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 , 2 0 0 0
O Richard Gorrie, 2000 National Library Bibliothbque nationale 1*1 oi Canada du Canada A uisitions and Acquisitions et ~Fbio~rs~hicServices services bibliographiques 385 Weiiington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON KlA ON4 OttewaON K1AW Canade Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Biblioth*que nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seli reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celie-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT
GENTLE RIOTS? THEATRE RIOTS IN LONDON, 1730-1780
Richard Gorrie Advisor : University of Guelph, 2000 Professor Donna T. Andrew
Unlike most 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. Riots based on disputes between
individuals and the parties of people who supported those
individuals are examined next. This was one of 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. The thesis will then explore the political
riot. 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 1
Chapter 2 Background Contexts 59
2a Spaces and Places 62
2b Theatre and Print Culture 8 5
2c Making Riot - The Historical Context 9 9
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 2 92
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-~, 1776. b. Old Price Riots, 1809. 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,IF- des 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; the -et was full of People, and the Mob in the 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 Alehouse, poster-Jm; but the Mob ~resentl~ 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 for an investigation of eighteenth-century theatre riots. 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. This is true of 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 ign~re.~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 dom 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 dif ferent issues. On most occasions the altercations were predominantly 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. However, occasionally issues of broader social, economic, 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. When we compare their occurrence to the total number of 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 turmoil of the Walpole administration's final years. 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 E.P. Thompson suggested that eighteenth century food 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 mq-culott~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 non- institutional 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. This might help make sense of the latter period, but certainly not the earlier period. It also makes for classifications that are somewhat anachronistic, ignoring the unique situations that existed. Looking at eighteenth-century riots from the other chronological direction provides a more satisfactory view. Starting his examination of eighteenth century popular disturbances early in the period with a 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 toms 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 public disturbances, or what he calls !If estive politics . "19 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.*@This potsntial drawback is overcome by scholars like Linda Colley and
Kathleen Wilson, who have shown how, in some cases, popular disturbances contributed to the formation of a national identity.21 In Frit~~i~,Colley explored "the invention of Britishness,~~~~focusing on the 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 a formative component of national identity. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind the imperial component of middling and plebian consciousness when considering extra-parliamentary politics and public 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 noms, 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 trial in the streets with public demonstrations against alleged mi~behavers.'~ 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. One implication is that the flow of power on the part of the elite was not one-way. It was always being negotiated and manipulated in many directions. 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. While there has been a great deal of valuable work done by theatre historians, some of which we will examine below, social historians have only recently begun to study this important institution of eighteenth century life. The answer lies not only in the relationship between theatre history and social history, but also within the discipline of theatre history itself. 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 And so with no important plays, there was no significant history. 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 literature and established it as a 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 wonStase (1960-8) project provided a solid foundation for the next generation of detailed ~tudy.~~The multi-volumed . 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 only to facilitate literary criticism of the ~ork.~~Kennyls work 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.35 However, the most significant study is me JkmlsPatra (1971) by Leo ~ughes.~~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 suf ficiently 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 self- display 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 af fairs, through verbal and visual ref erence .40 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, ~tratford.~~ 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 Britaints military 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 .44 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 mob.~'~~ 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.49 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. In an account of the Half-Price Riots in 1763, John Whitty 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. To a large degree, the explanation of this difference 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 "especial provocation.' The possibility of disruption was there if the conditions which the 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 'exception1 we 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.54 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. This dissemination was further facilitated by social institutions such as reading circles, coffee houses, and circulating libraries, as well as spouting 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 will detail a number of background contexts. 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 instigating factors at work in any riotous situation. 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. We will devote a chapter to each category. 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 Britons. For most people during the Robinocracy, llmanagement" denoted partiality and 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. While these riots were comparatively infrequent, in 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, immedia tely to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habi ta tions, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumul ts 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~eil~'was a well-known local trading magistrate presiding in the Bow Street office just 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. This arrangement was soon adopted by the two patent houses. 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. Two were stationed onstage by the stage doors (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,63 there 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 llpullldout a
Handkerchief, and wipld his Eyes. "64 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 the military presence in the theatre. 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:
Tenducc i 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 the soldiers onstage in the London playhouses. 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. However, in this circumstance the effectiveness of the visual image was self-defeating. The appearance of the armed guard evoked outrage from the audience rather than submission. The public were feeling particularly antipathetic to state 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. Many times there was the destruction of theatre property. 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. A commentator in the 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. Apples, potatoes, and fruit were most often thrown. 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. When chosen, there was something systernatic about 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 During the infrequent times when rioters moved outside of 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, f ive women, three young women and tws 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 curtaints eyelet through, Behold the house in dreadful view! Observe how close the critics sit, And not one bonnet in the ~it.'~
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. An example took place when riots broke out at a performance of the Blackamoor (1776). The disturbance was largely due to a faction opposed to the play's author, Henry Bate, who used his newspaper, the wuPost, to abuse "private and public chara~ters."~~The violence quickly escalated and a woman who was 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. In fact, during the Old Price riots
it was 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
'riot l 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. One person's demonstration was another person1s riot. 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. Historians of riot have established that there was 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 to the over-use of words in expressing oneself. 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 .O3 The line was not a clear one. 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 that the audience cheerily will go Itto dam, "to rout, 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. Playscripts and refreshments were sold. 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 mid- afternoon to Save places in the boxes, allowing their masters and mistresses to arrive much nearer to curtain time at six ~~clock.~~
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.8 9 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 ~~clock.~'~~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 through a clearly delineated set of developmental stages. 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 f inally an account of the actual encounter, or its failure to materialize.
Moreover, theatrical riots were often staged over several nights, so that the momentum ebbed and flowed, and this protracted time period provided entrepreneurs with 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 In this manner theatre riots became the occasions for commercial exploitation. Many 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. Here we are talking about situations where the audience would confront the disputatious elements within itself, and publicly negotiate standards of behaviour. At a performance of William Popple l s
The (1734), the actor Quin polled the audience, and after pointing out that the majority were in opposition to those who would dam 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 show 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 of ten it would get its way, or certainly stop the show for a significant period. After
the 10th night of Egagaua (1775) at Drury Lane, according to custom, the epilogue and prologue were discontinued. However, the audience demanded them again. The prologue, by Arthur Murphy, had a patriotic tone, and the epilogue, "by a Friend," was a passionate declaration of female ~irtue.~~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 praum audience, he had better success on another occasion. During the 1775 run of me Rival Cudates 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. Skillfully manipulating public reaction, Westonls performance was the perfect mix of nonchalance and irony. 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, mds. Cultyre. and Politlc~. . ln Georq+gn Rrlt~~. . 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 a rank of people. Johnson's definition is IlThe cr~wd.~~but he 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 Then Diffprent WrW-ch &e 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 Luttrell , Abrief-relationte af £&S. from er 1678 to =il 1714, Oxford, 1857, II, 39. 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, 1750- 1880, London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1975, lxii; Micheal Booth, "The social and literary context: The theatre and its audience," Revels Historv of Dramainlish, VI, 24. With ri0ts out-of- doors, Stevenson notes the same sort of "transition to order.I1 Stevenson, P-, 295. Mischief, 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 Distwes b Scotland, 1780-18=, Edinburgh: J. Donald Publishers, 1979. Harvey J. Kaye, ed., ne Face of &he Crowd Stacs in v and POD~ Çeorse R& New York: Harvester /Wheatsheaf, 1988.
'O Harvey J. Kaye, "Introduction: George Rudé, Social Historian," in ne Face of the Cr&, 3-5. Rogers, llIntroduction,"in Crowds.
'' 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 Eighteenth Century," Paçt,50 (1971), 78-9.
l3 George Rudé, The Crowd 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. Cultur~aniid~~9. , 1998. . . l4 Charles Tilly, aarContention in Great Bu.ta,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.
lS Rogerst most recent monograph brings together a number of investigations into eighteenth-century popular disturbances. Rogers, Wwds. mture. Politics,. . 1998. . . . . l6 Nicholas Rogers, klhigs and Cities: POD~Polltu2s in the Aue ole and Pitt. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. 17 Rogers, k&iffs & Citm9. , .391; . Frank OtGorman, The Lonq hteenth Centurymuh. . Political and Social Hlstorv. 1688- ml London: Arnold, 1997. . 18 Rogers, mas and Citieg,. 350. In his most recent work, he reminds us that we must not overemphasize the cultural aspect of riots, Rogers, t,. . 15. l9 Nicholas Rogers, ffCrowdand People in the Gordon Riot S. In a d Ge- in the Cenw, ed . Eckhart Hellmuth . 3 9-56. London : Oxford University Press, 1990, 54. 'O Tirn Harris, ItApproaches to the crowd,. l1 . in London Crowds in tk an- of ales 11: p- ~~~O~LLLLQUIthe Restoration util the exclusion cru,Cambridge University Press, 1987. See R.L. Holton, IlThe Crowd in History: Some Problems of Theory and Method, SocialHistorv,3 (l978), 219-33. 21~indaColley, -a the Nation 1707-1837, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992; Kathleen Wilson, Senne of the ics. Culture anCUnpIrnDeriahsm. . in Enghnd. 1715-1785, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
22 colley, Britonst 8-
23 Wilson, Senseof-, 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.
24 Shoemaker, Robert B., IlThe London "MobN in the Early Eighteenth Century," Journal of British. . St-, 26 (1987): 278.
25 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.
26 One scholar has written: "A historian of late eighteenth- century 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-E- m,Oxford, 1979, 169. '' 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& ~heatre:torioacal ~heatre:torioacal -, Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 1988.
2e Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, StroUu Plavers & Drama in the provinces 1660-1765, 1939 (New York: Octagon Books, 1970); Richard Southern, The-, London: Faber and Faber, 1952; George Speaight, Be uory of the Enush Pup~etTh-, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990 (1955). --
29 William Van Lennep, ed., me 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 Illinois University Press, 1968. [Henceforth - MI.
'O P.H. Highfill Jr., K.A. Burnim, and E.A. Longhans, eds. A ses. Dacer~,wuerg 1660- 1800. 14 Vol,&, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975.
'l 'l David Mayer, Pantanin& 1806-1836, Harvard University Press, 1969; A.H. Saxon, F- =A Horse: A Uuof~i~~odramain Eng.h& and France, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, Richard Altick, aows of JIO~,Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1978. Citing the topicality of eighteenth century pantomime, David Mayer reminds us that theatre is not an activity that is separate from everyday lif e.
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 Ces~r~Theatre Paae : 110-ow - Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
" Robert D. Hume, ed. me Ldon Theatre World 1660- 18OQ, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980; Stone, Sta-n., 1981; Kenny, shirley Strum, ed. British. . atre and the Other Arts. 1660-1804, Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984.
34 Robert D. Hume, I1English Drama 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 mtre World, 1980, are professors of English. '' James J. Lynch, Fox. Pit and GUerv: 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 me The of Garrick, New York: King's Crown Press, 1954; Harry William Pedicord, "The Changing Audience, -e Wrld 1660- 180Q , Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980. 236-51.
36 Leo Hughes, #~enu L-, urv L-, Austin, Texas and London: University of Texas Press, 1971.
37 Hughes, The,3-31.
3e Hughes, TheDrama's PatXQm, 65.
39 Michael Dobson, ThehPoet: Wes~eare. tation Au-. 1660-1789, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992, 3. . . 40 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.
41 Deelman, Christian, The Great Sh-eare Jubilee, London: M. Joseph, 1964. . . 42 Gillian Russell, *ce. Polltics â11g Societv 1793- 1815 , London: Clarendon, 1995.
44 Allardyce Nicoll, ttresand &adkWes ig EiwthCentu, Manchester University Press, 1980, 87-8.
45 Elizabeth P. Stein, mvid Garrick. Dm,1938 (New York: B. Blom, 1967) , 10.
46 George Winchester Stone, "The Repertory," in The Lo-n Theatre ÿJorld 1660- 180Q , 190. 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 Worv of FnclLigih Prama, 1660-190Q, IV, Cambridge, 1970. H.W. Pedicord, "The Changing Audience," 248-50.
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 Wtebod, 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 Baer, Theatre md Disorder m J~ate Ge- J~ond~n,0xford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Elaine Hadley, Plelodrgmatic tactics: ketplace. 1800-1885, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1995. . . 52 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: ConWu a DesCuon ofLhe J îws. CustOms, alsi London: printed for Edward Jeffery, 1789. 53 Times* review 30/12/1965, cited in Rudé, George, "The Changing Face of the Crowd," The Face of-e Crowd; on. Ideoloay and PoD~~- ess-of, ed. Harvey J. Kaye. Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1988) 67.
54 For a detailed account of theatre financing see chapters two and five of Sheppard, F.H.W. (General Ed.), me Theatre Royal prurvbane and The Roval Opera House Covent Gar-, Published by Athlone Press for the Greater London Council, 1970.
55 E. Neville Williams, ed., The -th-Centurv Constituti~n, s and Comm,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~oloqy 1 (1985): 402.
57 Nippel, "Reading the Riot ActIt1403.
5a "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. Be State~, 19/9/1809. 5 9 Richard Crossls Diary, 18/11/1755 in LU, 509.
6O tlem'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 wtleu Masazine as a trading magistrate, he nevertheless must be seen as hard-working. Foote satirized him along with others in Taste 6 1 don Maam,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 JlimlnlsInn 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.
63 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.
64 NO. 712 in wonMa-, June 1742, 292. oar: with the wav to ii new overture u~Ueold score: as it wa4 ~erfPnnedat the Covent-Garden. bv Mr. Reard. Miss Brent. Sig, th. Mr. Woodward. ~it.boxes. gd,kries. tc. tc, ~tedb1 burlesuuo) to the favourite airs in the xes. 'l3e tbd edition.. . London: Sold by E. Sumpter, print and bookseller, at the Bible and Crown, three doors from Shoe-Lane Fleet-Street, 1763. . . 66 Gillian Russell, #ceWar: Politics Societv 1793- 1815, London: Clarendon, 1995, 96-106. Leigh Woods, 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 a.Westport : Greenwood, 1984, 102, n29. Charles Churchill, me Rnsciad, 1761, ln 303-04, in James Laver, ed. poems of -es Ch-, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1933 (1970).
68 28/10/1763 Drury Lane theatre, Hopkins' Diary, No. 10, in Lane,99. ltCommonSense," in 1,October, 1738, 533.
'O ~ournal-, 25/11/1755. Quoted at length in Deryck Lynham, me Chev&er Noverre: Fatber of Modern Rallet. London: Sylvan Press, 1950, 37. l1 Journal 12/1755, in me chevuer Noverre, 36. 75 Cross, 18/11/1755, in W, 509.
