DOCSLIB.ORG

Sir John Vanbrugh;

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sir John Vanbrugh; ssss? SIR JOHN VANBRUGH. VOL. II. EDITED BY W. C. WARD IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME II. LONDON LAWRENCE & BULLEN 16 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C. London : Henderson &* Spalding, Limited, Marylebone Lane, W. CONTENTS OF VOL. II. Page THE FALSE FRIEND - - i THE COUNTRY HOUSE 89 THE CONFEDERACY- 125 THE MISTAKE- - .... 235 A JOURNEY TO LONDON- - - 331 A SHORT VINDICATION OF THE RELAPSE AND THE PROVOK'D WIFE 378 THE FALSE FRIEND. VOL. II. INTRODUCTION TO "THE FALSE FRIEND." The False Friend'was produced, about the end of January, or beginning of February, 1702, at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. It was published, in 410, and without the author's name, on the loth of February of the same year. The title page of the original edition reads as follows : " The False Friend, a Comedy. As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-lane, By his Majesty's Servants. London : Printedfor Jacob Tonson, within Gray's Inn Gate, next Gray's Inn Lane, 1702." Genest was mistaken in supposing The False Friend to have been taken from Dancourt's comedy of La Trahison Punie, which was first produced on the 28th of November, 1707,* nearly six years later than Vanbrugh's play. Both plays were, in fact, borrowed from the same source a Spanish comedy, entitled La Traicion busca el Castigo, published at Madrid in 1640, and written by Don Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla, one of the great dramatists of Spain. But The False Friend, it is certain, was not taken directly from the Spanish. In the year 1700, Le Sage translated La Traicion busca el Castigo, and published his translation Frres Parfaict : Histoire du Tht&tre Francois, vol. xiv., p. 454. B 2 4 Introduction. under the title of Le Traitre Puni.* Le Sage has taken some liberties with his text, occasionally altering or abbreviating the dialogue, and introducing one entirely new character that of Galindo, Don Garcie's servant. He has, moreover, reduced the verse of the Spanish author to prose, and divided the three "jornadas" into five acts; but he has followed faithfully the general plan of his original. A collation of the plays puts it beyond doubt that Vanbrugh's comedy was translated from the French of Le Sage : The False friend is, in general, closely imitated from Le Traitre Puni, and in many places the translation is absolutely literal. There are, however, two or three passages in The False Friend which prove thatVanbrughwas not unacquainted with the for in these he has introduced matter Spanish comedy ; which is to be found in La Traidon busca el Castigo, but not in Le Sage's translation. A single example may be given. In the first act of The False Friend, Guzman addresses Don John in the following words : " You are the Argus of our street, and the spy of Leonora her ; whether Diana, by borrowed light, supplies the absence of the astre of day, or that the shades of night cover the earth with darkness still impenetrable ; you attend The following note by Le Sage is prefixed to Le Traitre Puni in " his Recueil de Pieces mises au Tht&tre Francois, Paris, 1739. Cette a titre piece qui pour en Espagnol : La Traidon busca el Castigo (La trahison cherche le chatiment), est de Don Francisco de Rojas. Je la traduisis en 1700, et la fis imprimer telle qu'elle est ici. M. Dancourt dans la suite la mit en vers, et la donna au Theatre Fra^ois sous le titre de La Trahison Punte." Introduction. 5 till Aurora's return, under the balcony of that adorable beauty." The passage in Le Sage is very brief: " Vous etes 1'argus de notre rue. Dans quelque lieu que Leonor porte ses pas, vous la suivez comme son ombre." But in the Spanish play we find : " Vos solo desentendido, O mal advertido joven, Argos hecho de su calle, Sois lince de sus balcones, Desde que luciente el alba En nuestro oscuro horizonte Sumiller de plata al sol La rubia cortina corre, Hasta que para enmendar Lo que ha borrado la noche, De luces prestadas borda Montes la diosa triforme. De su balcon y su puerta Sois estatua tan inmdvil Que ni la luz os extrana Ni la sombra os desconoce." Vanbrugh has changed the names of several of the characters. Don Andre's de Alvarado corresponds in the to Spanish play Vanbrugh's Don John ; Don Juan Osorio is called in The False Friend Don Pedro ; Don Garcia de Torrellas is Vanbrugh's Don Guzman; Mogicon becomes and Ine*s are Lopez ; and Dona Juana re-named, respectively, Isabella and Jacinta. Don Felix and Leonor retain their original names. In Le Sage's version the characters are 6 Introduction. named as in the Spanish play, with