![expedient that has often been used, in similar cases, to cover
the nakedness of outrageous lust.
He warmly pursues her, she yielded her charms,
And bless'd the kind youngster in her kinder arms:
But at length the poor nymph did for justice implore,
And he's married her now, though he'd —— her before.
On a subsequent page of the same precious miscellany,
there is a most offensive statement of the cause which
detached our great comic writer from the object of his
passion. The thing is too filthy to be even described.
[194] Rowe and Congreve.
[195] In Congreve's Way of the World.
[196] Cibber's chronology is a little shaky here. Mrs. Bracegirdle's
name appeared for the last time in the bill of 20th February, 1707.
Betterton's benefit, for which she returned to the stage for one
night, took place on 7th April, 1709.
[197] Mrs. Anne Bracegirdle made her first appearance on the
stage as a very young child. In the cast of Otway's Orphan,
1680, the part of Cordelio, Polydore's Page, is said to be played by
the little girl, who, Curll (History, p. 26) informs us, was Anne
Bracegirdle, then less than six years of age. In 1688 her name
appears to the part of Lucia in The Squire of Alsatia; but it is not
till 1691 that she can be said to have regularly entered upon her
career as an actress. She was the original representative of some
of the most famous heroines in comedy: Araminta, in The Old
Bachelor; Cynthia, in The Double Dealer; Angelica, in Love for
Love; Belinda, in The Provoked Wife; Millamant; Flippanta, in
The Confederacy, and many others. Mrs. Bracegirdle appears to
have been a good and excellent woman, as well as a great
actress. All the scandal about her seems to have had no further
foundation than, to quote Genest, the extreme difficulty with
which an actress at this period of the stage must have preserved
her chastity. Genest goes on to remark, with delicious naïveté,
Mrs. Bracegirdle was perhaps a woman of a cold constitution.
Her retirement from the stage when not much over thirty is
accounted for by Curll, by a story of a competition between her
and Mrs. Oldfield in the part of Mrs. Brittle in The Amorous
Widow, in which the latter was the more applauded. He says that
they played the part on two successive nights; but I have](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-17-320.jpg)
![carefully examined Dr. Burney's MSS. in the British Museum for
the season 1706-7, and The Amorous Widow was certainly not
played twice successively. I doubt the story altogether. That Mrs.
Bracegirdle retired because Mrs. Oldfield was excelling her in
popular estimation is most likely, but I can find no confirmation
whatever for Curll's story. The Laureat, p. 36, attributes her
retirement to Mrs. Oldfield's being preferr'd to some Parts before
her, by our very Apologist; but though the reason thus given is
probably accurate, the person blamed is as probably guiltless; for
I do not think Cibber could have sufficient authority to distribute
parts in 1706-7. Mrs. Bracegirdle died September, 1748, but was
dead to the stage from 1709. Cibber's remark on p. 99 had
therefore no reference to her.
[198] Cibber writes here with feeling; for, after his Nonjuror
abused the Jacobites and Nonjurors, that party took every
opportunity of revenging themselves on him by maltreating his
plays.
[199] See ante, p. 63, for an allusion to this passage by Fielding
in The Champion.
[200] Æneid, i. 630.
[201] This is a curious statement, and has never, so far as I know,
been commented on; the cause of Cibber's retirement having
always been considered mysterious. I suppose this reference to
ill-treatment must be held as confirming Davies's statement that
the public lost patience at Cibber's continually playing tragic parts,
and fairly hissed him off the stage. Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 471)
relates the following incident: When Thomson's Sophonisba was
read to the actors, Cibber laid his hand upon Scipio, a character,
which, though it appears only in the last act, is of great dignity
and importance. For two nights successively, Cibber was as much
exploded as any bad actor could be. Williams, by desire of Wilks,
made himself master of the part; but he, marching slowly, in
great military distinction, from the upper part of the stage, and
wearing the same dress as Cibber, was mistaken for him, and met
with repeated hisses, joined to the music of cat-cals; but, as soon
as the audience were undeceived, they converted their groans
and hisses to loud and long continued applause.