77 In Lance Bertelsen, -e Club: Literature and POD- ure 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 Straub, çexual Suspcts: Ei~hteenth-Centur~P1a-d Jdeoloav, Princeton University Press, 1992; 16-23.
79 Genest, TheEnalishVI 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 wonMa-, October 1738, 507. Benjamin Victor, Thex New York: Benjamin Blom, 1771 (1968), III, 61.
83 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 centw, 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: or PermMoilitor; a a Calculation of the Tlenaq PerformiSa in Al1 the A=tLm At the The-=s-RovL London: Printed for J. Almon, 1767. 92 "This Day is publish'd, Price 6 d. me Dancers Pamn Devil ta Pav at the Old W. Printed for R. Griffiths in Pater- noster-row." mlic Adver-, 18/11/55.
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 afterpiece, Harleauin -. The critic, John Hill took sides against Woodward in me Ins~ector and Woodward countered with letters in the UVAdvertis~, and also received support frorn the -. A pamphlet war followed and Woodward 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 Rlhllowhv: Inco~oraLhaRobert ML tri& ture. Pub- in 1888, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1970, 352
94 Preface, The,1734.
95 Fitzgerald, aory 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.
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
9e 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. 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 Wdof 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, dam him; if not guilty, clear him. Fielding, Prologue, meWe-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 and critical analyses of the state of the nation's theatre. 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. Both metaphors represent two act ivi ties - - judgrnent and voting - closely associated with play-going, which take into account the responsibilities of the audience as well as the spatial arrangement in which they were met. 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 some physical manifestation of those institutions. 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. There was a remarkable degree of interconnectedness 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. Print also introduced teusions of its own. 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 ~ociety.~ 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 dif ferent 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 in the Haymarket to the booth theatres of the London 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 the production. Some of these, like the advanced price charged for new 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 ref lective 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 expansion and consolidation of her international standing. The pit, box, and gallery arrangement, typical of the eighteenth century theatre, provides a physical model, however eccentric, of economic relations during the period. 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 dom 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 af ter 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 Coffee-w, included scenes featuring a particular coffee- house 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. The j ournalist and playwright Richard Steele proposed a set of representatives for a typical "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 3l1-3, 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 last CenturyIttgave him a basis for able discernment .24 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 what the devil cari this prologue be about? 1 cant 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 them~elves.~~~~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. With seating for gentry and the aristocracy, as well 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 his Opinions and Resol~tions.~~~Steele's comment suggests that 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 situation of potential conflict within the theatre audience. 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." Initially it seemed the dispute was resolved. Both areas 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 night~.~~ 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 without qualification. Even though some contemporaries had a tendency to associate non-verbal entertainments with the lower ranks, there were others ready to point a finger elsewhere, including at "People of sudden
Fortunes. " 35 Garrick further gives us some idea of a gallery memberls possible discontent with his or her place in his afterpiece,
leauin's Inv~sio~(1759), the first speaking pantomime in 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: ...Itm 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 At 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.'~ 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. Physically the stage area can be divided into two sections -- 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 platf orm. The eighteenth century theatrical performance featured great acting, but also remarkable scenic effects. It was a place for visual excitement and spectacle as well as dramatic edification. Lighting and scenery were important, but managers also used moving stage pieces and special effects to great advantage .41 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 .43 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,47 it was also a source of strife. Audience members on stage could interfere nst 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 most blatant problems associated with these arrangements. 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 he wou'd retire" which saved the situation. Submitting to the will of the actress backed by the approval of the public, the captain did retire and the farce went on to great applause .48 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 om 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 their associated activities. 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. Newspaper announcements often reminded the audience that 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. In 1743 the Drury Lane management warned the public about 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 of fended 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 I1with their Bayonets f ixld," 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 dynamic, including the tripartite seating arrangements, a 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 majority: --- A swarm of Çar~arm 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 conf lict .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 stage- related 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 .59 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 dam 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 .62 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 Dam -, 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, me 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 WubStreet, 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, wheref ore 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 . . Quidnunc in the -terex (1758). Sheridan's The Critic (1779) opens with the stage direction: "-ale at breakfast, ad reaua naspëpers. 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 an additional dimension for dispute. This additional means for public consumption calls forth several considerations. 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. A reviewer in the -on Ma-, commenting on Cluest- (1766), noted: "As to the play we shall not attempt to point out the excellencies of the
plot, characters, diction. &c. till it appears in print. lt6' 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) bef ore 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 discussion of a particular work. A correspondent to the London
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."" A printed version of a disputed play allowed the author to make his or her case in a prologue or advertisement, or to print the offending passages that the disturbed audience had had rem~ved.~~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." According to Ann Goldgar there was another phase 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^.^' She contrasts this informa1 community with the ideas of sociability and enlightenment identified with the Republic of Letters later in the eighteenth century. 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 mayls- 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 different. A free communication is always open; and 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 RoscU, a poetic best- seller 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 a rapidly expanding industry in the eighteenth century. A large variety of printed materials were produced and consumed - sermons, novels, almanacs, self-help books, and the theatrical material we have already mentioned. Within the context of a consumer society, this meant 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, ae 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 84 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 sampling material from a number of sources. 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 am. 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.'~ Moreover there were other rewards for authors. 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 Wu. 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. The theatre auditorium was not just a space for watching from, but also one for participating in, even if 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. The new monarch exerted considerable control over 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 there were a variety of disturbances. 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. These disputes stemmed from a variety of causes. 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. His opponent on the occasion was William Davenant's son." 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 Reresby gives a detailed account of a confrontation he had in the King's playhouse and how a disagreement over seating could escalate into a duel. 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[Monmouthl made 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 discovered, stopped, and resolved. 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 immune £rom quarrelling in the playhouse. 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. We will see that they establish the idea of the theatre as a public place for quarrelling. Another type of public disturbance in the playhouse was connected with notions of space and the boundaries of
aristocratic privilege. 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 the theatres "with evil language and blo~s."'~~Very early in the 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 f irst door. "lo6 The policies however, had little effect. Furthermore, after ignoring the procedure of buying a 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 Wim 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 Taylor~.~~~ 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. They were of ten an exhibition of persona1 identity. 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 economic and social conditions of eighteenth-century London. 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-Nat- 1768. A female culprit at your bar appears,/ Not destitute of hope, nor free from fears. Prologue to PFscoverv, TmBouauet, 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, mtrew 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. See H. W Pedicord, "BV Their Majestlew'1 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 35 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. Xk Georaian Plavbouse , 156-60. ' The following are standard ticket prices at Drury Lane theatre through the 18~~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.
9 IVAdvert-, 23/8/1747. See Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, mth c-, Cambridge University Press, 1960. The benchless parterre can be considered the quintessential feature of 17~~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 DeveloDmentish Playhouse, London: Eyre, Methuen, 1973. l3 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. l4 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 Parisian audience. The debate largely waged in print, 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. 15 Drury Lane, 23/1/1740; Drury Lane, 22/1/1750. l6 André Rouquet, The Present State of the Arts in -, 1755 (London: Cornmarket Press, 1970), 111. "Nor could [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. IV 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, mtorv of the Theatres, 1, 59. le Macklin's diary, flll. For implications of theatre lighting. . see Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Disenchanted Niat : the in-izatiqn of , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988, 191-221. l9 Rouquet, Preçent State of the Arta, 110.
20 Abbé Le Blanc, cited in Cibber, &oloqy, 1, 278, nl
21 J.M Beattie, the Courts in ~~gl.ar~d:1660-180Q, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986, 353-362.
22 D. Statt, IlThe Case of the Mohocks: Rake Violence in Augustan England,It Social m,20,2 (1995 May) : 179-200.
23 James Miller, Coffee-Houg, 1737.
'4 Theatre, III, 9/1/1720. 25 Charles Macklin, A Will and No Will: or a Borie for the J~7~e~1 1746, (DL).
26 He continues, "Al1 the Company, from the stagebox to the upper gallery know their cues very well, and perform their parts with greatspirit . " TheConnoisseur,No. 43, 21/11/1754. George Colman and Bonne11 Thornton weekly edited this. See Alvin Sullivan, . , (Ed. ) 1 BritishLiterarvwdthe Athe-e ~f Jobon. 1698-1788, Westport Conn.: Greenwood, 1983, 46-52; Lance Bertelsen, U-J~S~ Club: JAterature and Pop- uure 1749-1764, Oxford: 1986.
27 Harry William Pedicord, I1Rv Their Maiest-' C-daII . muse of Hanover at the J~ondon Theatres. 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.
30 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.
31 me Theau, III , 9/l/1720111. '' 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, mee plays. Prj-fl-om hi-to unDublished w, 1926 (New York: B. Blom, 1967) . 37 Garrick, Harleauln'1 s 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 ina, 2/11/1736.
43 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. 44 Barbara G. Mittman, $~ectators on the Paris staae in the ei-, ei-, - Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI Research Press, 1984, 106.
45 Allardyce Nicoll, thDr-, 1967, 1, 11- 12, II, 36.
46 Leacroft, 99-
47 John Rich charged 10s. 6d. for seats onstage at the opening of Covent Garden in 1732. Angus, William, "Actors and Audiences in Eighteenth-Century London, çtudies in S~eechand in Hm der M. Dr-, Ed. Donald C. Bryant et al. , Ithaca N.Y.: Corne11 University Press, 1944, 129.
48 Cross in w, 158, 2/12/1749, Drury Lane theatre. 49 Stone, llIntroduction,u, ci-cviii. It was announced that the libretto for a new musical entertainment min 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. Dailv Pnstad General Advertisey 11/2/1735. 54 n Dailv Post and General Advertisey 11/2/1735.
55 eal to the Publlc on BeWf of the &m&uers, London: printed for Wilson and Fell, 1763, 1.
56 Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, -les of Theais: Some PA- es. 1700-1824, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1978. In one published edition of his 1756 play, Therentice, 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 particularly appeal to those who could read and thereby identify the quotes and then check themselves at the bottom of the page. . . 57 Donna T. Andrew, ed. won 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 ff~ eatriciag seizes the inferior classes or the trading and mechanic parts of the nation, ruin is the inevitable consequence. Townand1/1769, 18-9.
59 "Theatrical publications" including published plays were Ilsecond only to novelsflin popularity at circulating libraries. J.H. Plumb, #th- . 8 -. -. University of Reading, 1973, 8.
For a stage treatment of the disputes within the world of letters see Samuel Foote, The Patron, London: Printed for G. Kearsly, 1764.
62 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 Cobbett Is Po1it;Ccal. . Proteus. A View of e P&)&acter conwt 9. Sheridan, (London, 18041, in Ustory erer in the Ma-, Vol. 1, London, 1935, 48. 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." 6 4 Interestingly, the paper featured ads for the printed playtexts before it actually began announcing the plays themselves. rn v Cou,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." . . 65 Alvin Sullivan, (Ed. ) , British: 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, BritishLiterarv8. 144. 67 Gray, -trical Criticinrna.. in ml78; Henry Fielding, 2& Çpvent-Garden Tra-, London, 1732; Sullivan, , , ml144. Murphy, The UD~~$~P~PK,1758. In Bickerstaff, mne1 and -, 1768, the opening stage instruction is: "Colonel Oldboy is discovered at breakfast reading a newspaper." Richard Sheridan, neCritir, . . 1779.
69 Review of -, in Marriacre, J~ondmMa9uher February 1766, 63-4.
.m. 70 30/3/1732, in Gray, meatrical Criticism in London, 77-8. "DramaticusN is identified as Sir William Yonge by J.T. Hillhouse in The,Durham, N.C., 1928. 71 Gray, Theatrical CriticismS.. in London, 133-4. 72 a Post, 27-9/1/1763.
73 The letter writerls signature IlNo Time-ServerIt points to Mallet's allegiance to the administration. . , 74 "Dedication of a Rioted Play, William Shirley, Parricide: or.,1739. Shirley dedicated his play to John Rich. lSShirley's play did not make it to a second night.
76 "Dedication," Edward Moore, TheFoundincr,1748. Moore was able to put in the lines he had been forced to cut from the character, Faddle . 77 Dena Goodman, Tbe Regublic of J~ettem:A CulWal Historv qf e Frach F-. Corne11 University Press, 1994. Goldgar, meJte~, 10, 242. 7 9 Arthur Murphy, T~PGrav1s-Lm Journal, Number 41, 28/7/1753, 349. For details of Murphyls quarrels in the Republic cf. Howard Hunter Dunbar, me DraE&icCaregr, 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. . . 8 2 Terry Eagleton, Tbe FWonof Criticism. from the S~mtorto Post-Structuralism, London: Verso, 1984. 15.
83 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, Newwers: wters in the HlstorV of Journalism, New York: Russell, 1966, 1, 143.
84 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 Office. He was attacked by Bonne11 Thornton in the pi2 ve at Ye sponsored. . by a rival of Fielding's interest. Alvin Sullivan (Ed. , pritlsh Tliterarv Mauazines : The an bue ad the Aue- of Johnson. 1698-1788, Westport Conn.: Greenwood, 1983, 64-5. John Brewer and Ann Bermingham, ed. BeCo-tion of Culture. Routledge, 1996. 87 Henry Fielding, (pseud. Sir Alexander Drawcansir) Covent Garm Jxx,No. 1, 4/1/1752, The letter writer continues that Johnson would also try I1to get 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.
93 Hugh Kelly was pensioned with f200 a year for writing filler for the administration supporting . Public_-_Ledueg. . Robert Right Rea, me Enslish-41 Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1963, 167.
94 Hugh Kelly, mrd tmeWise, 1768 (New York: Georg 0lms Verlag, 1973).
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 off ense that Mr Scroppe had dared speak to a masked actress, Mrs Uphill, I8so a 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, Dhry 22/7/1667, III, 16. see Niemeyer, Carl. "Henry Killigrew and the Duke of Buckingham," -ml 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
100 tial Protestant Mgrcury, 2/5/1682, in Thomas, 181; Luttrell, A Wrief Relation, 10/6/1685, 1, 346.
'O1 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 Mears of Sir Job -, 158.
'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, -th -on St-, 1928, 268-70.
'O4 Entrance to Playhouses, 7/12/1663, PRO LC 7/1, p. 1, in David Thomas, ReçtorationReçtorationandGeorghrl En-: 1660- 1788, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 179. 105 Percy Hetherington Fitzgerald, F New Historv of the Enq;L+Sh âtaae: From the Restorat.ion to the Libertv of the--3atres. in ction With the Patent House$, London: Tinsley Brothers, 1882, 1, 91.
