James de Loutherbourg and the Early Pictorial
Theatre: Some Aspects of its Cultural Context, m
s in m:The
cal S~ace,9 (1987): 99-128.
Richards, Kenneth, and Peter Thomson, ed. m v s
v EnStagg, London: Methuen, 1972.
on theiuhteenth-
Rogers, Nicholas, I1Popular Protest in Early Hanoverian London," past and
present, 79 (1978): 70-100.
,
.
Rogers, Nicholas, m a s raOxford: Clarendon, 1989.
ole &-,
Politics in the Aue
of
Rogers,
Nicholas, I1Crowd and People in the Gordon R i ~ t s , ~ ~
. .
on of Polltical
C u e : E
w--eG
Cen-,
Ed. Eckhart Hellmuth, London: Oxford University
Press, 1990, 39-56.
Rogers, Nicholas, Crowds . c
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
a
. .
a
n d r.i t.u ,
Rogers, Pat, U u b Street: S t d e s in a Subculta, London: Methuen f Co.,
1972.
Rose, J., "Re-Reading the English Common Reader: A Preface to the History
of Audiences," J
o
u
r
n
a
l
,
III (1992): 47-70.
Rosenfeld, Sybil Marion,
Newspapers 1660- 1700 , l
1936, 51: 123-52.
IlDramatic
Advertisements in the Burney
*
n the ~odernanaum
,
0
Rosenfeld, Sybil Marion, n
u Plavers & Dr1765, New York: Octagon Books, 1939 (1970).
in the Provinces 1660S
.
,
Rosenfeld, Sybil. Marion, Foreion -cal
c o m e s in Great B r i t w
t
h
e
,
London: Society for Theatre Research, 1955.
- t
~osenfeld, Sybil Marion,
m t r e of the
Cambridge University Press, 1960.
,-
Rosenfeld, Sybil Marion, &mgle4 of Thespis: Some Private Theares and
e a t r d ç ln Enaland Wales. 1700-1829, London: Society for Theatre
Research, 1978.
Rudé, George, P a r i ç a n d L o n d o n eiuhteenth centurv: studies in
D r a , Vol. The Fontana Library of London: Collins, 1970.
Rudé, George, moverian JI-
1714-1808, Secker and Warburg, 1971.
Rudé, George, Jar
Historv:ances in
1730-1848, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1981 (1964).
Rudé, George, "The Changing Face of the Crowd,I1 1
P o ~ u a rProte~t:selected essavs of
Ç.eorae Ru&, Ed. Harvey J. Kaye, Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1988, 56-71.
Russell, Gillian, I1Playing at Revolution,~Theatre Notebook, 44 (1990):
16-26.
. .
Russell, Gillian, T h e t r e s of War: Performance, Poil_tlcs and Societv
1793- 1815, London: Clarendon, 1995.
Sawyer, Paul, ChristoDher Rich of Drurv lane: the biosr-v
-,
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986.
of a theatre
U n Fields, London:
Sawyer, Paul Simon, #
c
o
l
n
i
c
o
l
n
'
s
Society for Theatre Research, 1979.
Saxon, A.H., Enter Foot a& Horse: A IIigtory of W o d r a m a in Englmd and
France, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968.
. .
Schivelbusch, Wolfgang, Disenchanted : the -ation
of
, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1988.
Schwarz, L., "English servants and their employers during the eighteenth
52,2 (1999 May): 236.
and nineteenth centuriesIu
Schwartz,
Richard
B.,
'Charles
Macklin,"
Paula R. Backscheider, The Gale Group, 1989, 249-264.
Scouten, Arthur H., "A Critical Introd~ction,~~
The LoStaue Part 3;
1729-1747, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961, 1:
Scouten, Arthur H., "The Anti-Evolutionary Development of the London
Theatres, i
n
a
t
r
e amJL.he Other Arts. 1660- 180Q, Ed.
Shirley Strum Kenny, Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984, 171181.
9
.
Sheppard, F.H.W. (General Ed.) , The Theatre Royal Drurv Lane ar&2&
al O-~ e r a House C w t G a r m , Published by Athlone Press for the
Greater London Council, 1970.
Sherbo, Arthur, New Essavs bv ArPress, 1963.
w ,Michigan
State University
Shoemaker, Robert B., "The London "MobW in the Early Eighteenth Century,"
St-,
26 (1987): 273-304.
Shoemaker, Robert Brink, Prosecution
t-P
: Pettv C r i m e the
ex. c. 1660-1725, Cambridge University
Press, 1991.
societv. 1650-1850: t h e
Shoemaker, Robert B., W e r in Rnofate
s-ea?,
London: Longman, 1998.
Slack, Paul, mellinn, P
O
ModernEnsland, Cambridge University Press, 1984.
emersence
D in R a r h
Smith, Dane Farnsworth, # from ththe
New York, 1936.
sa1 in 1671 to the, Smith, Dane Farnsworth, and M.L. Lawhon, m v s About the Theatre in
1737-1800:othe~elf-~oncious
Staue From Foote to S h a ,
Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979.