the exception of Dona Juana, who is called Isabelle. One scene alone in The False Friend the first of the fourth act, between Guzman and Jacinta is originally Vanbrugh's : I am afraid it cannot be reckoned a brilliant effort of his genius. He has made some consequent alterations in the subsequent scene, in which Guzman con- verses with Jacinta, and afterwards with Leonora, through the hole in the wall. With Le Sage, Don Garcie (Guzman) frankly avows that he sought Leonora's chamber at night " pour satisfaire son amour." He makes no attempt, as to her of his innocence with Vanbrugh, convince ; sullenly his dismissal ends that accepts ; and by promising she shall never see him more. In the Spanish piece he speaks to much the same purpose as with Le Sage. It will not, perhaps, be impertinent to add a few words respecting Dancourt and La Trahison Punie. Florent Carton Dancourt (or d'Ancourt) was born at Fontainebleau in 1661, and died in 1725. He possessed considerable talent as a dramatist, especially as a writer of comedy, and two of his plays La Maison de Campagne and Les Bourgeoises a la Mode were translated by Vanbrugh. His translation of La Traicion busca el Castigo, published under the title of La Trahison Punie> has, at least, more intrinsic merit than the English translation of Vanbrugh, or the of it differs French Le Sage ; although from the original more considerably than either. It is a comedy in five acts, and in verse. However incapable Dancourt may have been of doing justice to the poetic character of the Spanish play, it can hardly be denied that he has made one or two happy alterations in the plot. The unpleasant business of the Introduction. 7 assassination is certainly better managed by Dancourt, whose villain meets his death by misadventure at the hands of the bravos whom he has himself engaged to murder his rivals. With Dancourt, finally, the lovers, Leonor and Don Garcie, are at the conclusion of the happily united piece ; whereas his predecessors, by bestowing the hand of the heroine upon a man for whom she has no sort of affection, leave the lovers miserable, and the audience dissatisfied. A tragedy entitled The False Friend, by Mary Fix, was produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1699, and published the same year. Except in the title, it bears no resemblance whatever to Vanbrugh's play. DRAMATIS PERSONS. MEN. Don Felix, a Gentleman of Valencia ... ... Capt. Griffin. Don Pedro, Mr. Wilts* ^ Don Guzman, > Lovers of Leonora ... ... ... Mr. Mills. ' DonJohn, J Mr. Gibber. Lopez, Servant to DonJohn ... ... .. ... Mr. Pinkethman. Galindo, Servant to Don Guzman ... ... ... Mr. BiMock. WOMEN. Leonora, Daughter to Don Felix.,. ... ... ... Mrs. Rogers. Isabella, her Friend, and Sister to Guzman ... ... Mrs. Kent. Jacinta, Woman to Leonora ... ... ... ... Mrs. Oldfield, SCENE. At VALENCIA. * Robert Wilks, one of the most distinguished actors of his day, came of a good family in Ireland, and was born at Rathfarnbam, near Dublin, in 1670. His strong inclination to the stage induced him, after the battle of the Boyne, to throw up a in profitable post the Secretary's office, in order to become an actor ; and he made his first public appearance in Dublin, in the character of Othello. About 1691 he came to London, and performed at the Theatre Royal, but soon returned to Dublin, where he was greatly admired. In i6<)8 he was again at the Theatre Royal in London, where he continued to act dunng the remainder of his stage-career. He played the part of Pedro, in Vanbrugh's alteration of The Pilgrim, in 1700. At a subsequent period, Wilks was associated with Gibber and Dogget, and later, with Gibber and Booth, in the management of the Theatre Royal. He died at his house in Bow Street, Covent Garden, Sept. 27, 1732. PROLOGUE. SPOKEN BY CAPT. GRIFFIN. You dread reformers of an impious age, You awful cat-a-nine-tails to the stage, This once be just, and in our cause engage. To gain your favour, we your rules obey, treat with a moral And you piece to-day ; So moral, we're afraid 'twill damn the play. For though y'have long been leagued (as people tell) of hell T'reduce the power exorbitant ; No troops you send, t'abate it in this field, But leave us still expos'd, to starve or yield. 10 Your scouts indeed sometimes come stealing in, T'observe this formidable camp of sin, And whisper, if we'll piously declare, What aids you then will send to help us through the war. To this we answer, We're a feeble state, And cannot well afford to love or hate, So should not meddle much in your debate. But since your cause is good, thus far we'll go, When Portugal declares, we'll do so too.* * This was written in 1702.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Weaver, Words, and Dancing in the Judgment of Paris