'O6 Printed Bill on Entry to Playhouses, 2/2/1673, PRO LC 7/3, f. 1, in Thomas, Res-tion au$ Georqian Fnalm, 179. 'O7 Printed Bill on Entry to Playhouses, 2/2/1673. 108 al of wr-, 1693, who was accused of murdering the actor, William Mountfort. ml lxxiii
'O9 Thomas Shadwell, fi True Widoy, IV, 12/1678.
''O ''O See John Brewer, nCommercialization and Politics," The B- pf a C~~~~lbmerSociety, 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. 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, De Case of Our Pregent Thea- , 1743.
When 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. They are viewed as anomalous and are not integrated with the more acceptable forms of audience behaviour. Our own attempt at classifying riots supports the thesis that theatre riots were in keeping with the theatre-going experience at lar'ge. 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 sometimes obscured by the overt actions of the rioters. The violence committed during a riot often obscured its root causes. When confronted with the evidence of extensive physical damages -- 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 ampl if ied 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 ~ince.~ 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. Disturbances over management-related issues included 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 allowed one to sit, the non-appearance of performers, or even the starting time of the eveningls performance. These were issues related to the day-to-day practices of theatre management.' As we have seen in the previous chapter, terms of admission (including ticket arrangements) and space allocation were two of the 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 with audience opposition that sometimes escalated into riot. Theatre management issues were also a part of several larger concerns that occupied people's thinking during the latter eighteenth century. On the one hand there were questions about the commercial nature of the theatre operating under the strictures of royally granted patents. 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. A mid-sized 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 Harris employed approximately 225 individuals including one hundred and eight 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~ting.~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 to compare this general interest in theatre management alongside the public's attention to 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 edit~r.~This same sort of interest was also the case with the theatre, with people avidly following issues in the periodical and pamphlet press. A correspondent to the Gentleman's Ma- 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. In Samuel
Footels play, Be B- (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
and recessed for the summer. When in season, both were the 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 Plays such as The (1730) by Henry
Fielding, Pee~Rew the Curtu (1767) by David Garrick, or
The. . (1779) by R.B. Sheridan, explore various aspects of 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 the management of the theatres that created the illusions. 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. The arguments over seating and tickets were often couched 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) . This in turn justified his criticism. 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 they had payld their m0ney.l~~~In one sense we have a complicated 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 interesting position. It was subject to the changing rules of 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. Ticket prices and seating arrangements were two areas where the audience tested and contested these changing demographic conditions. Initially these seating and pricing disputes had been justified with claims of aristocratic privilege sanctioned by precedent. In the eighteenth century they became "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 attention was focused on "a certain pr~jector~~~in the world 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. For most people during the Robinocracy, "managementN denoted partiality and corrupt practices, and theatre managers were subject to the same sort of criticism as politicians. 24 Theatre managers in the 1740s were in an interesting position. 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. A prime target of audience observation and criticism was the theatre manager. Drury Lane manager Charles Fleetwood, who had been the cause of four of the five disturbances cited above, was targeted frequently. Fleetwood represented a particular breed of theatrical manager who saw the theatre both as a fashionable and a profitable endea~our.~~He bought the Drury Lane patent at a 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. Although the circumstances surrounding his purchase would indicate some financial acumen on Fleetwood's part, he was a 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-to- day 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. As Fleecwood slipped progressively further into debt, actors' salaries went unpaid and costumes and props were sometimes seized. To the disgust of 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 ChamDion from 1739-42 and later became aligned with the Prince of Wales' faction when he edited -ancal 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 been.~~~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. On December 4, 1773, Twelfth Ni& was 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 otclocktffor 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
Itfresh Bills were put up for Zara. tt3g 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 Looking- Glasses, pulled up the Benches in the Pit, broke dom 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. However, there are two things to be gathered from this incident. 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 the best French Dancer here at that Time. "43 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 .44
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 galler~.~~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 Appla~ses.~~
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 eveningls programme. 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 their servants, although the footmen were the easier target. 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 plaudit Itis that deals out Fame, You make Plays run, thol of themselves but Lame: How often have we known your Noise Commanding, Impose on your 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 llPinkyllwas 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 galler~.~~ England's theatre managers did not have the options available to their French counterparts. 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
(17221, Garrick's -a Valet (1742) James Townleyls Uah Lifg B- B- Stgirsl759), and Holcroft 's Eollies of the Dav (1785), the latter itself a speedy translation of Beaumarchais' gf Fi=. In these plays and many others the servant, both female and 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.53 Moreover in several productions onstage servants were 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 Wound~.~~~~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 the people in 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 llOccasionalPr~mpter,~~ 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 confusion as people sitting behind added their complaints. 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 llFavourllof 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 af fair 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, Itthat he would not take off his Hat for anybody" and would knock dom 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 no Footman'ç Çallexv or no Pit."61 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~eil,~~who 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 several of the ringleaders were taken to Newgate. 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. Initial accounts, including the later summaries in the London focused on the reading of the
Riot Act. However, on Thursday March 10, following an announcement the day before, because the riots had "become a Topick of publick DiscourseI1~the Wlv 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. A settlement offer was made, combined with a rather violent 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. A notice appeared in the Public ver- 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 that year at the minor theatres.'O In one instance Theophilus Cibber featured his daughter Jenny in pomeo_and Julie 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 otWn 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 be tween . 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 arrangement was the charging of advanced prices. 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 having failed, Fleetwood was unwilling to back dom. 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 gent lemen.74 After failing to hold the door Fleetwood's supporters made their way amongst the audience. The manager had "a Country Gentlemant1 taken 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. Early in the week support for the rioters came in a letter to the Wlv Advertis- by 'Philo Dramaticus" who offered congratulations to those involved in the "long-wishld for Conquest over the Hireling Encouragers of the Pantomime
Entertainments . "?' 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 ~Insults~and 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 walAdvertisex against the three reasons which he argued were at the heart of
andInsultsHe justified raising prices
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 justif ied 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. The pamphlet ~t- Policv 1744) , one of several to attack Fleetwood also seems to apportion blame for the appearance of pantomime to one part of the house. The writer notes that whereas the pit and boxes were the people who primarily supported the theatre through the price of 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. Wi th 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, the issues surrounding seating and ticket prices were larger than just a single 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. There are several reasons for this familiarity. For one thing they involved David Garrick at the height of his career. 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 pit 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 Footmenls Riots, 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 both theatres or spread from one house to the other. 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 half- price. 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 dif ferent 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 years Isaac Reed, a life-long theatre-goer, often 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 . 83 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 successful
af terpiece, Miss (1747)47). Not 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 maft- signed X.Y.Z. He later collected these and published them in a pamphlet entitled -v into the Real Merit of a Certgig marPerformer, (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 .86 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 Xk 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. Reporters and later historians decided that Fitzpatrick had 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. "Mr. Fitz----k, what ever his feelings might be from the Frbbsmothered 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, cof fee 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 half- price 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 me of the Theatria 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.' II Garrick did sol 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. sr: s~eakto the how.l1 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, lfUlvou. 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 rioters were dispersed. Others were given their money back. 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. Victor thinks that it could only have happened because the 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 re~eived.~~Victor's mention of the financial implications of a theatre riot for an author, as self - interested 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 diff icult 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- the next day, was artful in its design and delivery. 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 cando~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 Old- England. These were two popular songs, which in these circumstances, the orchestra was commonly called upon to play as victory anthems. When the actor Holland came out to speak the prologue to Fm, 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 hauseut 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. kn~es!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 pal.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 tom, especially as they had a precedent in & ck. the areatest theatrlcal -. 11109 However, no
submission was made and at 9:30 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 Wly Advertiser~ of the following day contained a statement from Beard with the management's side of the dispute, arguing that the production expenses of opera justified the change in ticket pricing. 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 the financial intricacies of running a large theatre. 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. At the same time there were the more pragmatic legal questions about the individuals up on charges from the initial riot. 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 mlic 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. A spirited crowd gathered and once again the orchestra 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 by contemporary factional disputes and reputations. 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 between theatre disputes £rom the earlier and later periods. 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. Disputes over space and the exclusive rights to 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. They were refusing to pay their admission as a way of 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 DlLondon: 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~eraHouse 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 Introduction," - , Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1960, xviii. Throughout his career Garrick was the recipient of numerous letters in the paper and pamphlets in letter form. Hannah Barker, -ers. ~ol&~cs.a. and ~alico-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 me Critic. . by R.B. Sheridan. 1 O Gentleman'sMasazine,10/1743, 533. The "affairl'was Charles Fleetwood's dispute in 1743 with striking Drury Lane actors. Catalofi,,- III :il 476. 11 Samuel Foote, The Banku~L,London: Printed for G. Kearsly . . . and T. Evans, 1776, III, ii. l2 Dane Farnsworth Smith, Elays About the Theatre in Act in 1737. New York, 1936, Dane Farnsworth Smith and M.L. Lawhon. mvs About the clous Stase- From Foote to Sherim, Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979. l3 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. 1559- J90QI London: Society for Theatre Research, 1970, 118. see E.R. Page, Georae Colman, theelder:e9%avist.dramatisU rical Waer. 1732-1794, New York: Columbia University Press, 1935
. 9 l5 Colman, George, A true state of the differences s- btherietors of .c~m2.nt-Garden-Theatre:swer , , . 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&, 1268- 9.
l7 Ralph, aeCase 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, -ous Com~ositi~11~~. . 1777, in LE&, 1273. 22 The seventeenth century demographer, King claims that 45% of London's half-million under 16. Harold Love, "Who were the Restoration Audience?, Mook 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.
24 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, ~oleand the Patriots: Pol~ics.. . Poetry. and Mvth. 1725-1742, Oxford University Press, 1995.
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 have been seized. A New Wtoq of the Rn- Staae: From the Bestoration to the Libertvof Thh 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 theatrical management. Fitzgerald, -v of the EnWh Stas, II, 72-90. 27 0,London: T. & J. Elvey, 1821, 27.
2e Patrick Fitz-Crambo, Zyxamy trimghmt.I And libertv lest: the auses run mad: AWlo struck. . du&: and al1 Covent-Gar- çonf~~ed. Or, Hl storical.t.ical and ne-- the famous cartel latelv aareed on bythe-s. . . , London : G . Lyon, 1743. '' ~avies,Ws of the me. - of Davi'ri barx,i&," 1, 70. Davies, Memo_irs of the Life of David Gara, 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. . . 32 Alvin Sullivan, (Ed. ) , #s : Th-.uiL.can Aue and the Aae of Jobon. 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 & Reprints, 1758 (l966), vi. . , 33 .James . Ralph, 3critcril,. . pol1tical, DhilosoDhical and theolo-cal essaYs On the rei- of the tom, London: 1728; James Ralph, Thee ==es. ==es. 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-St- 1728.
35 Ralph, me Cwe of Our Present Tb~uicalDisputeg, 10.
36 Ralph, The Case of Our Pregent Thegtrjcal Disputes, 8-10.
37 The Drury Lane account books for the 1749-50 season indicate that f428 was spent on printing and advertising. Total expenses were £13,403. u,Appendix D, ccxxxiv. 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, mtorvof the Tbtres, 42-3.
42 William Worthen Appleton, Charles 9, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960, 41; JlondonMasazd, 2/1740, 3/1740.
43 Victor, TheHis-, 42-3.
44 Fleetwood's own "State of the CaseN admits to his failure to stay on top of the situation. Lgndon Dailv Post, 29/1/1740.
45 me Stu, September 24, 1809; F.H.W. Sheppard, (Gen. Ed.) , Survevdon Vol . 3 5 : Th= The&= Reval Dru'?' J'ane and The mal 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. 46 Covent Garden playbill, 19/9/1792. see Jesse Foot, A
London: printed for J. Owen, 1792.
47 Sheppard, Survev of London, 3. As Sheppard notes, this was the first broach of the Restoration patent system.
48 Cibber, BI) A~olosv forAe 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 panda1Advertisa, 18/1/1740.
50 John Lough, J!ax-&re Audiencesam 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 Fie la, Dedicated to the Society of Footmen in Great Britain. "Trim-Tram, like Master like Man." London: Henry Lintot, 1732. [Price 1/61
53 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.
54 David Garrick, Suh Tdfe Relow St;l;jys, 1759, Isaac Bickerstaff, el Clarisua, 1768; Isaac Jackman, 811 the Worldls A w, 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 mled. Helen Small and Naomi Tadmor James Raven, 202-25. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
56 on- Ddv Post & Geaea Advertisex , 11/2/1735.
JO&, 22/2/1737. Garrick later satirized this inclination in me Hiwlife 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! ---
59 Fitzgerald in the nineteenth century chooses to ignore the event; TheLondonan indispensable aid to theatre research, points to the material that would explain, but instead helps reinforce the common interpretation.
60 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 Advertisa, 10/3/1736-37. 62 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,wa poem by Taswell, judged by Davies to be I1neither deficient in fancy nor humour.11
64 IV Adver-, 10/3/1736-37; London, Mar& 1737, 163. The focus of the V1saccount of both incidents was the reading of the riot act.
ion! q Fatal Tree. 67 E.P. Thompson, "The Crime of Anonymity," 0 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. Gazetteex, 12/3/1737.
71 Theophilus Cibber, A serio-comic a~oloavfor Dart of the life f. in whia
1s contair)~d. a pruaue.~ gn e~iloqu~.and a DQSIUIU Juliet behast revived in 1744, Dublin: printed by A. Long, 1748.
l3 Victor, -tory of the Theam, 1, 46. and the ~it
rhu theat re, London : printeà for M. Cooper, 1744, in 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 Lheatriçal secret historv laid ,oP=n: . ln a 1ety t0 a ter- on his uuaguap >-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: Boxes 600 4/- 120.0.0 Pi t 500 2/6 62.10.6 1st Gallery 700 1/6 52.10.0 2"d Gallery loo* 1/- 5.0.0 Total receipts 240.0.0 Expenses 66.0.0 *not including "free servantsn cal -, 18, 16/4/1768. 79 on Evua Post, 3-5/3/1763; see Cibber, ~p~y,1.
'O Percy Fitzgerald, claimed the evening was so arranged that each part "might suit a dif ferent 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 Daac Reed Ruries.. . 1762- 1804, Claude E. Jones, (ed.), University of California Press, 1946.
82 Davies, Life of Garrick, II, 15. a3 Hugh Kelly, is an another example, whose poems -, 1766- 67, two popular, but damning accounts of the actors at both patent theatres, incurred the wrath of theatre community.
84 Thaddeus Fitzpatrick, An engyirv into the real merit of a ar ~erformer. In a series of letters. flrst he ~rc------E4q; London: printed for M. Thrush, 1760. Davies, of Gar- II, 18.