Solkin, David H . ,
. .
,
New
Arts Arts the Publiç
Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1992.
Southern, Richard, D e Georgian Plavh~use,London: Pleiades Books, 1948.
Southern, Richard, -le
S-y:
Its O r. i. w and Develoment in the
, London: Faber and Faber, 1952.
theatre, Carbondale:
Speaight , George, T h e v o
fe te-nR
Southern Illinois University Press, 1990 (1955).
Speck, W.A., Societv-
1
e
in
-.
1700-1764, Dublin: 1983.
Statt, D., IlThe Case of the Mohocks: Rake Violence in Augustan England,
S o c i ~ s t o r y ,20,2 (1995 May) : 179-200.
Stauffer, Donald Alfred, " A Parasitical Form of
e
u
Nota, LV (1940 April) : 289-92.
Stauffer, Donald Alfred, The Art of v-B
Princeton University Press, 1941.
Biography," Modern
in E
i
m Centurv
-,
Staves, Susan, -ers
1979.
' S c e D t a , Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press,
Staves, Susan, "A Few Kind Words for the FoptU -es
22 (1982): 413-28.
in Ensliçh
,-
Stephens, Frederic George, and Edward Hawkins, Catala. n 1. P o l. i. t i c a l ~Derçonal
e B r, w. h W e u m . D .i .v w
-,
Vols. 2-4, London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the
British Museum, 1870-1883.
Stevenson, John, m
Longman, 1979.
r D-ces
in E n m d .
1700-1870, London:
Stevenson, John, and R. Quinault, Po~ular Protest and Public Order,
George Allan and Unwin, 1974.
Stochholm, Johanne Magdalene, G a x k k ' s Follv: the S-gare
JI=,
London: Methuen, 1964.
J U e e of
Stockwell, La Tourette, Dublin Thpatres and Theatre Customa, 1938 (New
York: Benjamin Blom, 1968).
Stone, Jr., George Winchester, "Anatomy of a Theatrical Season for Covent
Garden, 1758-59,"Theatre Notebod, 48, 1 (1994): 11-18.
Stone, Jr., George Winchester, "A Critical Introdu~tion,~
m e LoStase Part 4: 1747- 1776, Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1962,
Stone, Jr., George Winchester (Ed.), The S t a s e a n d Paae: Jlondont~
e Show" in the EiqhkczVh-C~ntyrvTheatre, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1981.
Stone, Jr., George Winchester, and George M. Kohrl,
RiogEgphy, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979.
Straub, Kristina, t e e n t h - C p r l f v r y Plavers and S
-,
Princeton University Press, 1992.
. . Literarv MaggZiges : Th@ Auguabn Acre
Sullivan, Alvin (Ed.) , British
e Aae
of J-on.
1698-1788, Westport Conn.: Greenwood, 1983.
Summers, Montague, #,
1964.
u
and
New York: Humanities Press,
Tait, Stephen, "English Theatre Riots,
104.
m a t r e Arts, XXIV, (1940): 97-
matre
Thieme, J.A., "Spouting, Spouting Clubs and Spouting C~mpanions,~
, 29 (1975): 9-16.
-,
Thomas, ~avid,&storatipn
University Press, 1989.
and Georgim F n g h n d : 1660- 1788, Cambridge
Thompson, E.P., IlThe Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth
50 (1971): 76-136.
Century, ,Thompson, E.P. , IlPatrician Societyl Plebeian Culture, Journal of Socia
torv, VI1 (1974): 382-405.
Thompson, E .P. , "The Crime of Anonymity," u
i
m
Sgcietv ig Eiqbteenth-C~turv m,
Ed. D. Hay, Peter Linebaugh and
E.P. Thompson, London: 1975, 255-308.
Thompson, E.P., "Eighteenth-century English Society: Class
3 :2 (1978): 144-5.
Without Class?, SocialHistorv,
Tilly, Charles,
Contention in w a t
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Struggle
W. 1758- 1834,
9
.
Troubridge, Sir St. Vincent, "Theatre Riots in London," çtudies ig
Theatre lI,i&orv
i n Mewrv of Gabrielle Enthoven, London: Society
for Theatre Research, 1952, 84-97.
,
Troubridge, Sir St. Vincent, #,
London: Society for Theatre Research, 1967.
.
Van Lennep, William, "A Critical Introduction, The J,-n
Staae Part 1 ;
1660-1704, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968,
Vince, Ronald, W., Neoclassical Theatr_e: A Utoriosriaphiçal W o o k ,
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Wahrman, Dror, "National society, communal culture: an argument about
recent historiography of eighteenth-century Britain,It1
Hjstorv, 17
(1992): 43-72.
h
p
m
Watson, Harold F., T
New York, AMS Press, 1966 (1931).