    On Common Ground 5:Weaver, Dance inWords, Drama, and Drama Dancing in in DanceThe Judgment of Paris DHDS March 2005 Text copyright © Moira Goff and DHDS 2005 Weaver, Words, and Dancing in The Judgment of Paris Moira Goff On 31 January 1733, the Daily Post let its readers know that ‘The Judgment of Paris, which was intended to be perform’d this Night, is deferr’d for a few Days, upon Account of some Alterations in the Machinery’. John Weaver’s new afterpiece, which was to be his last work for the London stage, received its first performance at Drury Lane on 6 February 1733.1 Weaver had not created a serious dance work since his ‘Dramatic Entertainments of Danc- ing’ The Loves of Mars and Venus of 1717 and Orpheus and Eurydice of 1718. When the description for The Judgment of Paris was published to accompany performances, it an- nounced a change from Weaver’s earlier practice by referring to the work as a ‘Dramatic Entertainment in Dancing and Singing’.2 Why did Weaver resort to words? Did he feel that they were necessary to attract audiences and explain the story to them? The Judgment of Paris was performed six times between 6 and 15 February 1733, and then dropped out of the repertoire. On 31 March The Harlot’s Progress; or, The Ridotto Al’Fresco was given its first performance. This afterpiece by Theophilus Cibber, based on the very popular series of paintings and prints by William Hogarth, included a ‘Grand Masque call’d, The Judgment of Paris’.
    [Show full text]
  • An A2 Timeline of the London Stage Between 1660 and 1737
    1660-61 1659-60 1661-62 1662-63 1663-64 1664-65 1665-66 1666-67 William Beeston The United Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company @ Salisbury Court Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company & Thomas Killigrew @ Salisbury Court @Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Rhodes’s Company @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Red Bull Theatre @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields George Jolly John Rhodes @ Salisbury Court @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane The King’s Company The King’s Company PLAGUE The King’s Company The King’s Company The King’s Company Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew June 1665-October 1666 Anthony Turner Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew @ Vere Street Theatre @ Vere Street Theatre & Edward Shatterell @ Red Bull Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Bridges Street Theatre, GREAT FIRE @ Red Bull Theatre Drury Lane (from 7/5/1663) The Red Bull Players The Nursery @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane September 1666 @ Red Bull Theatre George Jolly @ Hatton Garden 1676-77 1675-76 1674-75 1673-74 1672-73 1671-72 1670-71 1669-70 1668-69 1667-68 The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company Thomas Betterton & William Henry Harrison and Thomas Henry Harrison & Thomas Sir William Davenant Smith for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields
    [Show full text]
  • Jane Milling
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE ‘“For Without Vanity I’m Better Known”: Restoration Actors and Metatheatre on the London Stage.’ AUTHORS Milling, Jane JOURNAL Theatre Survey DEPOSITED IN ORE 18 March 2013 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10036/4491 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Theatre Survey 52:1 (May 2011) # American Society for Theatre Research 2011 doi:10.1017/S0040557411000068 Jane Milling “FOR WITHOUT VANITY,I’M BETTER KNOWN”: RESTORATION ACTORS AND METATHEATRE ON THE LONDON STAGE Prologue, To the Duke of Lerma, Spoken by Mrs. Ellen[Nell], and Mrs. Nepp. NEPP: How, Mrs. Ellen, not dress’d yet, and all the Play ready to begin? EL[LEN]: Not so near ready to begin as you think for. NEPP: Why, what’s the matter? ELLEN: The Poet, and the Company are wrangling within. NEPP: About what? ELLEN: A prologue. NEPP: Why, Is’t an ill one? NELL[ELLEN]: Two to one, but it had been so if he had writ any; but the Conscious Poet with much modesty, and very Civilly and Sillily—has writ none.... NEPP: What shall we do then? ’Slife let’s be bold, And speak a Prologue— NELL[ELLEN]: —No, no let us Scold.1 When Samuel Pepys heard Nell Gwyn2 and Elizabeth Knipp3 deliver the prologue to Robert Howard’s The Duke of Lerma, he recorded the experience in his diary: “Knepp and Nell spoke the prologue most excellently, especially Knepp, who spoke beyond any creature I ever heard.”4 By 20 February 1668, when Pepys noted his thoughts, he had known Knipp personally for two years, much to the chagrin of his wife.
