71-27,577 TOTH, John William, 1936- THE ACTOR-MANAGER CAREER OF SIR FRANK ROBERT BENSON IN PERSPECTIVE: AN EVALUATION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Theater 1 University Microfilms, A XEROK Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEÉI MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE ACTOR-MANAGER CAREER OF SIR FRANK ROBERT BENSON IN PERSPECTIVE* AN EVALUATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by John Willieun Toth, B.A., M.A. ******** The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by Adviser Division of Theatre AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS For their help in acquiring materials for this study, I wish to thank the following individuals: Miss Eileen Robinson, The Shakespeare Centre, Stratford- Upon-Avon; Mr, George Nashe and Mr, Tony Latham, The Enthoven Collection, The Victoria and Albert Museum, London, My sincere thanks I extend to Dr, John H. McDowell who first introduced me to F,R, Benson; to Dr, Roy Bowen and Dr, Charles C, Ritter whose editorial help has been invaluable; and to Dr, John C, Morrow whose helpful suggestions, scholarship, guidance, and humor have provided continuous encouragement. Finally, I wish to thank my parents without whose moral support, patience and understanding this project could never have been accomplished. ii VITA September 29, 1936t.. Born - South Bend, Indiana 1954........ ....... Graduated from Central High School, South Bend, Indiana 1954-1957...t........ Attended Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Indiana 1959................ B.A., The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 1959-1960.,, ,....... Teacher, Central High School, South Bend, Indiana 1960-1962,,,,,, ,.... Teaching Assistant, English Department, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D,C, 1962........ ,,. M..A., The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C, 1962-1968..... ...... Teacher, Washington High School, South Bend, Indiana 1968-1971.... ,,,,,,, Teaching Associate, Division of Theatre, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Theatre Studies in History of the Theatre and Criticism, Professors John H, McDowell, John C, Morrow Studies in Dramatic Literature. Professor John C, Morrow Studies in Acting, Professor Roy Bowen Studies in Stage Direction, Professor Charles C, Ritter iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................. 11 VITA......................................... Ill LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................ vl Chapter I. THE THEATRE IN LONDON PRIOR TO I89O... 1 The Major and Minor Playhouses and the Drama The Audience The State of the Theatre The Rise of the Actor-Manager Tradition Shakespearean Revival The Purposes and Format of the Study A Biographical Sketch of Frank Benson II. BENSON'S LONDON APPEARANCES .... 4-5 The Theatre In London During the 1890's I A General Statement The Theatre's Return to Respecta­ bility Prominent Actor-Managers In London During the Nineties The Coming of Benson's Call to the Theatre Benson's Early Years In London The Season at the Globe Theatre (I889-I89O) The Lyceum Season (I900) The Comedy Theatre Season (I9OO- 1901) III. BENSON ON TOUR.. 14-2 On Tour With the Bentley Company Benson Enters Management The "Melnlngen System” Iv A Return to Oxford Benson and His Company Life on Tour The Problems of Touring The Bensonian Audience IV. THE STRATFORD FESTIVAL.,.............. 199 The Development of the Festival Idea Benson and the Stratford Festival The "Syndicate" and the American Tour Sir Frank Robert Benson The Road Away from Stratford V . BENSON AND THE BENSONIANS............. 256 Benson's Acting Background The Acting Teacher A Personal Glimpse of Frank Benson The Bensonian Spirit VI. 0 ONGLUSIONS........................... 294 APPENDIX • ■ • f ’ , f . • ■ I • • 1 • ' A...... 304 B ...... 314 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................ 316 LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 . Frontispiece: F.R. Benson, I9IO From portrait by Hugh Riviere vii 2 , Frank Benson as Romeo, c, I887,,,..... 27 3 « Frank Benson as Hamlet, I89O., . 1^5 4 . Frank Benson as King Lear, I903«»ti,«. 176 5, Frank Benson as King Henry the Fifth, 1912,.,., 200 VI Figure 1 Frontispiece I Frank Benson, I9IO From portrait by Hugh Riviere vii CHAPTER I THE THEATRE IN LONDON PRIOR TO I89O After the Shakespearean Tercentenary performance of Julius Caesar on May 2, I9I6 , a rather dusty, dishev­ eled actor dressed in the bloody costume of Julius Caesar, was knighted by King George V. In the Royal Room behind the Royal Box of London's Drury Lane Theatre, Prank Robert Benson received what was perhaps the most important honor of his career. How had this man come to this great honor? What events had shaped his destiny so that he would be knighted by the King in such an unorthodox manner? In order to answer these questions, it will be necessary to understand that part of the history of the late nineteenth-century English theatre that relates to the formation of the traditions, concepts, and ideals that influenced and became an integral part of this man's artistic philo­ sophy. In order to understand Benson, an actor-manager devoted to the production of Shakespeare's plays, it is necessary to understand, generally, the conditions 1. 