[202] Cibber retired in May, 1733. The reappearance he refers to
was not that he made in 1738, as Bellchambers states. He no
doubt alludes to his performances in 1734-35, when he played
Bayes, Lord Foppington, Sir John Brute, and other comedy parts.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-18-320.jpg)
![On the nights he played, the compliment was paid him of putting
no name in the bill but his own.
[203] The original holders of the Patents, Sir William Davenant
and Thomas Killigrew, were dead in 1690; and their successors,
Alexander Davenant, to whom Charles Davenant had assigned his
interest, and Charles Killigrew, seem to have taken little active
interest in the management; for Christopher Rich, who acquired
Davenant's share in 1691, seems at once to have become
managing proprietor.
[204] Davies (Dramatic Miscellanies, iii. 444) gives the following
account of Cibber's first salary: But Mr. Richard Cross, late
prompter of Drury-lane theatre, gave me the following history of
Colley Cibber's first establishment as a hired actor. He was known
only, for some years, by the name of Master Colley. After waiting
impatiently a long time for the prompter's notice, by good fortune
he obtained the honour of carrying a message on the stage, in
some play, to Betterton. Whatever was the cause, Master Colley
was so terrified, that the scene was disconcerted by him.
Betterton asked, in some anger, who the young fellow was that
had committed the blunder. Downes replied, 'Master
Colley.'—'Master Colley! then forfeit him.'—'Why, sir,' said the
prompter, 'he has no salary.'—'No!' said the old man; 'why then
put him down ten shillings a week, and forfeit him 5s.'
[205] Complexion is a point of no importance now, and this
allusion suggests a theory to me which I give with all diffidence.
We know that actresses painted in Pepys's time (1667, Oct. 5.
But, Lord! To see how they [Nell Gwynne and Mrs. Knipp] were
both painted would make a man mad, and did make me loathe
them), and we also know that Dogget was famous for the
painting of his face to represent old age. If, then, complexion was
a point of importance for a lover, as Cibber states, it suggests that
young actors playing juvenile parts did not use any make-up or
paint, but went on the stage in their natural complexion. The
lighting of the stage was of course much less brilliant than it
afterwards became, so that make-up was not so necessary.
[206] The Laureat (p. 103) describes Cibber's person thus:—
He was in Stature of the middle Size, his Complexion fair,
inclinable to the Sandy, his Legs somewhat of the thickest, his
Shape a little clumsy, not irregular, and his Voice rather shrill than
loud or articulate, and crack'd extremely, when he endeavour'd to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-19-320.jpg)
![raise it. He was in his younger Days so lean, as to be known by
the Name of Hatchet Face.
[207] Bellchambers notes that this part was originally played by
Percival, who came into the Duke's Company about 1673.
[208] Of Cibber's wife there is little record. In 1695 the name of
Mrs. Cibbars appears to the part of Galatea in Philaster, and
she was the original Hillaria in Cibber's Love's Last Shift in 1696;
but she never made any great name or played any famous part.
She was a Miss Shore, sister of John Shore, Sergeant-trumpet of
England. The Biographia Dramatica (i. 117) says that Miss
Shore's father was extremely angry at her marriage, and spent
that portion of his fortune which he had intended for her in
building a retreat on the Thames which was called Shore's Folly.
[209] The Double Dealer, 1693, was not very successful, and
when played at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 18th October, 1718, was
announced as not having been acted for fifteen years; so that this
incident no doubt occurred in the course of the first few nights of
the play, which, Malone says, was produced in November, 1693.
[210] The Prophetess, now supposed to be mostly Fletcher's
work (see Ward's English Dramatic Literature, ii. 218), was
made into an opera by Betterton, the music by Purcell. It was
produced in 1690, with a Prologue written by Dryden, which, for
political reasons, was forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain after the
first night.
[211] King Arthur; or, the British Worthy, a Dramatic Opera, as
Dryden entitles it, was produced in 1691. In his Dedication to the
Marquis of Halifax, Dryden says: This Poem was the last Piece of
Service, which I had the Honour to do, for my Gracious Master,
King Charles the Second. Downes says 'twas very Gainful to the
Company, but Cibber declares it was not so successful as it
appeared to be.
[212] End of 1692.
[213] Betterton seems to have been a very politic person. In the
Comparison between the two Stages (p. 41) he is called, though
not in reference to this particular matter, a cunning old Fox.