J
w Fnc.rlish.cbon andDrama.
1550-180~~
Weber, William,
R
i
--C
A StudyinCanon. R i t u a l . a n d g y , Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Wellek, Rene, m e Rise of EngJ&h
Jlit=arv
University of North Carolina Press, 1941.
West, Shearer, "Zoffanyts "Charles Macklin
Mansfield, m t r e Notebook, 43 (1989): 3-9.
w ,Chape1
as
Hill:
Shylockl' and
Lord
West, Shearer, The m u e of t b Actor : verbal a-tatiqn
aoe of Garrick and,
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
~i the
West, Shearer, "Patronage and Power: the Role of the Portrait in
. .
. .
Eighteenth-Century England,It C u l t u r e . e t v
Brltaln.
1660-180Q, Ed. Jeremy Black, Manchester University Press, 1991, 131-153.
Whitty, John C., IlThe Half-Price Riots of 1763," Theatre Notebook, 24
(1969): 25-32.
Wilson, J.H., "Theatre notes from the Newdigate NewslettersIu meatre
Noteboa, xv (1961): 79-84.
Wilson, J.H., IlMore Theatre Notes
T h e a t r e N o t g b xvi
o o k(1961-62)
,
: 59.
from the Newdigate NewslettersIM
Wilson, Kathleen, "Empire of Virtue: The Imperia1 Project and Hanoverian
. . from 1689 t~
Culture c.1720-1785, in A
n
ed. Stone, Lawrence, London: Routledge, 1994, 128-64
Wilson, Kathleen, The
. .
of t
h
e
J
&
@
e
:
Politics. C u l t u r s - ~ ~ J
1715-1785, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Sase
Woods, Leigh, Garrick C l O s the Stase: Actins as -oS
Westport: Greenwood, 1984.
,-
Wrigley, E. A . , and R. S. Schofield,
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
#,
B
A
L
D
C
?
Figure 2a. The Piazza, Covent Garden, looking east.
Hart
RIO O
Street
100 f t
Russell
S i r e c i
Figure 2b. Ground plan of Covent Garden and surrounding
buildings.
Figure 4a. Garrick and Mrs
Pritchard in the dagger
scene from Macbeth, by
Zoffany. Note the onstage
guard to the left of the
stage and the chandeliers
above the stage, as well as
the orchestra with candles
and surrounding spikes.
Also note the number of
bonnets as well as the
script in hand.
Figure 4b. Gallery. Note
the heterogeneity of the
patrons, including two young
children. Note what looks
like smoke and smoker in
last row, as pipes of
tobacco were part of the
orange girl's fare.
Figure 5. "The Overflowing of the PittN, 1771. Note man with
stick.
Figure 6a. "Britannia Disturbld, or An Invasion by French
Vagrants," 1749.
Figure 6b. Half-Price Riots, Covent Garden, 1763.
Figure 7a. "The Theatrical Dispute," 1776.
Appendix
-
L i s t of R i o t s
1730-1780
DL - Drury Lane Theatre
CG - Covent Garden Theatre
Hay - Little Theatre in the Haymarket
LIF - Lincoln's Inn Fields
1732 DL
10-11&13/1
Faction/Content
1734 CG
9&12/1
Faction
26/2
Faction
Faction
1736 CG
Double Dec&
1736 LIF
Çata
28&30/10
1737 DL
Footmen's Riots
19&21/2
1738 DL
Tbe Coffee-Hou
28/1
Content
1738 Hay
French Performers
9/10
Nationalism
15&17/11
Faction
for F o o h
1739 DL
&
5/3 Management
1740 DL
Madame Chateauneuf
23/1
Management
1743 DL
Macklin/Garrick
6-7/12
Faction
1744 DL
Fleetwood's Management
17&19/11
Management
1748 DL
Tbe Foundlins
22/2
Content/Faction
1749 Hay
Bottle Conjuror
16/1
Management
1749 Hay
French Strollers
15/11-15/12
Nationalism
1750 DL
Woodward/Foote
22/1
Faction
2&9/2
Content
1751 DL
1752 DL
1755 DL
Chinese Festival
8-15/11
Nationalism
1757 CG
Rich/Barry
1/12
Faction
7/2
Content
25-6/1
24/2
Management
3/2
Content
24/1
Content
1761 CG
1763 DL
CG
ied U e r t i n e
Half Price Riot
II
1763 DL
Discoverv
1765 DL
Eiatonic W i k
zkL?alm
Management
F Word to the Wise
Faction
F Wife In The Ri-
Content
Weston's benefit
Management
lllu&el
Content
Faction
Smith's Benefit
Faction
Anti-Macklin
Faction
Macklin Aftermath
Faction
Content
Mrs. Yates no epilogue
Management
1776
DL
Faction/Content
1780
Hay
Management/Content