86 David Garrick, The Fr&leria?, London: Printed for J. Coote, 1761.
87 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. " Davies, Life of Garrick II, 26. Whitty, "The Half -Price Riots of 1763, 25-32. 90 M w,1/1763, 7; - 9f the lateeTheatres of .Drurv-J'ane . and ~ntersgersed with the -~rmal t have been ~ubllshed on each Side of the London: printed for W. Morgan, 1763, 5.
92 An Enemy To Imposition, Toters,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, neLondon Evwu Post, 23-25/1/1763.
94 Victor, Kistorv of the -, III, 45.
96 e JI- Ma-, 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 nrurv-Ta, London: printed for S. Bladon, 1772.
'O2 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, gter t-d Act, except during the first winter of a new Pantomine [sic]?"'X&il&n Evenba Post, 23- 5/1/1763.
rlcal & Succinct Accoyni, 18.
There is some contemporary dispute and carried on by historians about whether there was this encounter at Covent Garden the first night, but Whitty and my own research indicate that there was. Printed in Utor&al and Sbicsiinct ~oiint,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, ~he£nathp late DistWbDce at re. Fairlv Stated- SUtted 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 dom.
murs 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. There were also a significant number of disturbances involving playwrights and critics 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 in 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. However, while fighting in public in the theatre was common 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 supporters of the populist politician John Wilkes. 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 the stage. During the 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. The word is interchangeable with many other contemporary terms such as 'faction, *cabalt, * club , *association*,or even 'cartelt,although this latter expression was more often used to describe what was perceived to be collusion between managers rather than spectators. As 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 . 113 This def inition 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. A key idea was the notion of opposition. 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 the eighteenth century public's attention to notable individuals. During this period, Britons becarne increasingly fascinated with public personalities as shown by the growth in popularity of biography and the increased public consumption of prints and paintings. 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 WhHomer, " by one commentator near mid- century.' 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 good?~~By adopting the cause of one of the nation's venerables, a theatre- goer 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 mid- 1770s 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 and actresses were part of the select group of recognizable personalities. l2 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 cof feehouses 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 doms 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 Patra (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 ambivalence. At the same time as there was this vulnerability inherent in the profession, there was also the possibility of increasing one's social standing. Celebrity raised actors in status. This increase in status is often cited in the career of Garrick, but the phenomenon extends 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. While people took part in this most participatory of eighteenth century art forms as individuals, they were also very much influenced by the group of which they were a part. MoreoVer group identity pressures were changeable. We have al1 felt the pressure of judging a painting in a gallery while standing alongside someone else. A similar situation was in effect with 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 Des~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 critici~m.~~Soon after the publication of the two poems, Kelly's f irst play, mse nekacv (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~licies.~~When Kelly's second play A Word to the Wise (1770) came out, a group of Wilkes' supporters set out to dam 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 Çymbeu 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 af fair 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 Çqmbela 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. Garrick tried to make the case that -se Delicacv was no longer Kelly's property, but rather belonged 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 dom that is du11 and out of the way, provided you have good Seconds; but if you have not good Seconds, nothing will go dom 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 me Discovery by Frances Sheridan.3' On this night, Boswell was a first nighter with a grudge. 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 I1many smart acrimonious thingsIt the play went on.32 Only two weeks earlier Boswell had set out for the first night of David Mallet's Faa, even more determined to dam 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 and encouraged others to join them, their efforts were 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 appla~se."~~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 riot~.~~
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 even engage in physical fighting . 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 associated with theatre people, most notably
performers. A rather straight-forward and vivid example unfolded
at a performance of Bononcini's opera, A&yaxu in June 1727 when
a disagreement between supporters for two rival sopranos
gradually escalated into a violent 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, f igured 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 introduction of the first talking ~arle~uin.~~Woodward was a 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 conf lict 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 pivwof the ~oxnjag.~~The performance was
preceded by a series of newspaper puffs by Woodward challenging
Foote and referring to their earlier rivalry in Ireland. The
challenge drew forth a letter from Foote in reply. The exchange
in the newspaper press no doubt helped to ensure a large house
and the proceeds of Woodwardls benefit 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 Fri- Once again Foote picked up the challenge with a
letter to the pgj3v Z+&~ertis~.~~lairningWoodward's many defeats "sufferld in 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.48
A puff by Foote in the Mlv Advertiser four days later mocked Woodward and claimed victory in the contest between the two actors.49 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. But even if that was the case, their supporters took it seriously enough to 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. Barry was one of the most popular actors of the day. 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 E80. 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 Eveaa Post the crowds were partially due to the expectation of a ri~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 soi-wtpotentat 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 tom 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 emotions behind animosities between, and towards writers. 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 De New Plav Crlticlzed:. or. The Uaue 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. lfS8
Some fifteen years earlier a correspondent to Be 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 what is laudable, tho' desirous of possess& wu 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. Henry Bate suffered the same fate. Bate was the initial editor of the wuPost which began publication in November 1772. 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 Par~on.~~'~In February of 1776 a party used the opening of Batesf ~ackamoor
Wuat Drury Lane theatre to show their displeasure with his writing in the muPost, 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 ildu 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. n67 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. As it turns out, however, they did not carry the campaign. 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. Often a disturbance would simmer and slowly escalate over a 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. A theatrical jack-of-all-trades Macklinls stubborn personality 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. u71 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 af loat . Macklin was well established there when David Garrick arrived in 1742 after his highly successful debut at Goodman's Fields in the previous year. However, the 1742-43 season was a troubled one. 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 tell ing 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 strikebreakers from amongst the many itinerant strollers. With the dismissal of 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 ~trike.~~ 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 benefit of the other act~rs.~~However, the performance never took place, as supporters of Macklin, lead by his friend Dr. Barrowby, clashed with supporters of Garrick and the manager.*O 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 ae 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 Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Ve-, although he also achieved note as Iago, Sir Gilbert Wrangle in Ref&, and Sir Pertinax Macsycophant in his own play, TheManwhich 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 first time performer was a potent box office draw. 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. Macklin played Shylock in -t of Veniçe twice without incident and then on Saturday October 23rd, pérformsd Ma&&h for the first tirne. 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 was the introduction of traditional Scottish costumes. 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. The initial reports of the performance were followed by 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. There was considerable antipathy to Britaintsnorthern partner. As Boswell shows, the period was dangerous even for audience mernbers identified as Scots.89 We might also consider the role of Garrick in this dispute. 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 -- a short report of which made its way into the papers. Reddish stuck with his story however, to the point of claiming his nightly wage for his 'performance1 at 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 Macklin and Garrick had had their run- ins before. 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 Shyl~ck.~~ 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 Ma~beth.~~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
~oice.llg4 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 Uve 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 . v98
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. Moreover their livelihood depended upon their relationship with the pub1 ic . They were constant ly 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 Ta1the Visual resatatann m the Aae of Gar~ckand, 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, TheLadies1734, The Double Deceit, 1736. Johnson, Pictio-, 1755. He also includes the term "factionu in his definition. 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 10/10/1775, I&A&x&era's Vuits. . to Enaland. As Described in Kh J'etters . . , ed. translated and annotated by Margaret L. Mare and W.H. Quarrell, 1938 (New York: B. Blom, 1969), 16. Victor, mtorv of uatres,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. 7 Dr.,March 14, 1775, 51. Campbell noted of the perf ormer, Il. . .nor was 1 disappointed in my expectations , tho ' 1 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 PerformingluTh 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 what ever...II Arthur Sherbo , New Fasa-uzghy, Michigan State University Press, 1963, 44. ' Id l5 Henry Fielding, -dice Uss . 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. Highf il1 Jr . , I1Performers and Performing, " in Theatre iJorld 1660- 1804, ed. Robert D. Hume, 143-80. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 143-53. le Thomas Cooke, "Table Talk: Hugh Kelly," -, ll/l793, 421, cited in Gretchen Foster, I1Hugh Kelly, " pic- of , Vol. 89, Paula R. Backscheider (Ed.) , University of Rochester: The Gale Group, 1989, pp. 232-248. . . l9 Hugh Kelly, -is: or. A crmcal a~l~h3tion.ttheprits ~erfomersbelonaina to Dr~r-e Theatre, 1766; Ion*. into the me- erf ormers belonaino to -men Thea-1 1767. Both are in The Keu, London: T. Cadell, 1778. (Facsimile: Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1973).
Walter; and S. Bladon, 1767; Brownsmith, John, rescue: or.
London: printed for J. . , Williams, 1767; Louis Stamma, me 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, Ufe of GarEiçk, II, 135.
Colman, llPrologue, of Rusigess, 1774, Page viii .
29 Humourdr., 1732, in Nicholl, mtorv of na- Pm,11, 19.
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, LsgÜiUuUd., 174-8.
32 Boswell, &lu-&, 178.
33 Boswell, London JouUd., 152-5.
34 Boswell, Wnrl Journal, 155. A snippet of verse called IlThe Turnspittiad1I survives. James Boswell, poswell's Rook of Rad Verse, Jack Werner, Ed., London: White Lion Publishers, 77-8.
3S Humourç, 1732, 19.
36 Johnson to Bennet Langton, January 9, 1758, III 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 JO@ to J- 28th. 1761, ci. D.M. Low, London: Chatto & Windus, 1929, 185-6.
ral Advertisa, 30/11/1749.
41 Fitzgerald, A New -, II, 266.
43 David Garrick, Harleauin'1 s Invasign, 1759. In Garrick, David, mec Plau. Printed from hitherto unpublished mss., ed. Introductions and notes by Elizabeth P. Stein, 1926 (New York: B. Blom, 1967). 4 4 George Anne Bellamy, a~a~avfor the life of Georae en Th-, London: J. Bell, 1785, 179. 48 Richard Cross in 169.
According to the theatre commentator, Francis Gentleman, Garrick's production garnered the mst 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 ales Mau,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, ThehStaae, IV, 520-23.
55 Cooke, #, 1808. 249.
56 At Lincoln's Inn Fields, 3/1/1737 in Genest, III, 509-10. 5 7 Murphy , Thought s On Var ious Subj ec ts , " me Grav s - Journal, 35, 298, 299. Charles Macklin, me New Plav Cr1t1cized:.S. nr. Plaque of ml 1, il 44, 1747.
59 The writer further notes that "Sir Francis Raadvises 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 me London JO-, 16/10/1731.
60 See "the Nature of Envy, " Town and Country Magazine, 7/1776, 341-2. '' David Garrick, "Epilogue, to George Colman~s, Rn- -, 1767.
62 If...his panegyrist Davies acknowledges that he never heard [Garrick] speak warmly in commendation of any actor living or dead.I1 Genest, The,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 Ideoloay, Princeton University Press, 1992 16-23.
65 Hopkins Diaries, in David Gard. DramaLhL, 12.
66 William Popple, "Preface, me J -idvtsReve~ap, or The Rov~ mlLondon: Brindley at the King's-Arms, 1734. Brindley was Bookbinder to the King and the Prince of Wales. 6 7 Popple, "Preface," Wdv'~Revens. 68 Popple, "PrefaceIt1=v1s Revenqe.
69 Macklin worked in the theatre for six decades and his theatrical talents included acting, writing, managing, producing and teaching. Cooke, William, s of -les Mac~, 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 Cwes Ma-, 1804, in the Folger Shakespeare Library .
71 Cooke, wsof --les MapJsl&l,5.
72 Victor, K;jgtorv of the Th-, II, 19.
73 William W. Appleton, -les Mau: An Actorts Jdfe, Harvard University Press, 1960, 29-36.
74 Davies, Life of David Garrick, 1, 71.
75 Fitzgerald, New mtorv, II, 130-1.
76 AS Davies pointed out it was unfair to compare a junior officer with a senior accomplished actor. Davies, Ueof David Garrick, 1, 74-5. -- " Davies, Life of David Gd,II 78.
78 Davies, Ufe of David Garrick, 1, 79-81. 7 9 v Post malAdvertisa, 2/12/1743.
Cooke, Wsof -les Macm, 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, Uure 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,a. 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 emot ions.
84 Davies, fl~~emoirsof 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~onTheatrical 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, VI 414-5. "Like Fielding's Kings his fancy'd triumphls past, And al1 he boasts is, that he falls the last.I1 -al Eveninq Pos~,28-30/10/1773. 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 Jourd, 71-2.
. . 92 Highf ill, 'IGarrick, Fioaraphical Dlctiona~,21.