    [Show full text]
  • Season of 1705-1706{/Season}
    Season of 1705-1706 anbrugh’s company began the autumn back at Lincoln’s Inn Fields V while they awaited completion of the theatre they had opened with a conspicuous lack of success the previous April. When the Queen’s Theatre in the Haymarket reopened on 30 October with the première of Vanbrugh’s own The Confederacy (a solid success), competition on something like an equal basis was restored to the London theatre for the first time since the union of 1682. Bitter as the theatrical competition of the late 1690s had been, it was always unequal: Rich had enjoyed two good theatre buildings but had to make do with mostly young and second-rate actors; the cooperative at Lin- coln’s Inn Fields included practically every star actor in London, but suffered from a cramped and technically inadequate theatre. By the autumn of 1705 the senior actors had become decidedly long in the tooth, but finally had a theatre capable of staging the semi-operas in which Betterton had long spe- cialized. Against them Rich had a company that had grown up: among its members were such stars as Robert Wilks, Colley Cibber, and Anne Oldfield. The failed union negotiations of summer 1705 left both managements in an ill temper, and for the first time in some years both companies made a serious effort to mount important new shows. Competition was at its hottest in the realm of opera. Under the circum- stances, this was hardly surprising: Betterton had been hankering after the glory days of Henry Purcell’s semi-operas since he was forced out of Dorset Garden in 1695; Vanbrugh was strongly predisposed toward experimenting with the new, all-sung Italianate form of opera; and Christopher Rich, having evidently made fat profits off Arsinoe the previous season, was eager for an- other such coup.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamlet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare, Philip Edwards Ed., 2E, 2003)
    Hamlet Prince of Denmark Edited by Philip Edwards An international team of scholars offers: . modernized, easily accessible texts • ample commentary and introductions . attention to the theatrical qualities of each play and its stage history . informative illustrations Hamlet Philip Edwards aims to bring the reader, playgoer and director of Hamlet into the closest possible contact with Shakespeare's most famous and most perplexing play. He concentrates on essentials, dealing succinctly with the huge volume of commentary and controversy which the play has provoked and offering a way forward which enables us once again to recognise its full tragic energy. The introduction and commentary reveal an author with a lively awareness of the importance of perceiving the play as a theatrical document, one which comes to life, which is completed only in performance.' Review of English Studies For this updated edition, Robert Hapgood Cover design by Paul Oldman, based has added a new section on prevailing on a draining by David Hockney, critical and performance approaches to reproduced by permission of tlie Hamlet. He discusses recent film and stage performances, actors of the Hamlet role as well as directors of the play; his account of new scholarship stresses the role of remembering and forgetting in the play, and the impact of feminist and performance studies. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS www.cambridge.org THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR Brian Gibbons, University of Munster ASSOCIATE GENERAL EDITOR A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood.
