Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author didsend notUMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wül indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the origmal manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 Horth Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THOMAS KING AT SADLER'S WELLS AND DRURY LANE: PROPRIETORSHIP AND MANAGEMENT IN LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH THEATRE, 1772-1788 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Evan M. Bridenstine, M.A., M.F.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1997 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Alan Woods, Advisor Professor Thomas Postlewait Advisor Professor Joy Reilly Department of Theatre UMI Number: 9813226 Copyright 1998 by Bridenstine, Evan Mark All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9813226 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT Contrary to the traditional view that the Theatres Royal Drury Lane and Covent Garden existed as a discrete unit of the late eighteenth-century London entertainment industry, this study postulates that an interplay of "legitimate" and "irregular" performance venues existed and was public knowledge. Whereas leading players such as David Garrick and John Philip Kemble could find fairly consistent employment in the major houses, the majority of patent house company members appeared in the minor houses during the summer. While an individual performer's abilities might be expected to improve the quality of a minor venue, there is no indication that appearing in a lesser house cheapened that performer's reputation. If a performer assumed a managerial position, audience expectations could expand to include the performance venue as well. As an illustration of this phenomenon, this study examines Thomas King's management of Sadler's Wells and Drury Lane. In order to determine the basis for the public i i perception of King's management of the Wells (1772-1782), this study provides a close reading of the available newspapers from the period. As a record of information that could be assumed to be common knowledge (as opposed to the private record of legal documents, letters and diaries which would be known only to a fairly small number of people) the extant newspapers contain a wide range of advertisements, puffs, columns of "theatrical intelligence," and other news items. Various analogies between Drury Lane and Sadler's Wells emerge in the areas of repertory, personnel, theatre architecture, and the nature of the newspaper record itself. Just as King's gualities had shaped public expectations for his management of Sadler's Wells, his reputation as manager of that venue created audience expectations for his ascension into the management of Drury Lane. Audiences familiar with Drury Lane under Garrick's management model (the fusion of the leading player with the active managerial voice) could have reasonably assumed that that model, somewhat dormant after Garrick's retirement in 1776, had been restored in King. As a public address printed in several newspapers revealed. King's resignation of this post in 1788 was a direct rejection of this public perception. Ill VITA June 12, 1960.............. Born - Orrville, Ohio 1982.........................B.A., Drama/Creative Writing Ashland University 1985-1987................... Graduate Assistant, School of Theatre, Kent State University 1987-1989................... Instructor, Department of Theatre Arts and Speech Communication, Ashland University 1988........................ M.A., Theatre Kent State University 1989-1992................... Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Drama, University of Virginia 1992........................ M.F.A., Playwriting University of Virginia 1992........................ Guest Artist/Lecturer Washington and Lee University 1993-present............... Research and Graduate Council Fellowship, Graduate Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University FIELD OF STUDY Major Field; Theatre IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................ ii Vita.................................................... iv Chapters : 1. Introduction....................................... 1 2. "To Superintend the fidlers, tumblers and rope dancers": 1772-1774............................. 36 3. A Sovereign Prince with a Small Principality: 1775-1777......................................... 84 4. A La Militaire: 1778-1782...................... 128 5. "Mr. T. King— is sick of Management": 1782-1784 191 6. "I Was Not Manager": 1784-1788................... 223 7. Conclusion......................................... 269 Appendix: Sadler's Wells 1772-1784: Performance Calendar............................. 277 List of Abbreviations............................ 282 177 2 ............................................... 283 177 3 ............................................... 289 177 4 ............................................... 296 177 5 ............................................... 302 177 6 ............................................... 310 177 7 ............................................... 319 177 8 ............................................... 328 177 9 ............................................... 335 V 178 0 ............................................... 342 178 1 ............................................... 350 178 2 ............................................... 359 178 3 ............................................... 368 178 4 ............................................... 378 Bibliography............................................ 392 VI Chapter 1 Introduction Traditional eighteenth-century theatre scholarship emphasizes the Theatres Royal Drury Lane and Covent Garden and the sole licensed summer house, the Haymarket. Other than noting attempts to challenge the theatrical monopoly, such as John Palmer's effort to establish the Royalty Theatre as a second summer house in 1787, theatre historians have viewed the "regular" houses as a discrete unit of the entertainment industry. However, a strong connection between the "illegitimate" and "legitimate" performance venues existed, and the public was aware of this interplay. Therefore, any account of the London theatrical scene during the late eighteenth century is incomplete without some consideration of the kinds of entertainment and employment opportunities the irregular venues could and did provide. The work of even one performer in two of these performance venues would illustrate this phenomenon. With managerial experience at both Sadler's Wells and Drury Lane, the comic actor Thomas King serves as an ideal candidate for study. 1 Although this phenomenon can be illustrated through the work of one performer, the actual scope of the interplay was extensive. Whereas top performers such as David Garrick and John Philip Kemble could find fairly consistent employment in legitimate houses, the majority of company members belonging to the patent houses performed in the minor houses as well. While an individual performer's abilities might be expected to improve the quality of a minor venue, there is no indication that appearing in the lesser houses lowered that performer's reputation. Once a actor had demonstrated proficiency in a kind of character (tragic hero, old fool, and so on), brief items in the London newspapers would frequently suggest additional, comparable roles; similar items often advised the patent houses to engage singers and dancers who achieved success in the minor houses. This interplay extended beyond performers to include the producers of repertory. In English Theatre Music in the Eighteenth Century, Roger Fiske notes "that each playhouse usually had one particular composer on contract to provide whatever music was required," but Charles Dibdin the Elder wrote for and performed at both Ranelagh and Sadler's Wells while engaged as a composer for Drury Lane.l Within the available newspaper commentary, descriptions of the quality of Dibdin's music do not change in relation to the venues in which it appears. Thomas King had served as both proprietor and manager of Sadler's Wells for slightly over a decade immediately prior to moving

Load more