[214] This is no doubt a hit at Wilks, whose temper was
extremely impetuous.
[215] The Laureat, p. 39: He (Cibber) was always against
raising, or rewarding, or by any means encouraging Merit of any](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-20-320.jpg)
![kind. He had many Disputes with Wilks on this Account, who
was impatient, when Justice required it, to reward the
Meritorious.
[216] This is a reference to the secession of seven or eight actors
in 1714, caused, according to Cibber, by Wilks's overbearing
temper. See Chapter XV.
[217] Downes and Davies give the following accounts of the
transaction:—
Some time after, a difference happening between the United
Patentees, and the chief Actors: As Mr. Betterton; Mrs. Barry and
Mrs. Bracegirdle; the latter complaining of Oppression from the
former; they for Redress, Appeal'd to my Lord of Dorset, then
Lord Chamberlain, for Justice; who Espousing the Cause of the
Actors, with the assistance of Sir Robert Howard, finding their
Complaints just, procur'd from King William, a Seperate License
for Mr. Congreve, Mr. Betterton, Mrs. Bracegirdle and Mrs. Barry,
and others, to set up a new Company, calling it the New Theatre
in Lincolns-Inn-Fields.—Roscius Anglicanus, p. 43.
The nobility, and all persons of eminence, favoured the cause of
the comedians; the generous Dorset introduced Betterton, Mrs.
Barry, Mrs. Bracegirdle, and others, to the King, who granted
them an audience.... William, who had freed all the subjects of
England from slavery, except the inhabitants of the mimical world,
rescued them also from the insolence and tyranny of their
oppressors.—Dram. Miscellanies, iii. 419.
[218] 28th December, 1694.
[219] The Comparison between the two Stages says (p. 7):
'twas almost impossible in Drury-Lane, to muster up a sufficient
number to take in all the Parts of any Play.
[220] See memoir of Johnson at end of second volume.
[221] See memoir of Bullock at end of second volume.
[222] I do not think that the date of this Licence has ever been
stated. It was 25th March, 1695.
[223] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 12: We know
what importuning and dunning the Noblemen there was, what
flattering, and what promising there was, till at length, the
incouragement they received by liberal Contributions set 'em in a](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-21-320.jpg)
![Condition to go on. This theatre was the theatre in Little Lincoln's
Inn Fields. See further details in Chap. XIII.
[224] No doubt, Rich.
[225] Downes says (p. 43), the House being fitted up from a
Tennis-Court, they Open'd it the last Day of April, 1695.
[226] It will be noticed that Downes in the passage quoted by me
(p. 192, note 1) mentions Congreve as if he had been an original
sharer in the Licence; but the statement is probably loosely made.
[227] Bellchambers has here the following notes, the entire
substance of which will be found in Malone (Shakespeare, 1821,
iii. 170, et seq.): In Shakspeare's time the nightly expenses for
lights, supernumeraries, etc., was but forty-five shillings, and
having deducted this charge, the clear emoluments were divided
into shares, (supposed to be forty in number,) between the
proprietors, and principal actors. In the year 1666, the whole
profit arising from acting plays, masques, etc., at the King's
theatre, was divided into twelve shares and three quarters, of
which Mr. Killegrew, the manager, had two shares and three
quarters, each share computed to produce about £250, net, per
annum. In Sir William D'Avenant's company, from the time their
new theatre was opened in Portugal-row, the total receipt, after
deducting the nightly expenses, was divided into fifteen shares, of
which it was agreed that ten should belong to D'Avenant, for
various purposes, and the remainder be divided among the male
members of his troops according to their rank and merit. I cannot
relate the arrangement adopted by Betterton in Lincoln's-inn-
fields, but the share accepted by Congreve was, doubtless,
presumed to be of considerable value.