    [Show full text]
  • A Christian Hero at Drury Lane
    DL Layout NEW_Layout 1 05/04/2013 10:03 Page 129 9 A Christian Hero at Drury Lane hen Christopher Rich was kicked out of Drury Lane, everyone assumed that would be the end of his troublesome Wcareer in the London theatre. Rich, however, was a man who seemed to be constitutionally incapable of even contemplating defeat, so when he realised that his time at Drury Lane was at an end, he turned his attention to the theatre that was now standing empty in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. From as far back as 1708, when things were getting rocky, Rich had been paying rent on the Lincoln’s Inn Fields building, which had been unused since Betterton took his company to the Haymarket in 1705. With Drury Lane now occupied by his enemies, Rich began what was virtually a reconstruction of the old tennis court to turn it into a serious rival to his former theatre. ere was one huge problem: although he held both patents issued by Charles II, he had been silenced, so even if he had a theatre, he couldn’t put on plays. However, with a new monarch on the throne and a new Lord Chamberlain in office, he thought he would try again, and he got one of his well-connected investors in the Lincoln’s Inn Fields project to speak to the King. George I probably knew little and cared less about Rich’s management of Drury Lane, and simply said that, when he used to visit London as a young 129 DL Layout NEW_Layout 1 05/04/2013 10:03 Page 130 THE OTHER NATIONAL THEATRE man, there were two theatres, and he didn’t see why there shouldn’t be two theatres again.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will 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 o f the book. Photographs included in the original 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 Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 WOMEN PLAYWRIGHTS DURING THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THE LONDON THEATRE, 1695-1710 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jay Edw ard Oney, B.A., M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Streets of London : an Alphabetical Handbook
    T/-I QTD P 1L/ a 1 KH OF LON AND ASHMO SAN ITC RETCHS" OF JSUTZABJETJaL. 8 , TAKEN THE QlTEEIT \J ' : Xc.Xc , Sioni Thomson fel HISTORIC STREETS OF LONDON HISTORIC STREETS OF LONDON AN ALPHABETICAL HANDBOOK ' ?( , -T> Ji *H>u y> V 4* COMPILED AND EDITED BY LILIAN AND ASHMORE RUSSAN 1923 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO. LTD., LONDON, E.C.4 Copyright First published 1923 Printed in Great Britain &v Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FACING PAGE ALDERSGATE . l8 ... .. ALDGATE 2O BISHOPSGATE . 32 BRIDEWELL . 38 THE CHARTERHOUSE .... 52 . CRIPPLEGATE . 64 DRURY LANE THEATRE DURING THE FIRE OF FEBRUARY 24, 1809 ... 74 OLD LONDON BRIDGE .... 132 LUDGATE . .134 MOORGATE 142 CHAMBERLAIN'S GATE .... 144 NEWGATE ...... 146 THE NUNNERY OF ST. HELEN, BISHOPS- GATE STREET .... 170 OLD ST. PAUL'S . 176 WESTMINSTER ABBEY .... 222 THE VILLAGE OF CHARING, ETC., FROM RADULPHUS AGGAS'S MAP, TAKEN IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, 1578 . (Front end paper) PLAN OF BANKSIDE . (Back end paper) 9 INTRODUCTORY THE decision to name this little book Historic Streets of London : An Alphabetical Hand- book, was arrived at after considerable thought. Some of the streets mentioned can scarcely be called "historic," while numer- ous "places," "squares," "alleys," "courts," "roads," "districts," and even "boroughs" have been included for reasons which will be evident. But, after all, the streets are in a majority, and the book is mainly concerned with such of them as have a history. Therefore, for lack of a better, the title is as it is. Another considerable difficulty has been that of compression, so essential in a work which may be carried in the pocket or in a lady's handbag.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT ANDERSON, JENNIFER. Author's Choice
    ABSTRACT ANDERSON, JENNIFER. Author’s Choice: The Relevance of Author as Casting Director on the Restoration Stage. (Under the direction of Dr. John Morillo.) During the Restoration playwrights were often able to act as directors when their works reached the stage. Playwrights were also very public about their intentions within their plays: the attitudes they wished the audience to take and the emotions they hoped their works to instill. As a result, we are able to examine the author/director’s choice of cast and determine how those choices were intended to directly affect interpretation. With the loss of a play’s original cast, much of the author’s intent was lost. John Dryden wrote his story of Antony and Cleopatra, All For Love, as a tragedy, with the intent of evoking the pity of the audience. His choice of cast for the play’s premiere in 1677 reflects this intent. Though the play was still highly popular in 1718, the changing cast had counteracted the intended pity. In 1696, Sir John Vanbrugh wrote The Relapse in response to Colley Cibber’s move toward sentimental comedy in Love’s Last Shift. Vanbrugh’s play immediately met criticism from moralists, and by the time of its performance in 1716 the changing cast indicated the first shift of many that took the play from a reaction against sentimental comedy to a specimen of the same. Dryden’s most extravagant heroic drama, The Conquest of Granada, used the personalities of its original cast to add depth to the play. By the play’s final production in 1709, the new cast was unable to sustain the claims and characterizations necessary to the genre.