94 nt Garden al.l in an UDroar 9 5 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 Debaans Soc~eties.. 1776-1799. London Record Society, 1994. 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 f ind 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 were not overtly political. They presented little political theory or content, either expounding or criticizing the power structure, nor were they directly applicable to the government or its opposition.' 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 were unintentional political references gleaned from plays. 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 SD- Frvu, because an actor cut lines from a speech by 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 find many theatre riots that were overtly political. 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. But the only theatre riots that were overtly political 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 on London stages.8 The acts of violence expressed in the playhouse were simply the nationalistic sentiments of the audience, roused by the appearance of foreign companies on British stages. However, we will see that nationalistic sentiments of the audience were not unified 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 . A French speaking company had established itself in London during the 1734-5 season, giving 116 performances, primarily at the Little Haymarket theatre.1° In
1748 an English company translated the &ggiirlsOD@= into French
and performed it at the Little Haymarket. 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 there was a strongly confrontational relationship between the two nations, 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. Francophiles, largely within the elite, embraced French manners, fashions, and language.12 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,14 while 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 London early 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 publisherts Westminster 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 applause, with some hi~sin~.~~Either way the letter is of 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. The riot occurred at an auspicious time. 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 dom.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. A correspondent to
v- Advert- 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 WnsPost
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. Ben jamin Victor, a theatrical writer and occasional administrator, arrived early and had a place "in the Centre of the Pit.~~~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! n30 Whether or not everyone present actually sang, as Victor 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 ond don.^^ At this point, 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 Riot Act. However, in the close quarters of 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 Threatenings If and of 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 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 precedent. Once again we see the idea of judgment as being a 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 for the contemporary observer, including questions about the status of 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 snacted in a place that was constructed for performance. On this occasion Victor was able to pin dom 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 counter statements from both sides in the dispute. Moreover events soon overtook the discussion. 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 T- R- (possibly Sir Thomas Robinson), who "al1 appeared in the Stage Box together!I1 Very soon after their arriva1 the stage curtain was raised, revealing several files of Grenadiers, with fixed
bayonets , bracketing the perf ormers onstage.36 "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 Pouar TiitArnouwas 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 dom 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 Dukett of 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. Riots at the same theatre in 1749 provided an example 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.42 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. Two years later, at the local level in Westminster, the incumbent accepted an admiralty position necessitating a bye-election and the resulting contest was Ilone of the most violent and vituperative struggles of the first half- century .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 Town.~~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 candidate in a local Westminster by-election. Moreover, it was also a conflict between 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 as~ailants.~~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. The opposition would seem to have been deep seated 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 di~turbance.~~ 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 half-cent~ry,"~~ Trenthamls involvement in the theatre riots became an oft- repeated point of criticism, cloaked in a variety of rhetorical devices. Immediately, alongside Trenthamls announcements of his intention to run and his request for 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 in French, purportedly addressing Trentham8s supporters. 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;
II t entierment occuDeseus cette
Affaire. Another advertisement in the London Eveha Post, was less circumspect and more direct in its satirical targeting:
Electeurs ires di- de Westminster. MESSIEURS, VOS Suffrages et Interests sont desirés pour
Je tres Mi Lord ------I Un VERITABLE Anglois. N.B. L'on prie ses Amis de ses rendre a llHotel Francois dans le Marche au Foin.56 The satire of this faux announcement was increased by the fact that the legitimate notices the General Advertiser for Monnet's performances were printed in French. 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 allegations against Trentham soon made their way to the 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 wi th 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 made a case against the opposition of intimidation and Alexander Murry, a prominent 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 issues for understanding the demographics of the riot. The traditional division between a genteel court and commercially-minded opposition was somewhat blurred by the 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 ref erence 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 of many eighteenth century entrepreneurial individuals. 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 theat re . 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 were key elements of the theatre programme, often featuring novelty and spectacle. They also introduced a number of foreign elements ont0 the London stage. A great number of the dancers were 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 criticism. By the same token, it could also represent a higher 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 . w68 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 in the daily press about Garrick's plans. This material, some leaked, some puffed, served to allow 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 and actual performance, talks between Britain and France over colonial boundary disputes had broken dom 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. Two nights prior to the first outbreak of rioting the Drury Lane theatrels prompter Cross, noted an indication of the trouble that was coming. "When Garrick ended the 3d Act [of Jane Shore] with 'Die wth pleasure for my Country's goodf -- 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 . m73 Whether the king had expressed disgust or amusement, the fact that a disturbance had taken place in the monarchfs presence 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 that some decorations wouldnft be ready until mid-week. On Wednesday,
November the 12th, when the dance followed TheInconçtant,again 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 backstage "where al1 was adjusted without farther Mischief .u75 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 flMonseurllfrom 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: bef ore. 76 Garrick went to great lengths to prevail over the opposition to the Chinese Festival. He had invested 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 Wch Ado About ~otm.77 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, & strongly oppos'd by a few in the Pit .Il 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 Seats in the pit and gallery were torn up. Over and over the dance was attempted, while physical fighting extended right dom 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, ne D-SI Dd,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 amongst you, whs envies the French this ex~ellence?"~~The 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 of fence 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 & then a general
cry of -- Go on with the Play &c., al1 ceased -- & al1 continuld quiet. 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 about the relationship of politics and the stage in general? 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 Act 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 mid-
century 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," -tre 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' Sce~te~g,Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. John Lof tis, #, . . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963; Jean B. Kern, -tic Satire in the Aue gf Walpole. 1720-1754, Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1976; Bertrand A. Goldgar, olifics. . to LiteratyTe. 1722-1742, Lincoln, Nebraska: 1976. 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 EnDrama,San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1976, 73. 5 London Ma w,4/1739. 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, 1755. 7 Newman, Gerald, Be Rise of -m: A Cultural K;istorv 1740-1834, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987; colley, Linda, -na the 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: Brmn. . 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. mlic Advertise~, 8/11/1755. Allardyce Nicoll, A Hjstorv of Rn&&J&ama. 1660-190Q, Vol. II, Early Eighteenth Century Drama, Third Edition, London: 1961, 419-20; Emmett L. Avery, "Foreign Performers in the London Theatres in the Early Eighteenth Century, olosi& -, -, XVI (1937): 105-23. Sybil Marion Rosenfeld, -an theucal cornes in Great in the 17th and 18th cent-, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1955, 17. L10~eradu Gueux at Haymarket 29/4/49
l2 Newman, WofhNationam, 14-18. 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:
l3 Willard Austin Kinne, Revivals alLUgQrtations of French 1749-1804, 1939 (New York: AMS Press, 1967), 246.
l4 David Garrick, 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.
l6 Nicoll, VshDrm, 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, mtoire du Theatre de ur dit Theatre des -~etits cab-, Paris, 1874. 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 JohnDennis,Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939, 1,
22 Philip H. Highf ill, K.A. Burnim, .and . E.A. Longhans (Eds. ) , "David Garrick" in A Rio-wv of Actors . nd Other Staae- Pers~nnel in Jlom 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.
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 weof -es Mau,in Davies, Life of David GarEiçk, 1, 107-8.
24 Paul Langford, 1727- 1783, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 51-53.
26 Vincent J. Liesenfeld, n-~nsina Act of 1737, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984. Advertu, 4/10/1738, -a Post 5-7/10/1738
28 Benjamin Victor, Zhe Historv of the Theatres ofand a,1761 (New York: Benjamin Blom, 19681, 1, 54-60.
29 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.
32 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. 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 andEishteenthLondon: Hutchinson, 1980, 14. David Lieberman, Thg-&ion Determi-1 eluth-centurv Rrit-, Cambridge University Press, - 1989, 1. See 219-240 for a discussion of contemporary critiques of common law.
35 W. Nippel, "Reading the Riot Act: The Discourse of Law- Enforcement in 18th-Century England," Wtorv andoloqy,1 (1985): 404-5.
36 Victor says two, while the Gentleman's says three. lO/l738, 545. 37 Victor, HiS3ofthe11,
40 ItItIS 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 Fox Say to this?" wonEv-a Post, 7-10/10/1738 41 Deryck Lynham, Thp Chevalier Noverre: Father of Moun Bu, London: Sylvan Press, 1950, 14.
42 A Gentleman in Town, An wartial state of the case of the French CO-. actors. *hlvers.Or strO1lers, whO lateIV ket. In a letter from a sentleman mlLondon: printed for M. Shepey; R. Spavan; W. Myer; G. Woodfall, 1750, 19-21; Lynham, ChevalierNoverre,19, n.11. . . 43 Nicholas Rogers, 8andCities.eAue of,Oxford: Clarendon, 1989, 173.
45 Theatre bill for -mes a Man, Covent Garden Theatre, 13/11/1738. See pgblv Uvertisey, 10/11/1738.
49 vertiss, 16/11/1749, don Ev-a Pa, 14- 16/11/1749. 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.
55 "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.
' 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 ~torv,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 became both a hero and a fugitive. Rogers, W-s, 173- 4. '' Rogers, . . 168-96. of the case of the French coW-act- S. Who latelv t. . . . In a letter from a sffrled intheLondon: printed for M. Shepey; R. Spavan; W. Myer; G. Woodfall, 1750. Jeremy Collier, A Short View of the Immor&Llandness 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 signif icant 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, itife of David Garyiçh, 1, 213 Davies, Life,1, 213. Noverre was only 27 when engaged by Garrick and later went on the write a great deal about dance including Jean Georges Noverre, L- gt sur les bu,2nd ed., A Londres; et se trouve à Paris, chez la veuve Dessain junior, 1783. . . 69 Sheridan, aeCritiç, 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... . "
7' Davies, JAfe of David Gar-, 1, 214-5. 72 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.
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.
BO 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~
a Plav~. 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.
13/12/1763 - A very bad House -- Much hissing and groaning, but got throl and was not given out again. d Hom' Diarv (Drury Lane Prompter)
The final category of theatre riot to be considered in this study is the disturbance that arose from the audience's dissatisfaction with some aspect of the material presented onstage. 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 these expressions of audience dissatisfaction were not wholly different from 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. The reactions that led to theatre riots were disputes that 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. First of all, given the difficulty in defining this particular 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 FoudUlg (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. The extreme examples are easy to discern. 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. And what about bringing the show to a halt? 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. This is very
close to what was thought at the time. A 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 ri~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. The managers were often called to account by the 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 GU
in 1751. Often there was a form of bargaining that went on between the unhappy patrons and the management. De Tutoi:
( 1765) , 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 af ter 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 ~peech.~ 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 me Founu 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. Samuel
Johnsonfs much awaited tragedy, Ir-ene (1749), met with such a response. The play did not go over well on opening night and in particular the auaience was not pleased with the onstage strangling of Irene. 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. n5 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. Boswell indicates that the play's longish run was largely due to
Garrick's support.6 However, getting to the third night was not always possible. ne Tutu (1765) by Townley only made it through the second night with negotiation. The Du(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, Mm Friendby (played by Mm. 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 dec~rum.~ Sometimes the audience's disapproval was roused by more
than one issue. -c Wife by Mrs. Griffiths, which had a
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 larme 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, me a ertb 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. And so while the play ran for nine nights, it did so "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. His over riding cornplaint was that the play was far too long. 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. There was a practical aspect to this advice: "this will ... 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 J~oveA
Fa Mode (1761) by 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 Oman 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. ltlg 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 anti- Irish riots in the London's East End parishes by laid off tradesmen." The Irish also had a considerable presence in the theatre. The number involved in writing and acting has already been noted. They were also characterized in many plays, often in either a negative or a humourous fashi~n.~~In only one of many 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 is Langhlinbu11ruderrymackshoughlinbulldowny1 at your service. 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 household servants. The
Reverend James Townleyls &uh Life Relow Stairs, 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 of those above stairs who had their "follies and fopperiesN aped by their servants. But more particularly it was a strong attack on the morals and manners of the servants themselves. Erskin Baker felt the play was meant "to open the eyes of 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. "26 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 Jife Relow St- thrusts at both servant and master. 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.28 When the play appeared in London, it met with much opposition from servants in the house. 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 Harr~.~~ 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 ~topped.~~ 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 Uah Life Below St- which had a long run and was often revived. Fo- 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. Ostensibly, the audience's main complaint was with the character of Faddle. Faddle was described by the Gentleman's as "a needy mercenary fop, capable of any villainy, consistent with cowardice . "34 Played by Charles Macklin, the portrayal was suggested to be a take off on a man about tom, 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 just Macklin's characterization that brought on the hisses. 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 Scene.'~~~Indeed, the Larpent manuscript shows numerous changes including the substitution of rake for whoremaster and the removal of suggestive passages.37 However, this did not stop the protests, which were continued on subsequent nights. The battle lines 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 WbvI~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 ae FQ-, 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 dam 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. In some ways 2 Founw was almost a revolutionary play. In "the tone of the French drame," the play linked the sentimentalism of the early part of the century with the latter.41 It was in the spirit of Richard Steelets Cons-, but as one commentator remarked, without the demeaning servants.42 And the plot has many of the traditional devices. However, it is on closer reading a rather improbable tale and demands much suspension of disbelief around several issues. Its improbability was much discussed, including a lengthy analysis and counter analysis in the Wtleman's
-. 43 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. As we have seen however the audience reaction was far from unanimous. Besides the lengthy discussion in the
Gentleman's Ma-, 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 1760s.~~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. After that, the audience could still be vociferous when 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, Sta~,87-8. See Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz's comment, chapter 1, note 51 See George Colman and David Garrick, me 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 dam 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, VeCalendar, 73.
4 don Magazàu~4/1739. P.H. Highfill. Jr., . K.A. Burnim, and E.A. Longhans (Eds.). cal nicti~~~yof Actors. ActreSseS. nanws, Manaserç el in ilondon 1660- 180Q, Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press, 1975, "Garrick, 19 ; Davies, Life of David Garrick, 1, 157; llIntroduction,ltIrene, 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 right of one edition. James Boswell, Jkf~of J-. 7 Frances Sheridan, me 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, 8,III, 61.
l2 Baker, Piowrire, III, 160-1-61. 13 Genest, Some Account of the En- Staae, IV, 624-5.
l4 James Thomas Kirkman, #ofes Mac- ml 2 vols. of London: Printed for Lackington, Allen, and Co, 1799,
l5 Letter is in an extra-illustrated version of Kirkmanls Life of Macu, in the Houghton Archives, Harvard. Cited in u,841.
17 Baker, Piou- nrwtica, 11, 111-12. 18 Davies, Life of Ga&&, 1, 325-6. 19 George Colman, The Qu,1770, II, ii.
20 George Colman, The , IV, 15 8.
21 Stevenson, Popular Disturbanc~England,6 1.
22 See J. O. Bartley, an v of the -est Irish WelçhScottCharacters Plavç, Cork University Press, 1954.
23 Charles Macklin, F Will and Lavers, London, 174 6, Prologue, ln62 . 2 4 r Garyickls mwer to Mr. Macklinls Case, 7/12/1743, in Davies, Life of David Ga-, 101.
25 Baker, pioar-a Dranam, 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. James Boswell, ThP London JO-, 19/1/1763.
During the five decades between 1730 and 1780 covered by this study, riots were a relatively common occurrence in London's three major theatres. They were a characteristic element of a highly interactive 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 the commercial nature of the eighteenth century theatre. 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
for what was performed. Granted it was a situation where the 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 responses besides simply choosing to buy a ticket or not. Once inside the theatre the audience could have a more 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. There were other attractions and activities.
As 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 large. At the same time, because of 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. We find that they occurred throughout the period and quite naturally they often involved theatre personalities. In the 1730s authors were the prime targets, largely chosen because of their alleged pro-administration leanings. 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. In the Garrick era actors were highly esteemed. 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. No t 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 1755 the French actors had significant numbers of defenders. 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. The one major
exception was the Half Price Riots in 1763. These were amongst
the most notable of al1 theatre riots. 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 the period. However there is a concentration between 1748 and
1765. The 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. With theatre riots we see there was often a
significant impact, with injuries and substantial property
damage. 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. Whether it was "Shakespeare's Ladiesu in the
1730s, 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 rights and responsibilities of both audience and managers. "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. Michael Dobson, me M-of Poet: meare. Authorship. 1660-1789, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992, 208. 3 don Dailv Post and Gen- Advertisa, 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 md its 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. mnth-Cgnturv EnWh Dr-, 69 vols. New York: 1979-1984. Wells, Henry W., ed., mec CenUJries of Dra, New York: Readex Microprint, 1953-.
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 tom, London: printed for J. Huggonson, 1742. --- dMogue in tire green-room won a di&uzbme in the nit, London: printed for George Burnett, 1763. letter to Mr. Garrick on the o~enisa of the Theatre. with ct of -S. to actors. amrs. , London: printed for J. Coote, 1758.
letter to Mr. Garrick. on his hav-ed 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 re- Lethe. , London: printed and sold by W. Reeve; and A. Dodd, 1749.: 1749.
letter to a certainatmtee: in whiche cn-t of muagers v- rmed: and a fpw ~e-bestowed-th~se 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. Jeffery, 1752. --- Letter to the Town, concer-a the the Rot*, London: 1749.
st otha ... ed to Mr. Lee kwes. wonus exhibition's le-e heads., London: printed for the author, and sold by J. Macgowan, 1780.