Dryden had a share and a quarter in the king's company, for
which he bound himself to furnish not two, but three plays every
season. The following paper, which, after remaining long in the
Killegrew family, came into the hands of the late Mr. Reed, and
was published by Mr. Malone in his 'Historical Account of the
English Stage,' incontestably proves the practice alluded to. The
superscription is lost, but it was probably addressed to the lord-
chamberlain, or the king, about the year 1678, 'Œdipus,' the
ground of complaint, being printed in 1679:
'Whereas upon Mr. Dryden's binding himself to write three playes
a yeere, hee the said Mr. Dryden was admitted and continued as a
sharer in the king's playhouse for diverse years, and received for](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-22-320.jpg)
![his share and a quarter three or four hundred pounds,
communibus annis; but though he received the moneys, we
received not the playes, not one in a yeare. After which, the
house being burnt, the company in building another, contracted
great debts, so that shares fell much short of what they were
formerly. Thereupon Mr. Dryden complaining to the company of
his want of proffit, the company was so kind to him that they not
only did not presse him for the playes which he so engaged to
write for them, and for which he was paid beforehand, but they
did also at his earnest request give him a third day for his last
new play called All for Love; and at the receipt of the money of
the said third day, he acknowledged it as a guift, and a particular
kindnesse of the company. Yet notwithstanding this kind
proceeding, Mr. Dryden has now, jointly with Mr. Lee, (who was in
pension with us to the last day of our playing, and shall continue,)
written a play called Oedipus, and given it to the Duke's company,
contrary to his said agreement, his promise, and all gratitude, to
the great prejudice and almost undoing of the company, they
being the only poets remaining to us. Mr. Crowne, being under
the like agreement with the duke's house, writt a play called The
Destruction of Jerusalem, and being forced by their refusall of it,
to bring it to us, the said company compelled us, after the
studying of it, and a vast expence in scenes and cloaths, to buy
off their clayme, by paying all the pension he had received from
them, amounting to one hundred and twelve pounds paid by the
king's company, besides near forty pounds he the said Mr. Crowne
paid out of his owne pocket.
'These things considered, if notwithstanding Mr. Dryden's said
agreement, promise, and moneys freely giving him for his said
last new play, and the many titles we have to his writings, this
play be judged away from us, we must submit. be judged away
from us, we must submit.
(Signed) 'Charles Killigrew.
'Charles Hart.
'Rich. Burt.
'Cardell Goodman.
'Mic. Mohun.'
[228] The interval between the two plays cannot have been quite
three years. The first was produced in April, 1695, the second
some time in 1697.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-23-320.jpg)
![[229] Produced early in 1700.
[230] Mrs. Mountfort was now Mrs. Verbruggen.
[231] The passage is:—
The Freedom man was born to, you've restor'd,
And to our World such Plenty you afford,
It seems, like Eden, fruitful of its own accord.
But since, in Paradise, frail Flesh gave Way,
And when but two were made, both went astray;
Forbear your Wonder, and the Fault forgive,
If, in our larger Family, we grieve
One falling Adam, and one tempted Eve.
[232] In his Preface to Woman's Wit, Cibber says, But however
a Fort is in a very poor Condition, that (in a Time of General War)
has but a Handful of raw young Fellows to maintain it. He also
talks of himself and his companions as an uncertain Company.
[233] Bellchambers has here this note: Mr. Cibber's usage of the
verb regret here, may be said to confirm the censure of Fielding,
who urged, in reviewing some other of his inadvertencies, that it
was 'needless for a great writer to understand his grammar.' See
note 1 on page 69.
[234] Genest (ii. 65) has the following criticism of Cibber's
statement: There can be no doubt but that the acting at the
Theatre Royal was miserably inferiour to what it had been—but
perhaps Cibber's account is a little exaggerated—he had evidently
a personal dislike to Powell—everything therefore that he says,
directly or indirectly, against him must be received with some
grains of allowance—Powell seems to have been eager to exhibit
himself in some of Betterton's best parts, whereas a more
diffident actor would have wished to avoid comparisons—we
know from the Spectator that Powell was too apt to tear a passion
to tatters, but still he must have been an actor of considerable
reputation at this time, or he would not have been cast for several
good parts before the division of the Company.
[235] Old Bachelor, act iv. sc. 4:—
Fondlewife. Come kiss Nykin once more, and then get you in—So
—Get
you in, get you in. By by.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-24-320.jpg)
![Lætitia. By, Nykin.
Fondlewife. By, Cocky.
Lætitia. By, Nykin.