2. that existed in the English theatre of the nineteenth centuryI the development of the actor-manager tradition, and the attitudes concerning Shakespearean revival as they evolved during that century. The Manor and Minor Playhouses and the Drama The nineteenth-century English theatre was a theatre in flux. The conditions and problems of the theatre of 1800 were completely different from the conditions and problems of I900, Watson characterizes the early years of the nineteenth century (1800-18^-3) as a period of growth, "Growth was the great fact of the age: the 1 growing pains might well be excused," There was a growth in the confusion created by the monopoly of the patent theatres, the rise of the so-called "minor" theatres, and the lack of clarity concerning the types of entertainment these two distinctly different kinds of theatres were to present. There was a growth in the population of the city of London and a subsequent rise in the economic stability of this expanded population as a result of the Industrial Revolution, This new and monied population, living in newly democratic times, sought varying kinds of entertainment, thereby changing the composition of theatrical audiences. New demands for entertainment also influenced the growth of the physical theatre and the development of the star system. creating financial problems for the actor-manager- producers. From the time of the Restoration in 1660, Drury Lane and Covent Garden, the patent or "major" playhouses, enjoyed the exclusive privilege of presenting what became known as "legitimate" drama. The monopoly caused by the patent legislation of 1660 and the reinforcing Liscensing Act of 1737 restricted all other theatres, excepting the Haymarket in summer months, from presenting "legitimate" drama. These theatres became known as the "minor" theatres. In 1800 the "legitimate" drama meant any form of spoken dialogue; whereas the "illigiti- mate" drama was entertainment in which nothing could be said without musical accompaniment," such various entertainments as melodramas, farces, burlettas, comic operas, burlesques, and extravaganzas,^ As a result of the Licensing Act of 1737» the two patent houses, as well as the Haymarket Theatre in the summer months, were guaranteed by lav/ that only they could produce the legitimate drama. All of the other theatres were restricted to the presentation of illegitimate drama. Enforcement of the law, however, depended on the interpretation given to it by the Lord Chamberlain. As more liberally inclined men came to hold the post of Lord Chamberlain, this interpretation became broader in scope. As a result. 4. the minor theatres were able to infringe upon the type of plays that originally were in the domain of the patents by the simple process of adding some musical accompani­ ment and changing the title. Such action allowed the minor theatres nominally to stay within the limits of the law. Over the years, the liberal interpretations of the Licensing Act of 1737 caused much confusion in attempting to identify the distinctions between the major and minor playhouses. If the minors stole the fare usually offered by the majors, the majors liberally borrowed the fare of the minor theatres, presenting spectacles, ballets, animal shows, burlesques, and acrobats as afterpieces and melodramas in the place of legitimate tragedy,^ The worst part of the pilfering done by the major theatres was that while the patentees could prosecute the minors for infringing on their rights, the minors had no legal recourse for the wrongdoings of the majors, Watson claims that "no fact helped the minors more than this injustice in win­ ning the sympathy of the populace and of the critics,^ When John Phillip Kemble, in 1811, introduced an eques­ trian show at Drury Lane, The Dramatic Censor cried that "this evening should bo considered as a black epoch forever!"^ This reaction proteste I the introduction of 5o an illegitimate form of entertainment into a patent house 0 The vagueness of the distinction between the types of entertainment presented at the major and minor theatres continued to grow during the first thirty years of the nineteenth centuryo By I832 Douglas Jerrold, appearing before the Select Committee appointed by Parliament in I832 to report on the state of drama, defined legitimate drama as occurring "when the interest of the piece is mental rather than physical,"^ A further indication of the confusion between the major and minor theatres v/as found in The Theatrical Observer of May 26, I83I: At the theatre royal, Drury Lane we have Timour the Tartar and the horses, at the theatre royal. Covent Garden, we have the Life and Death of Buonaparte, as a mere spectacle accompanied by every kind of catch-shilling gee-gaw, and some horses; while, on the other hand, we find at Sadler's Wells, Romeo and Juliet.