--- a~~ealto the DD,London: printed for Wilson and Fell, 1763. --- The wology, London: printed for Thomas Hope, 1761. ce to Mr. G --rr --sk. . A ~ieceof secret hW,London: printed for J. Roberts, 1747.
=ch Side of the Ouestion., London: printed for W. Morgan, 1763. ai state of Uresent dl F-DD te belqnqina to His Map.sty's at the Theatre- , London,1733.
- of Westminster, London: 1749. - - - on the Fo- a Letter to the Author, London: 1748.
- broke o~en.In a letter to Mr. G - - - . , London: printed for M. Cooper, 1748. --- the way t-: or. o new overture uDone
b-1 b-1 to the favourite airs in oopa
Sumpter, print and bookseller, at the Bible and Crown, three doors from Shoe-Lane Fleet-Street, 1763. - - - ed: or. the -U mtford, London: printed for W. Nicoll; and W. Harris, 1768.
~roloau~s.eoilocrues. and oucesnever before ated for wit. d levers of theatri-1 diversion, whether bv h-st fa~A1aEts.jeses- .1egUllles- . beaus a les. but more in gaxtical 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. faction of the D ck. in regard to the ute bew- the manaser., London: printed for W. Bickerton, 1743.
-, -, London: Printed for J. Roberts in Warwick-Lane, 1743. --- me Conguleratiws on the Establishment stroiers: ghe behaviour of their bullv-champions. and other seasou
London: R. Freeman, 1749. --- me reflec- nn the of a mlLondon: printed for J. Cooke, 1760.
- - - e bot-, [London]: 1. Strutt and E. Burns, 1800.
e Case Retween theuers of the TWO Theatres. Actprs. FUvStated. 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 Roscu, London: printed for J. Williams; and T. Lewis, 1761. - - - ct of the Four -s of Covent-G-n Theatre. freelvandarthllv e>ramiried. both wi th resardir Dresent es. their -~ast rn-t. Rv a Freauater of theatre, London: 1768. e Covent-Garden JO-. To be ~ubmldonce everv month. the oreseet k!eaW.wter election. By Paul Wronqbead. of the elPrinted 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. --- e curtu lecture: or. the manager run ru&. A uebetween 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 dlprice six-pence ed. Printed for R. Griffiths at the Dunciad in Pater- Noster Row, 1755. res. and theu
r to a friend., London: Printed for Jacob Robinson, 1744. - - - the Director of DLthe Pit Potentates, 1744. e Rosciad of By a uentlew, London: printed for the author: sold by H. D. Symonds, 117871 . --- e £&.se Ridicule . . -am . . . . 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 for the author, and sold by J. Gretton; and W. Nicoll: 1762.
Theatre's lsicl Royal &c ...,, London: printed by & for J. Roach, 1792. well d on Thwdav the 3à en. bv Messleu Feard. Smith. Woodward. ~i t . boxes. a* ted to the favourite airs the ooera of Art-es., [London]: Printed for J. Williams, Fleet-street, 1763.
--- le: or. the D --- es. A satire,, London: printed for E. Nutt; and A. Dodd, 1733. - - - tic satire, London: printed for T. Lownds, 1751.
--- Der-, London: W. Owen, 1753. al bouguet: cmtainins. . an alDhabetica1 arransement of es and euhgues.- 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 en: or. A Comon for Coiantry Ge~~men,London: 1746. Antigallican, The mock officers. Be- an ad-ss to the tom. Or,
Antigallican, An, An Ode to a Plaver, London: A. More, 1755. Archenholz , Johann Wilhelm von, . . ml. . London: printed for Edward Jeffery, 1789.
Ashton, James-Brown , The ode on de-u a bma.9. &Author, Dramatic, Adefencek.in inqwer to the letter-writer. state of Saoe. Rv a dr-, London: printed for R. Stevens, 1759.
Baker, David Erskine, WiaDramatica.on to t.he
Rees, Orme and Brome, 1812.
Beard, John, # IV Stated.& SUtted tahe Sense of the ic in Gu,London: 1763.
* Bellamy, George Anne, Zua~Uuyfor the life of ceorae AUE te of Covent GardenTheatre., London: J. Bell, 1785.
Boaden, James, Wsof Mrs Si&&na, Vol. 2 vols. of London: Henry Colburn, 1831.
Boswell, James, London JO- 1762-1763, New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1950.
Boswell, James, correçDondencxof Jamesoswell with David E- E- Rurke. andEdmondLondon: Heinemann, 1986. Briton, North, A Foote. es-wer to his a~oloav/ bv a North Bru,Edinburgh: P. Williamson, 1771.
Brown, John, EstimateersU PrucLgles. . of the Times, 1757.
Brownsmith, John, Thie DrmlMonitor: es-Royal..., London: Printed for J. Almon, 1767.
Brownsmith, John, The rescue: or. Thman scourue. Rebu a critical.O to the merit of a -poem. eaitled. Theapis. With some d re- oniece, London: printed for J. Williams, 1767.
Chetwood, William Rufus, 3-ic Con-ss:Art State of the Present -, London: 1743. Chetwood, William Rufus, a General Hintory of the Staae, London: W.Owen, 1749.
Chetwood, William Rufus, ne Rritm. . Theatre: Cma. . the Live~ ic Poets. With an Account. . of Al1 Their Plavs: To%theralActors, As Weil As e Poets: to Whlch 1s Prefaced. a Short View of the Rise and ess of the EnqllsbStaae, Dublin: P. Wilson, 1750. Churchill, Charles, Poems of Char-l~~,Laver, James, (Ed), London: Methuen, 1970.
Cibber, Colley, 8,2 vols., 1740 (New York: AMS Press, 1966).
Cibber, Theophilus, A serio-comic a~okayfor part of the li fe of er. cman. Written bv himgelf. in which US n e~uaue,an3 a ~oern.wroteqn_the day of Bpmeo .rida first r~vivedin 1744, Dublin: printed by A. Long, 1748. Cibber, Theophilus, TheLiveç5 Vols., 1753.
Cibber , Theophi lus, WeDistlefromler. to David are onre-ed. some occas- verses, petitions.. . &c., London: Printed for R. Griffiths ... and to be had also of Mr. Cibber ..., 1755. Cibber, Theophilus, Two Duertath 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).
F.E., Mr. Garrick'sct, as manaaer of thp Th v-Unp. c-ed. In a letter messed to him., second edition ed. London: printed for C. Corbett, 1747.
Fielding, Henry, -on: c-s . . a ~eries of papers, To e& of is au a DroDer index to th= t-, Third edition ed. London: Printed for T. Waller, 1766.
Fitz-Crambo, Patrick., triwgkmt.1 &ci l-tv lost: the O streded. gr. Wtorical. critical.andDroDheticals.. on the famu çartel latelv aareed on b,v the wters..., London: G. Lyon, 1743. Fitzgerald, Percy Hetherington, Thgpofck:From lished Sources, 2 Vols. London: Tinsley, 1868.
Fitzgerald, Percy Hetherington, A New mofh stase: From the R-torR*in cm- the PmtHousea, 2 Vols. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1882.
Fitzpatrick, Thaddeus, An wuiry into the real merit of a ceru ~erfm.In a series of letters. first whedin the With an introduction to n ---- , London: printed for M. Thrush, 1760.
Fleetwood, Charles,
Foote, John Parsons, wirs of the life of Samuel E. Foote. bv his , Cincinnati: R. Clarke & CO., 1860.
Foote, Samuel, 8com4v cçm&kld and . , d an e- nto the merit of the orwt comlc actorg, London: Printed for T. Waller ..., 1747. Foote, Samuel, A treatise on theDassions.so far as thev rewd the theatrlcal merit of Mr. G-k. ered in the art of Lear. the çwo last ogposed in Otu,London: printed for C. Corbet, 1747 (AMS, 1976).
F- B -L-1 The.on a more extensive P- - D-ers. . ,, London: Printed for C. Parker; and J. Wilkie, 1767. Garrick, David, m. Garyickls mwer to Mr. Marhlinl~case, London: 1743.
[Garrick, David] , An essav on actiga: in Jahich will be cm viour of a certain1. e faultv actor. . . . TQ dded. a short ~~~~~~m. . on hisactincr Mad2eL.h. , London: printed for W. Bickerton, 1744.
Garrick, David, j4n ode on tuath of Mr. Pewm. , 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, BeFribb-, London: Printed for J. Coote, 1761.
Garrick, David, sick nlpnkey. a fable, London: printed for J. Fletcher, and Co., 1765.
Garrick, David, me Poetical Works of David Garrick.i~owEirst O Two Vol~torvNotes, London: G. Kearsley, 1785.
Garrick, David, Eins~mofstflavour: or. A selection of ed letters of the Enaluh Roscius. David Ga~rlck, New York: Russell & Russell, 1930 (1967).
Garrick, David, JO- of David Garrick. Descr~h,na3, His . Vis&.9. ed From the 0rlqJ.Ed WinNew ÇhakesDearearYork: The Modern Language Association of America, 1939.
Garrick, David, neJ,etters of David Garrick, 3 vols. London, 1963.
Garrick, David, Diarv. of David Gmck: Be&$ a Record of Xki le Trio to Paris in. 1751.., , New York: Benjamin Blom, 1971.
Genest , John, # St aaf= from 1660 to 183Q, Vol. 10 vols. of New York: Burt Franklin, 1832.
Gent leman, Francis, TheDramatc9 3 Vol. 2 vols. of London: Bell, 1770.
Gentleman, Francis, "A Short Dissertation on Theatrical Management," TheDramatc London: Bell, 1770, 2: 451-56. . Gilliland, Thomas, Thetic MirxContainlnu. the Historv qf Staae... .Of Al1 the Dramatic Writers From 1660. and0of the Most DM. , Vol. 2 vols of London: Printed for C. Chapple, 1808.
Impartial Hand, Use policy detected: or some select ~kcesof 1 secret-_hifitory laid open: in a letter to a certain on h14. -tiftification . . . of hisecomuct . , London: printed for J. Robinson, 1744.
H.W., A Letter to David Garri-ethe, 1769. Haldane, John, Tbe ~hyexsscourse: or a detection of the horrid orta and esbecially of thee bru4we owan wts,..- who were
[Edinburgh?] . : 1757. Hay-market, Rope-dancing monkey in the, y of Dru e. on theEarlLondon: printed for J. Pridden, 1767.
Hill, Aaron, and William Popple, Prompter : The al Paber 117'34-17'361, 1734-1736 (New York: B. Blom, 1966) .
Hill, John, tu:- a New hlPEh, London: R. Griffiths, 1755.
Hill, John, Qb-as on the-k preseat rewona& ~0-1~ mrovements, London: M. Cooper and J. Jackson, 1759.
. P. 1 . . From Its First Jackson, John, Historvr2-1~. scotcish . Stase. LIEdinburgh: Printed for P. Hill, 1793.
John Boyle, Earl of Orrery, AnvWoodw~~~d. cornedian. ~ithsome occasionalks on the auUWmm- Rt.,London: printed for M. Cooper, 1753. . . Johnson, Samuel, A Compiete Vindicationers of Lk of Mr Frooke, 1739. Johnson, Samuel, A Dicuv8. of the Fn-a-
London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton, 1755.
Johnson, Samuel, neDr-np proloaue. bv Smel JO- id Garrick 1747: re~roduced in twe-farule. . from the edition. . eedby 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, mis, Ta ation. . into &
a- to Druv-il= Theatre, London: Printed for G. Kearsly, (No. 1) in Ludgate-Street, 1766. . . Kelly, Michael, #-ab s Th- s a ~eriodof earb wf a cen- York: B. Blom, 1969).
Kenrick, William, The,London: 1748.
Kenrick, William, re.b&a the lamentation,London: printed for J. Wheble, 1772.
Kenrick, William, A letter to navid Garack. Fm. occwdbv Iiis
UvkvL, London: printed for J. Wheble, 1772.
Kirkman, James Thomas, Mernoirs ofe of -es Macklin. Es&, 2 vols., London, 1799.
. , Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph, #, & les r17741, 1938 (New York: B. Blom, 1969).
Lloyd, Evan, &I ~D-P to David Gara, London: printed for the 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, #SI Bl-. the Whol~Embelliçh ID with ~h~gtri~~l~i RandolDh Schwabe, London: C.W. Beaumont, 1926. Loftis, John (cornp.), tth-cEishteenth-Centurv riodic&,. . Los Angeles: Williams Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1960.
Luttrell , Narcissus, AbriefL&33CiiLL fEom September 1678 to mil 1714, 6 vols. Oxford, At the University Press, 1857.
Macklin, Charles, De ca-e of Charles Machlin. co~,London, 1743.
-1 Macklin, Charles, I Dapers. whch have ~ublickly a~Deared. ortantute., London: printed for J. ~oberti;and A. Dodd: 1743.
Macklin, Charles, The of tthe*.htk . . on cause -wn. whv an tion should not be exbbited agg+~lgt. . John Stepben James, Jo~ephClarke. Fsws. RaUh Aldus . . . Willi-es, James de& citizen of the world. London, sold by J. Williams, 1774.
Moore, Edward, An ode to Garrick. of the toyn,, London: printed for M. Cooper, 1749.
Murphy, Arthur, TheLife2 vols. London: J. Wright, 1801.
Murphy, Arthur, The.nofHenrve1Johnson. With Essavs Frathe GravlSDJO-, Introd. by Matthew Grace, Gainesville, Fla.: Scholarsl Facsimiles & Reprints, 1968.
Nick-all, J., An a~uayto the tom. for -e bottle, London: Printed for B. Dickinson, 1749. OIBlaney, Murdoch , A new so~u.To the tunp of; çtand,[London] : Printed for Tristram Shandy, Fleet Street, 1763.
Pasquin, ZLnthony [John Williams], f atrica, London: H.D. Symonds, 1793.
Place, Francis, I1A Brief Examination of Dramatic Patents, 2k v Ma-, (1834 March) . Portal, Abraham,
U, Vol. 3rd ed. of Edinburgh: W. Gray, 1770.
ick 1 Pratt, Mr., Samuel Jackson, &gr - s 100- art of g~.m.~nto~. e stase.- A g~.m.~nto~. Decwated with ic -S. Bv the wrof *****. , London: printed and sold by T. Evans: by W. Wilson, Dublin: and by W. Creech, Edinburgh, 1776.