Fondlewife. By, Cocky, by, by.
[236] Regarding Powell's playing in imitation of Betterton,
Chetwood (History of the Stage, p. 155) says: Mr. George
Powel, a reputable Actor, with many Excellencies, gave out, that
he would perform the part of Sir John Falstaff in the manner of
that very excellent English Roscius, Mr. Betterton. He certainly hit
his Manner, and Tone of Voice, yet to make the Picture more like,
he mimic'd the Infirmities of Distemper, old Age, and the afflicting
Pains of the Gout, which that great Man was often seiz'd with.
[237]
Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas,
Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli.
Juvenal, i. 85.
[238] That is, January, 1696. The cast was:—
Love's last Shift; or, the Fool in Fashion.
Sir William Wisewoud Mr. Johnson.
Loveless
Mr.
Verbruggen.
Sir Novelty Fashion Mr. Cibber.
Elder Worthy Mr. Williams.
Young Worthy Mr. Horden.
Snap
Mr.
Penkethman.
Sly Mr. Bullock.
Lawyer Mr. Mills.
Amanda Mrs. Rogers.
Narcissa
Mrs.
Verbruggen.
Hillaria Mrs. Cibber.
Mrs. Flareit Mrs. Kent.
Amanda's Woman Mrs. Lucas.
[239] In the Dedication to this play Cibber says that Mr.
Southern's Good-nature (whose own Works best recommend his
Judgment) engaged his Reputation for the Success.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-25-320.jpg)
![[240] Gildon praises this play highly in the Comparison between
the two Stages, p. 25:—
Ramble. Ay, marry, that Play was the Philosopher's Stone; I
think it did wonders.
Sullen. It did so, and very deservedly; there being few
Comedies that came up to't for purity of Plot, Manners and
Moral: It's often acted now a daies, and by the help of the
Author's own good action, it pleases to this Day.
[241] Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 437) says: So little was hoped
from the genius of Cibber, that the critics reproached him with
stealing his play. To his censurers he makes a serious defence of
himself, in his dedication to Richard Norton, Esq., of Southwick, a
gentleman who was so fond of stage-plays and players, that he
has been accused of turning his chapel into a theatre. The furious
John Dennis, who hated Cibber for obstructing, as he imagined,
the progress of his tragedy called the Invader of his Country, in
very passionate terms denies his claim to this comedy: 'When the
Fool in Fashion was first acted (says the critic) Cibber was hardly
twenty years of age—how could he, at the age of twenty, write a
comedy with a just design, distinguished characters, and a proper
dialogue, who now, at forty, treats us with Hibernian sense and
Hibernian English?'
[242] This same accusation was made against Cibber on other
occasions. Dr. Johnson, referring to one of these, said: There
was no reason to believe that the Careless Husband was not
written by himself.—Boswell's Johnson, ii. 340.
[243] The Relapse; or, Virtue in Danger, was produced at Drury
Lane in 1697. Cibber's part in it, Lord Foppington, became one of
his most famous characters. The Comparison between the two
Stages, p. 32, says: Oronoko, Æsop, and Relapse are Master-
pieces, and subsisted Drury-lane House, the first two or three
Years.
[244] The Provoked Wife was produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in
1697; and, as Cibber states, Æsop was played at Drury Lane in
the same year. It seems (see Prologue to The Confederacy) that
Vanbrugh gave his first three plays as presents to the Companies.
[245] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 12: In the
meantime the Mushrooms in Drury-Lane shoot up from such a](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-26-320.jpg)
![desolate Fortune into a considerable Name; and not only grappled
with their Rivals, but almost eclipst 'em.
[246] The last performance of this comedy which Genest indexes
was at Covent Garden, 14th February, 1763.
[247] Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 469) says: The truth is, Cibber
was endured, in this and other tragic parts, on account of his
general merit in comedy; and the author of The Laureat, p. 41,
remarks: I have often heard him blamed as a Trifler in that Part;
he was rarely perfect, and, abating for the Badness of his Voice
and the Insignificancy and Meanness of his Action, he did not
seem to understand either what he said or what he was about.
[248] The Laureat, p. 44: Whatever the Actors appeard upon
the Stage, they were most of them Barbarians off on't, few of
them having had the Education, or whose Fortunes could admit
them to the Conversation of Gentlemen.