    [Show full text]
  • A Re-Examination of Spectacle and the Spectacular in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714
    Changing Scenes and Flying Machines: A Re-examination of Spectacle and the Spectacular in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714 Lyndsey Bakewell A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy at Loughborough University October 2015 ©Lyndsey Bakewell, 2015 i Abstract Changing Scenes and Flying Machines: A Re-examination of Spectacle in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714. Key words: Restoration Theatre, Spectacle, Plays, Machinery, Scenery, Costumes, Performers, Puppetry, Automata, Special Effects. This thesis builds upon the existing scholarship of theatrical historians such as Robert D. Hume, Judith Milhous and Jocelyn Powell, and seeks to broaden the notion of the term spectacle in relation to Restoration theatrical performances, as defined by Milhous as scenery, machinery, large cast sizes and music.1 By arguing that we should not see spectacle in Restoration theatre merely in terms of machinery and scenery, as some have done, but that it properly includes a wider range of elements, such as puppetry and performers, the thesis contends that spectacle on the Restoration stage was more of an integral aspect of theatrical development than previously thought. Through drawing on the wide aspects of theatrical presentation, including setting, stage use, mechanics, costumes and properties, puppetry and performers, this thesis examines how the numerous aspects of the Restoration performance, both in their singularity and as a collective, provided a performance driven by spectacle in order to create an appealing entertainment for its audience. In order to navigate and appreciate the complexity of theatrical performance in this period, the thesis has been divided into key aspects of theatrical presentation, each of which are argued to offer a variant of spectacle.
    [Show full text]
  • Music and the Arts in England, C. 1670–1750
    This chapter is part of: Music and the Arts in England, c. 1670–1750 Edited by Ina Knoth Published by musiconn.publish, Dresden 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25366/2020.112 musiconn.publish has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. The digital reproduction rights for all illustrations were either obtained by the authors or granted by public domain licences. However, in case of suspected copy- right infringement, please contact the editor or the publisher. This chapter is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence. John Brewer Sites and Sounds The Cultural Topography of English Music, 1670–1750 Where to begin? A publication on music and the arts between 1670 and 1750 covers a multitude of possibilities – many musical genres, both ancient, modern and popular: masques, concerti, anthems, opera seria, comic and ballad opera, dance, oratorios, sonatas, catches, odes – the list goes on. These genres were performed at many sites, what the Newcastle composer and organist Charles Avison narrowed down to “the Church, the Theatre, or the Chamber”,1 but should also include (an odd omission this) the court, as well as the pleasure garden, the tavern and, a different sort of site here, though a vital one, the published musical score. And of course music rub- bed shoulders with the other arts – visual and literary – not only in treatises that considered their distinguishing qualities,2 but in contexts where the arts were combined and competed in performance – in the royal palace, the theatre or the flamboyant mixed-media of the pleasure garden.
    [Show full text]
  • © in This Web Service Cambridge University
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-65068-7 - The Cambridge History of British Theatre: 1660 to 1895: Volume 2 Edited by Joseph Donohue Index More information Index Note: Italicized page numbers refer to illustrations. Achurch, Janet, 368 Adrienne Lecouvreur, 359 Acis and Galatea, 128, 130 adultery in plays, 62, 94 acrobats, 370 adventurers, 111 acting, 272 Adventures of Caleb Williams, The, 38–9 androgyny in, 287–8 Adventures of Five Hours, The, 61 developments in, 290–1 Adventures of Madrid, The, 87 French, 289 Africaine, L’(Meyerbeer), 258 in mid-Victorian era, 1851–70, 334 Africaine, L’; or, The Queen of the Cannibal natural style of, 289–90 Islands (Burnand), 258 acting companies afterpieces, 191, 192, 255–6 integrity of, 13 agents, 259 profit sharing in, 79 Agnes de Castro, 86 social coherence of, 11 Agricultural Hall, 253 acting editions, 268 Alan’s Wife, 367 Actor-Manager, The, 405–6 Albion and Albanius, 63 actor-managers, 266 Alchemist, The, 137 at Drury Lane, 20, 28 alcohol consumption, 350, 378, 379, 385 in mid-Victorian era, 1851–70, 332 Alexander, George actresses, 73–81 management of St James’s Theatre, 296, cross-dressing of, 357 410–12 domestic identity of, 356, 359–60 performances in American cities, 242 impact of, 54 sponsorship of playwriting contests, 364 informal power of, 79–81 Alexandra Theatre, 253 masculinist analysis of, 354 Alhambra Music Hall, 266, 379 pornographic prostitution of, 99 all-electrified theatres, 270 professional advantages of, 354 Allen, Grant, 409 sexuality of, 75, 357–8 All for Love, 63 success
    [Show full text]