Purdon, Edward, A letter to David Gbck. Fsa: on -9 the he is told how hp ouaht t~ mlLondon: printed for 1. Pottinger, 1759.
Ralph, James, me rase of Authors by Profession or Trade (1758)
Facsimiles & Reprints 1966).
Ralph, James, Tom-Stonp. or. HiitorJcc. . . . ORO diversions of aetom, New York: Garland Pub., 1973. Reed, Issac, (ed.), BAWadramatica ...., 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 Fre-ick Re-, London: H. Colburn, 1827.
Reynolds, Joshua, Sir, portraits: C-s of Oliver David Garr~ck. To- With 0- Discovered Bmpns Lhe Private Pau Now First Published., London: W. Heinemann, 1952.
Sir Nicholas Nipclose, baronet, Theatres: A goetical Usectign, London: J. Bell, 1772. ibtd to the Spectator, lhg noriiad: an heroic Doem... humbiv inçcr ~rea3 critical.. . Bv a smtor,, London: printed for M. Cooper: 1755. Steele, Sir Richard, me Theatre, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1720 (1962).
Stockdale, J.J. ed., The Covw._tCZGden Jo~,2 vols., 1810. Thomas, W. Moy, ed. 8yWo- -, 2 vols. London: George Bell ansd Sons, 1898.
Thornton, Bonne11 and Colman, George, The / b çritic. . and censor-seneral, 3rd ed. ed. London: Printed for R. Baldwin, 1757-.
An Old man of the tom, 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 actors. ~ws.1~ olatgbvened a v--et .... In a letter from a swtlew- in tom 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, me Historv of the mtres of London and Du, 3 vols. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1761 -1771 (1968).
Victor, Benjamin, . * J~etters. Drmtic Pieces. and Poerlig, London: 1776. 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, puPateaee: Or. a Historv of the ed Wiu Most of the Perfmrs in the Three K- F.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 HwvWoodward. comeaan. the me-
. , ectgrof Great-Britain. the ureatest of dlcharacters; (çee,London: Printed for M. Cooper, 1752. Woty, William, sb-a-club: a mock kroic. comico. fuico. erme D-. Rv the author of The Robin Hood societv: a satire., London: printed for R. Withy, 1758,
Secondary Sources
Monographe and Articles
Agnew, Jean-Christophe, Yorlds Agart; The Mayket and the Thegter Fn bal0- Ameyjçan Th0-t. 1550- 1754, Cambridge University Press, 1986. Allen, Ralph G., IlIrrational Entertainment in the Age of ReasonIt1a ae and PapvI I 1 . - Theatre, Ed. George Winchester Stone Jr., Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981, 90-114.
Allen, Robert J., Clubs of Au-, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.
Allen, Shirley S., -el PheudSadlerls Wells Thea-, Middletown, Ct.: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.
Altick, R.D., me Shows of L-, 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, " çentahtCorre~ces from the h Cent-, Ed. Alan T. McKenzie, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993, 201-228.
Anderson, Benedict, Imgined Cornmunitles:0. Ref1ection.s on the Or- . . , London: Verso, 1983.
Andrew, Donna T., ItPopular Culture and Public Debate: London 1780, ~storicalJO-, 39,2 (1996): 405-423.
Andrnw, Donna T., IlThe Code of Honour and its Critics: the Opposition to Duelling in England, 1700-1850," Pocial -, 5:3 (1980): 409-34.
Andrew, Donna T., ed. wonDebgtiga Societies.. . 1776-1792, London Record Society, 1994.
Anglesea, Martyn, "David Garrick and the Visual Arts, M. Lit. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1971.
Appleton, William Worthen, ales Macm: An Actorts Jbife, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.
Arnott, James Fullarton, Ensliçh Theatriral Jliterature. 1559-1900: a Incor~oratinaRobert W. Jlowelsa Bibliogxagkucal~ccount.. 2 of h T-cal JLterature. P-d in 1888, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1970. . Atherton, Herbert M. , t:. A Studv a , Oxford: Clarendon, 1974. Avery, Emmett L . , "Foreign Perf ormers in the London Theatres in the Early Eighteenth Century," XVI (1937): 105-23. Avery, Emmett L., "The Defense and Criticism of the Pantomime Entertainments in the Early Eighteenth Century,' tory, 5 (1938): 127-45. 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,~~me J~ondnn Staae Part 2: 1700- 172.2 , Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1960.
Backscheider, Paula, SDectacular Politics:9. tbeatrical Dower cultureinJohns Hopkins, 1993.
Baer, Marc, rteGeorgian JI-, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
Barish, Jonas, -trical Prei-,. . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
Barker, Hannah., Newspapers. ~oliUc%.. . ~~blicoDWon . . in late Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Barker, Hannah, and Elaine Chalus, ed. -inh-C- d: Rnles. R#andlities . *. . , London: Longman, 1997.
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 andinci~les. . of 18th -, -, . . 1387.
Barrell, John, Enaliçh Lia-. eHiçtorv.. wide survev, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983.
Barrell, John, me Political. . Thearuofa. . from Revnolds to Hazlitt; &licu, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Barrell, John, poetry. mue. 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 Joura, XXXIV (1991):
Barry, Jonathan; Christopher Brooks, ed., me 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.
Bat el Jonathan, ~~$the_EncrlisnRomantisIu~tion,Oxford, Oxfordshire: Clarendon Press, 1986.
. . S.. Bate, Jonathan, -n Constitutbs : Polikzs. Theatre. CrlticUm 1730-1834, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Beattie, J.M., Çrime ad the Courts md:1660-1804, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Belden, Mary Megie, ta,London: Oxford university press, 1929.
Bergquist, G. William, Ed., Wee CeaLu$$e~ of Rash 1500-1800: United States: 1714-1834, New York: Hafner Pub. Co., 1963.
Berkowitz, Gerald M., David Garrick: A Reference Gui&, Boston: G.K. Hall, 1980.
Bernbaum, Ernes t , Thebarnaof-bbS.* tic Tragedv. 1696-1784, Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, 1958.
Bertelsen, Lance, TheseClub: Jliteratureand Po~darCulture 1749- 1764, Oxford, 1986.
Bevis, R., llCanon,pedagogy, prospectus: Redesigning 'Restoration and 18th-Century English Dramat, l1 -ve D?aaa, 31,1 (1997): 178.
Bevis, Richard W., Comp, -teenth Centyrv Drm: Af ter~ieces,London: Oxford University Press, 1970. ' Bevis, Richard W., TheLaushina Tr-on . . : Staae Comedv in Gw&' Pay, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980.
1 . . Bierce, Ambrose, JI Mount Vernon: Peter Pauper Press, 1958.
Black, Jeremy, Naturalv theEishteenth 1986. Black, Jeremy, TheEnslishLondon: Croom Helm, 1987.
Black, Jeremy, nIdeology, History, Xenophobia and the World of Print in Eighteenth-Century England,l1 Culture. Politrcs. . Societv in Britu. . 1660-1804, Ed. Jeremy Black, Manchester University Press, 1991, 184-216. . . Black, Jeremy, ed. #, 1660-180Q, New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
Black, Jeremy, and Jeremy Gregory, ed. Mture. 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,I1 Theatre Sunrc-v, 14,la
Bohstedt, John, -tv . . Wal~ales. 1790- Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983.
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 Dewafic 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 Socialtorv, 26 (1992): 265-84.
Bond, Donovan H. , and W. Reynolds McLeod, ed. New3letters to NewsDapers ; teenth-C-v JO-, Morgantown: 1973.
Booth, Michael R., "A Defense of Nineteenth-Century English Drama," WTheatre1974, 26: 5-13.
Booth, Michael R., l'Public Taste, the Playwright and the Law," ina. Bevels -tory of Drama in EuLhh 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 Dra in En- 1750- 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 1660- 1800," Theonof of& Provincial Towns. 1660-1800, Ed. P. Clark, London: Hutchinson, 1984, 228-58.
Borsay, Peter, The En- Urban Reenaissance: Culture and Societv ig the VI. . Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.
Botien, S. et al, "The Periodical Press in Eighteenth-century England and and France: a Cross-Cultural Approach,It Wative Staes in Societv tory, 23 (1981): 446-90. Bourne, Henry Richard Fox, Newspêper~: Cbapters in the torv of JO-, New York: Russell, 1966.
Bradham, J.A., "Polemics Behind the Laughter: The Causes of Catherine Clive, Theatre Hj&gry Stu-, 14 (1994): 95-106.
Brewer, John, Wtv Ideolom 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 notions of governance,lV t~ncrovernableh-ir Jiu , Ed. John Brewer and John A. Styles, London: Hutchinson, 1980,
Brewer, John, "Commercialization and P~litics,~~The Rirth of a Con~m SIEd . Neil McKendrick, John Brewer and J.H. Plumb, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982, 197-262.
Brewer, John, The Co- People Politics.. . 1750-17905, Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1986.
Brewer, John, thStateEnslish1688- 1783, New York: 1989.
Brewer, John, and Ann Bermingham, ed. Xhe C-ion of Culture, Routledge, 1996.
Brewer, John, and John A. Styles, ed. t,London: Hutchinson, 1980.
Brown, Laura, Englhh Drutic Form 1660-1760: An Essav in Gene New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
Browning, J. D., Satire _isi the 18th centuy, New York: Garland Pub., 1983. Bruster, Douglas, Drama the market in the ase of Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Burling, William J., and Robert D. Hume, "Theatrical Companies at the Little Haymarket, 1720-1737," mys The-, 1986, 4:2: 98-118.
Burnim, Kalman A., David GarEick. Birector, University of Pittsburg Press, 1961.
Burns, Elizabeth, -itv: A Studv of ConvenLiinthe Theatre ig Social Lifrr, London: Longman, 1972.
Calhoun, Craig, ed. Habermas and the Public Sm,MIT Press, 1992.
Campbell, Donald, --for ~cotland:torv- of the Scottish stase, 2715-1965, Edinburgh: Mercat, 1996.
Canfield, Doug, and Deborah C. Payne, ed. -al Reuss- ig R~stpEation 18th Cenwv EuhThe-, U of Georgia Press, 1995.
Castle, Terry, Ma~uerade and Civilization:... the Carnivalesgue ig , Stanford University Press, 1986.
Charlesworth, Andrew, and Adrian J. Randall, tlMorals,Markets and the English Crowd in 1766,t1Past, 114 (1987): 200-213.
Chartier, Roger, The Culc, Princeton University Press, 1987.
Cohen, Michèle, -tv: . . . * NuIdentitv and waeig eismth- mlNew York: Routledge, 1996. Colley, Linda, Brit~ns: Forqigu the Nation 1707-183'2, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Conolly, Leonard W., "The Censorts Wife at the Theatre: The Diary of Anna Margaretta Larpent, 1790-180OIt1~g~~, 35 (1971): 49-64.
" Conolly, Leonard W., The7 Dofa 11/37-1024, San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1976.
Corfield, P.J., ttClassby Name and Number in Eighteenth-Century BritainIM ustory, 72 (1987): 38-61.
Corman, Brian, "What is the Canon of English Drama, 1660-1737?,t1 teenth-CWurv Studieç, 1990, 307-21.
Crouch, Kimberly, "The Public Lif e 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-es of the eigbteenth centurv, 1737- 1760, 2 vols.
Danchin, Pierre, The Prolp_aws anLEpilogues of the Eighteew Centurv: A lete Edltiw. . , 4 volumes vols. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1990.
Darnton, Robert, Circle: Essavs on the Cirdation of J,iterature th-Cestury Ruro~e,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.
Davis, Tracy C., "Review Essay: Riot, Subversion, and Discontent in New Victorian Theatre Scholarship". , Victorb Stu,37,2 (1994 Winter) : 307-.
~eelman, christian, TheeareJub-, London: M. Joseph, 1964.
Denvir, Bernard, -: Art. nesin, London: Longman, 1983.
Dobson, Michael, te, gnd -D, 1660-1789, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Donald, Diana, The aae of caricatiare: satirical.. asin 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," se Ass~ation,. . 58 (1943 December) : 1002-37. Dunbar, Howard Hunter, The nrwic Weer of Ar- mlNew York: Modern Languages Association of America, 1946.
Ellis, Aytoun, ne Pennv Universities:. . A -y of the Coffee ho us^, London: 1956.
Endelman, Todd M., Be Jews of Geor- 1714-1830: tr- . . e in a -al societv, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979.
England, Martha W., "Garrick's Stratford Jubilee: Reactions in France and Germany," in VeSurvev: 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 Century,Il The Practiced Redoin eadinanam, Ed. Helen Small and Naomi Tadmor James Raven, Cambridge University Press, 1996, 202-25.
Fiske, Roger, #th CenCentUEy, London: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Fletcher, Anthony, and John Stevenson, ed. -der and nisorder in piode-, Cambridge: 1985.
Foster, Gretchen, I1Hugh Kelly," Pictiowv of Literarv Riouréphv. Volume th-Centurv DrWifitu, Ed. Paula R. Backscheider, The Gale Group, 1989, 232-248.
George, M.D., uaue of Polu~al. . and Personal Satira, Vol. 5, London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum, 1935.
Gerrard, Christine, W~oleandthes: Pobtics. . . Poety. and Mvth, 1725-1742, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Goldgar, Anne, -te JIeda: C-t~ommunitv in the EP- of,Yale University Press, 1995.
Goldgar, Bertrand A., hlalpole & the Wits: The Relation of Po1it)cs9. t~ J-, J-, Lincoln, Nebraska : 1976.
Goodman, Dena, Be PepUbSic of Tlnttprfi: A CWal Hifitory of the -, -, Ithaca: Corne11 University Press, 1994. Gray, Charles Harold, -cal Crc,. . . New York: B. Blom (Columbia University Press), 1964 (1931).
, Greenblatt, Stephen, ÇhakesDearean Negotiations:. The-dation of e EhghuJ, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Greene, Donald, "Samuel Johnson, JournalistIuNewsletters to New~pègers: v Jour,, 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 Bowis Society, Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1989.
Hobsbawm, Eric J., -iveS., r~b~ls:studies 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 IndexaPatentee bv Tate Wilkinson,. . London: Society for Theatre Research, 1973.
Holderness, Graham, Shakigearels Wtorv, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985. Holderness, Graham, TheShakesDeare Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988.
Holderness, Graham, &&es~eare: the Pbv of Historv, Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1988. . . Howard, Douglas, llSamuelFoote, " UV,Vou urv Dr-, Ed. Paula R. Backscheider, The Gale Group, 1989, 127-147.