[249] Davies praises Cibber in Fondlewife, saying that he was
much and justly admired and applauded (Dram. Misc., iii. 391);
and in the same work (i. 306) he gives an admirable sketch of
Cibber as Justice Shallow:—
Whether he was a copy or an original in Shallow, it is certain no
audience was ever more fixed in deep attention, at his first
appearance, or more shaken with laughter in the progress of the
scene, than at Colley Cibber's exhibition of this ridiculous justice
of peace. Some years after he had left the stage, he acted
Shallow for his son's benefit. I believe in 1737, when Quin was
the Falstaff, and Milward the King. Whether it was owing to the
pleasure the spectators felt on seeing their old friend return to
them again, though for that night only, after an absence of some
years, I know not; but, surely, no actor or audience were better
pleased with each other. His manner was so perfectly simple, his
look so vacant, when he questioned his cousin Silence about the
price of ewes, and lamented, in the same breath, with silly
surprise, the death of Old Double, that it will be impossible for
any surviving spectator not to smile at the remembrance of it.
The want of ideas occasions Shallow to repeat almost every thing
he says. Cibber's transition, from asking the price of bullocks, to
trite, but grave reflections on mortality, was so natural, and
attended with such an unmeaning roll of his small pigs-eyes,
accompanied with an important utterance of tick! tick! tick! not
much louder than the balance of a watch, that I question if any](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-27-320.jpg)
![actor was ever superior in the conception or expression of such
solemn insignificancy.
[250] I presume Cibber means 1695. The Company was self-
governed from its commencement in 1695, and the disintegration
seems to have begun in the next season. See what Cibber says of
Dogget's defection a few pages on.
[251] In Lee's tragedy of Cæsar Borgia, originally played at
Dorset Garden in 1680. Borgia was Betterton's part, and was
evidently one of those which Powell laid violent hands on.
[252] Among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is a curious Decision,
dated 26 Oct. 1696, regarding this desertion. By it, Dogget, who
is stated to have been seduced from Lincoln's Inn Fields, is
permitted to act where he likes.
[253] Genest's list of Dogget's characters shows that he was
apparently not engaged 1698 to 1700, both inclusive; for the
seasons 1706-7 and 1707-8; and for the season 1708-9. This
would make the three occasions mentioned by Cibber.
[254] Dryden, in his Address to Granville on his tragedy of Heroic
Love in 1698, says of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company:—
Their setting sun still shoots a glimmering ray,
Like ancient Rome, majestic in decay;
And better gleanings their worn soil can boast,
Than the crab-vintage of the neighbouring coast.
[255] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 13: But this [the
success of 'Love for Love'] like other things of that kind, being
only nine Days wonder, and the Audiences, being in a little time
sated with the Novelty of the New-house, return in Shoals to the
Old.
[256] Cibber says nothing of his having been a member of the
Lincoln's Inn Fields Company. But he was, for he writes in his
Preface to Woman's Wit: during the Time of my writing the two
first Acts I was entertain'd at the New Theatre.... In the Middle of
my Writing the Third Act, not liking my Station there, I return'd
again to the Theatre Royal. Cibber must have joined Betterton, I
should think, about the end of 1696. It is curious that he should
in his Apology have entirely suppressed this incident. It almost
suggests that there was something in it of which he was in later
years somewhat ashamed.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-28-320.jpg)
![[257] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 14: The Town ...
chang'd their Inclinations for the two Houses, as they found
'emselves inclin'd to Comedy or Tragedy: If they desir'd a Tragedy,
they went to Lincolns-Inn-Fields; if to Comedy, they flockt to
Drury-lane.
[258] Christopher Rich, of whom the Comparison between the
two Stages says (p. 15): Critick. In the other House there's an
old snarling Lawyer Master and Sovereign; a waspish, ignorant,
pettifogger in Law and Poetry; one who understands Poetry no
more than Algebra; he wou'd sooner have the Grace of God than
do everybody Justice.
[259] This privilege seems to have been granted about 1697 or
1698. It was not abolished till 1737. On 5th May, 1737, footmen
having been deprived of their privilege, 300 of them broke into
Drury Lane and did great damage. Many were, however, arrested,
and no attempt was made to renew hostilities.