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 Eriu-h Farce, Princeton University Press, 1956. 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," pevolution: As~ects- of ftorv. 1640-180Q, Ed. Paul J. Korshin, Menston: Scolar Press, 1972, 237-76.
Hume, Robert D., ed. me 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 Jr., Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981, 3-32.
Hume, Robert D., "English Drama and Theatre Research 1660-1800: New Directions in Research," Theatre Survev, 1982, XXIII: 71-100.
Hunt, John Dixon, -1 and LQnçlonls Garden The-., Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1985. . 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., British1. . . . Historv, New York: Twayne, 1995.
Kaye, Harvey J., ed. #es in R~volution. 010-r 010-r Protest.: sacted essavs of Georae Rua, New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1988. Kelly, John, #. . iZxlUzy, Princeton University Press, 1936.
Kenny, Shirley Strum, "The Publication of Plays," The London T- bTorld ~560- 1800 , Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 309-36.
Kenny, Shirley Strum, ed. Pa-. . Th-, Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984.
Kenny, Shirley Strum, "Theatre, Related Arts, and the Profit Motive: An Overview,I1 -Theatre . . ande other Arts. 1660-1804, Ed. Shirley Strum Kenny, Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984, 15-38.
Kern, Jean B., -tic Satire in the Aue of Wal~ole. 1720-1754, Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1976.
Kinne, Willard Austin, Bvivals Uortations of French Cowu in 1749-1804, 1939 (New York: AMS Press, 1967).
Kinservik, Matthew J., "A sinister Macbeth: the Macklin production of 1773, Wvard 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," Theatre&, 52,1 (1998): 8-17.
Knapp, Mary Etta, C~,New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.
Lamb, Susan, IlThe Popular Theater of Samuel Foote and British National Identity," -ative Dru, 30,2 (1996): 245-65. Langford, Paul, Ad1727-1783, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. 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, Crowd: a studv of the ~ouarU, London: E. Benn, 1952.
Leacroft , Richard, #h Ploftheuse, London : Eyre, Methuen, 1973.
Lears, T.J. Jackson, "The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Po~sibilities,~~&ericostory Revieu, 90 (1985): 567-593.
Leiberman, David, Theeof Jleq.M&bnDetermined: Leqd theorv in teenth-c-urv Frit- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Liesenfeld, Vincent J., BeJIicen4j.xlg Act of 1737, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.
Liesenfeld, Vincent J. (Ed.), The Stase&& JIice&nu Act 1729-1739, New York: Garland, 1981.
Lillywhite, Bryant, Cof fee Houses : A Refwce Rook of Coffeehouses, London : George Allen & Unwin, 1905 (1964). . . Linebaugh, Peter, Theaed:crime and civil societv in the cenw,Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, 1991.
Lipking, Lawrence I., #-C- -, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.
Loftis, John, #an . . ofn-, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
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,om Theatre World. 1660-1804, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 253-85.
Logue, Kenneth J., ces in Sco-d. 1780-1815, Edinburgh: J. Donald Publishers, 1979.
~ough,John, ParisdEltheteenth Centurieç, London: 1957. Love, Harold, "Who were the Restoration Audience?," Wook of En- Studies, Ed. G.K. Hunter and C.J. Rawson, Modern Humanities Research Association, 1980, 10: 21-44.
Lynch, James J., ton's London, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953.
Lynham, Deryck , #, London : Sylvan Press, 1950.
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 went pbvs- in the H- u,San Marino: 1939. Marsden, Jean 1. , ed . me Apro-on . . of Sm- e Mv~,New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.
Mayer, David, -in:. . Element: EnWh P-. 1806-1836, Havard University Press, 1969.
Milhous, Judith, "Company Management,l1 The Ilondon Theatre World 1660- 18OQ, 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 Cenu,Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1984.
Newman, Gerald, The Rise of En- Nationalism: A Cultural Historv 1740- 1838, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987.
Nicholson, Watson, me Struaale for a Free Staae in Tlon~,New York: Benjamin Blom, 1906 (1966).
Nicoll, Allardyce, A Wtory of FingJ.ish Dm.1660-1904, Vol. II, Early Eighteenth Century Drama of Third Edition ed. London: 1961.
Nicoll, Allardyce, Ahof~ncrliçh, 1660-1904, Vol. III, Late Eighteenth Century Drama 1751-1800 of Cambridge: 1970.
Nicoll , Allardyce, Tbmck Staae : Theatre--- th Cent=, Manchester University Press,, 1980.
Nippel, W., "Reading the Riot Act: The Discourse of Law-Enforcement in 18th-Century England," -tory ando~oloqy,1 (1985): 401-26. Nolte, Fred O., Tb@ Earlv Middlea (1696- 1774) , New York University Ottendorfer Mernorial Series of Gerrnanic Monographs, No. 19, Lancaster, Pa., 1935.
OtGorman, F., Yotprs. Patronseformnreform~?d Electorate of 1734-mlOxford: 1989.
Pedicord, Harry William, me -al Public the Time of Garrick, New York: King's Crown Press, 1954.
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, me J~ondon Theatre id 1660- 1804, Ed. Robert D. Hume, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980, 236-51.
Pedicord, Harry William, ZThezd'1 II . Howe of ver at themes.1714-1804, London: The Society for Theatre Research, 1991.
Pettit, A., llCulture and evidence: Recent work on restoration and eighteenth-century theater [review essayIlt1-te& Centurv Theorv & ret-, 38,l (1997): 79-87.
Plumb, J.H., -teenth Cenhxy, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1957 (1950). . . Plumb, J.H., # England, University of Reading, 1973. Pointon, Marcia R., Hmginu tuead: ~ortraiD New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1993.
Price, Cecil J.L., mtre in the AQ~of Garrick, Oxford: Blackwell, 1973.
Randall, Adrian J. and Andrew charlesworth, ed, mets. uket cul--' teenth-Centurv Rr- . . 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 ruuin u,New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 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, msin m: The cal S~ace,9 (1987): 99-128. Richards, Kenneth, and Peter Thomson, ed. mvs on theiuhteenth - v En- Stagg, London: Methuen, 1972.
Rogers, Nicholas, I1Popular Protest in Early Hanoverian London," past and present, 79 (1978): 70-100.
, . Rogers, Nicholas, mas -ar Politics in the Aue- of ole &-, Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.
Rogers, Nicholas, I1Crowd and People in the Gordon Ri~ts,~~ on of Polltical. . Cue: Ew Ge-- Cen-, Ed. Eckhart Hellmuth, London: Oxford University Press, 1990, 39-56. Rogers, Nicholas, Crowds . caan. . dritu,. . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Rogers, Pat, Uub Street: Stdes in a Subculta, London: Methuen f Co., 1972.
Rose, J., "Re-Reading the English Common Reader: A Preface to the History of Audiences," Journal,III (1992): 47-70. Rosenfeld, Sybil Marion, IlDramatic Advertisements in the Burney Newspapers 166 0- 170 0 , lnthe ~odernanaum* 0 , 1936, 51: 123-52.
Rosenfeld, Sybil Marion, nuPlavers & Dr- in the Provinces 1660- 1765, New York: Octagon Books, 1939 (1970).
Rosenfeld, Sybil. Marion, Foreion -cal comes in Great BritwS., the,London: Society for Theatre Research, 1955.
~osenfeld, Sybil Marion, mtre of the t- -, -, Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Rosenfeld, Sybil Marion, &mgle4 of Thespis: Some Private Theares and eatrdç ln Enaland Wales. 1700-1829, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1978.
Rudé, George, PariçandLondon eiuhteenth centurv: studies in Dra,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 Po~uarProte~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, Thetres of War: Performance, Poil_tlcs. . and Societv 1793- 1815, London: Clarendon, 1995. Sawyer, Paul, ChristoDher Rich of Drurv lane: the biosr-v of a theatre -, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986.
Sawyer, Paul Simon, #colnincoln's Un Fields, London: Society for Theatre Research, 1979.
Saxon, A.H., Enter Foot a& Horse: A IIigtory of Wodrama 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 and nineteenth centuriesIu 52,2 (1999 May): 236.
Schwartz, Richard B., 'Charles Macklin,"
Paula R. Backscheider, The Gale Group, 1989, 249-264.
Scouten, Arthur H., "A Critical Introd~ction,~~The Lo- Staue Part 3; 1729-1747, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961, 1:
Scouten, Arthur H., "The Anti-Evolutionary Development of the London Theatres, inatre9. amJL.he Other Arts. 1660- 180Q, Ed. Shirley Strum Kenny, Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984, 171- 181.
Sheppard, F.H. W. (General Ed. ) , The Theatre Royal Drurv Lane ar&2& al O~era- House Cwt Garm, Published by Athlone Press for the Greater London Council, 1970. Sherbo, Arthur, New Essavs bv Ar- w,Michigan State University Press, 1963.
Shoemaker, Robert B., "The London "MobW in the Early Eighteenth Century," St-, 26 (1987): 273-304. Shoemaker, Robert Brink, Prosecution P-t : Pettv Crime the ex. c. 1660-1725, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Shoemaker, Robert B., Werin Rn- societv. 1650-1850: the emersence ofate s-ea?, London: Longman, 1998.
Slack, Paul, mellinn, POD~in Rarh ModernEnsland, Cambridge University Press, 1984. Smith, Dane Farnsworth, # from ththe sa1 in 1671 to the -, New York, 1936. Smith, Dane Farnsworth, and M.L. Lawhon, mvs About the Theatre in 1737-1800:othe~elf-~oncious Staue From Foote to Sha, Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979. Solkin, David H . , . . Arts Arts the Publiç , New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992.
Southern, Richard, DeGeorgian Plavh~use,London: Pleiades Books, 1948.
Southern, Richard, -le S-y: Its Oriw. . and Develoment in the , London: Faber and Faber, 1952.
Speaight , George, Thevof e Rn-et theatre , Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press, 1990 (1955). Speck, W.A., Societv- 11-e in -. 1700-1764, Dublin: 1983. Statt, D., IlThe Case of the Mohocks: Rake Violence in Augustan England, Soci~story,20,2 (1995 May) : 179-200.
Stauffer, Donald Alfred, "A Parasitical Form of Biography," Modern -ue -ue Nota, LV (1940 April) : 289-92.
Stauffer, Donald Alfred, The Art of B-v in EimCenturv -, Princeton University Press, 1941.
Staves, Susan, -ers ' SceDta, Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1979.
Staves, Susan, "A Few Kind Words for the FoptU -es in Ensliçh -, -, 22 (1982): 413-28.
Stephens, Frederic George, and Edward Hawkins, Catala- e Brwh, . Weum. Divwn. . . 1. Political. . ~Derçonal -, Vols. 2-4, London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum, 1870-1883. Stevenson, John, mrD-ces in Enmd. 1700-1870, London: Longman, 1979.
Stevenson, John, and R. Quinault, Po~ular Protest and Public Order, George Allan and Unwin, 1974.
Stochholm, Johanne Magdalene, Gaxkk's Follv: the S-gare JUee of JI=, London: Methuen, 1964.
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,~me Lo- Stase Part 4: 1747- 1776, Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1962, Stone, Jr., George Winchester (Ed.), The Staseand 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, teenth-CprlfvryPlavers and Su -, Princeton University Press, 1992.
Sullivan, Alvin (Ed.) , British. . Li terarv MaggZiges : Th@ Auguabn Acre and e Aae- of J-on. 1698-1788, Westport Conn.: Greenwood, 1983. Summers, Montague, #, New York: Humanities Press, 1964.
Tait, Stephen, "English Theatre Riots, matre Arts, XXIV, (1940): 97- 104.
Thieme, J.A., "Spouting, Spouting Clubs and Spouting C~mpanions,~matre -, , 29 (1975): 9-16.
Thomas, ~avid,&storatipn and Georgim Fnghnd: 1660- 1788, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Thompson, E.P., IlThe Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century, -, 50 (1971): 76-136. Thompson, E. P. , IlPatrician Societyl Plebeian Culture, Journal of Socia torv, VI1 (1974): 382-405.
Thompson, E . P. , "The Crime of Anonymity, " uim 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 Struggle Without Class?, SocialHistorv,3 :2 (1978): 144-5.
Tilly, Charles, Contention in wat W.9. 1758 - 1834, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Troubridge, Sir St. Vincent, "Theatre Riots in London," çtudies ig Theatre lI,i&orv in 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 Wook, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Wahrman, Dror, "National society, communal culture: an argument about recent historiography of eighteenth-century Britain,It -1 Hjstorv, 17 (1992): 43-72.
Watson, Harold F., ThpmJwFncrlishcbon . . andDrama.1550-180~~ New York, AMS Press, 1966 (1931). Weber, William, Ri- - C- A StudyinCanon. Ritual.andgy, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Wellek, Rene, me Rise of EngJ&h Jlit=arv w,Chape1 Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1941.
West, Shearer, "Zoff anyt s "Charles Macklin as Shylockl' and Lord Mansfield, mtre Notebook, 43 (1989): 3-9.
West, Shearer, The mue of tb Actor : verbal a-tatiqn ~i the aoe of Garrick and,New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
West, Shearer, "Patronage and Power: the Role of the Portrait in Eighteenth-Century England,It Culture.etv. . 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 from the Newdigate NewslettersIM TheatreNotgbook,xvi (1961-62) : 59. Wilson, Kathleen, "Empire of Virtue: The Imperia1 Project. and Hanoverian Culture c.1720-1785, in An . from 1689 t~ ed. Stone, Lawrence, London: Routledge, 1994, 128-64
Wilson, Kathleen, The Sase of theJ&@e: Politics.. . Culturs-~~J 1715-1785, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Woods, Leigh, Garrick ClOs the Stase: Actins as So- -, -, Westport: Greenwood, 1984.
Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield, #, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
A B C D L ?
Figure 2a. The Piazza, Covent Garden, looking east.
Hart Street
RIO O 100 ft
Russell Sireci
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 - List of Riots 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
1736 CG Double Dec& 26/2 Faction
1736 LIF Çata 28&30/10 Faction
1737 DL Footmen's Riots 19&21/2 & 5/3 Management
1738 DL Tbe Coffee-Hou 28/1 Content
1738 Hay French Performers 9/10 Nationalism
1739 DL for Fooh 15&17/11 Faction
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
1751 DL 2&9/2 Content
1752 DL
1755 DL Chinese Festival 8-15/11 Nationalism
1757 CG Rich/Barry 1/12 Faction
1761 CG ied Uertine 7/2 Content
1763 DL Half Price Riot 25-6/1 Management CG II 24/2
1763 DL Discoverv 3 /2 Content
1765 DL Eiatonic Wik 24/1 Content 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