[260] Queen Anne issued several Edicts forbidding persons to be
admitted behind the scenes, and in the advertisements of both
theatres there appeared the announcement, By Her Majesty's
Command no Persons are to be admitted behind the Scenes.
Cibber here, no doubt, refers to the Sign Manual of 13 Nov. 1711,
a copy of which is among the Chamberlain's Papers.
[261] Cibber is probably incorrect here. It seems certain from the
bills that Wilks did not re-appear in London before 1698.
[262] See note on page 235.
[263] The Laureat, p. 44: Wilks, in this Part of Palamede,
behav'd with a modest Diffidence, and yet maintain'd the Spirit of
his Part. The author says, on the same page, that Powel never
could appear a Gentleman. His Conversation, his Manners, his
Dress, neither on nor off the Stage, bore any Similitude to that
Character.
[264] The Laureat, p. 44: I believe he (Wilks) was obliged to
fight the Heroic George Powel, as well as one or two others, who
were piqued at his being so highly encouraged by the Town, and
their Rival, before he cou'd be quiet.
[265] Powell seems to have been at Lincoln's Inn Fields for two
seasons, those of 1702 and 1703, and for part of a third, 1703-4.
He returned to Drury Lane about June, 1704. For the arbitrary
conduct of the Lord Chamberlain, in allowing him to desert to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-29-320.jpg)
![Lincoln's Inn Fields (or the Haymarket), but arresting him when
he deserted back again to Drury Lane, see after, in Chap. X.
[266] Cibber is here somewhat in the position of Satan reproving
sin, if Davies's statements (Dram. Misc., iii. 480) are accurate.
He says:—
This attention to the gaming-table would not, we may be
assured, render him [Cibber] fitter for his business of the stage.
After many an unlucky run at Tom's Coffee-house [in Russell
Street], he has arrived at the playhouse in great tranquillity; and
then, humming over an opera-tune, he has walked on the stage
not well prepared in the part he was to act. Cibber should not
have reprehended Powell so severely for neglect and imperfect
representation: I have seen him at fault where it was least
expected; in parts which he had acted a hundred times, and
particularly in Sir Courtly Nice; but Colley dexterously supplied the
deficiency of his memory by prolonging his ceremonious bow to
the lady, and drawling out 'Your humble servant, madam,' to an
extraordinary length; then taking a pinch of snuff, and strutting
deliberately across the stage, he has gravely asked the prompter,
what is next?
[267] The Laureat, p. 45: I have known him (Wilks) lay a
Wager and win it, that he wou'd repeat the Part of Truewitt in the
Silent Woman, which consists of thirty Lengths of Paper, as they
call 'em, (that is, one Quarter of a Sheet on both Sides to a
Length) without misplacing a single Word, or missing an (and) or
an (or).
[268] Alexander in The Rival Queens.
[269] In The Man of the Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter.
[270] Produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 29th January, 1728.
[271] Love in a Riddle. A Pastoral. Produced at Drury Lane, 7th
January, 1729.
Arcas Mr. Mills.
Ægon Mr. Harper.
Amyntas Mr. Williams.
Iphis
Mrs.
Thurmond.
Philautus, a conceited Corinthian
courtier
Mr. Cibber.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-30-320.jpg)
![Corydon Mr. Griffin.
Cimon Mr. Miller.
Mopsus Mr. Oates.
Damon Mr. Ray.
Ianthe, daughter to Arcas Mrs. Cibber.
Pastora, daughter to Ægon Mrs. Lindar.
Phillida, daughter to Corydon Mrs. Raftor.
Mrs. Raftor (at this time Miss was not generally used) was
afterwards the famous Mrs. Clive. Chetwood, in his History of the
Stage, 1749 (p. 128), says: I remember the first night of Love in
a Riddle (which was murder'd in the same Year) a Pastoral Opera
wrote by the Laureat, which the Hydra-headed Multitude resolv'd
to worry without hearing, a Custom with Authors of Merit, when
Miss Raftor came on in the part of Phillida, the monstrous Roar
subsided. A Person in the Stage-Box, next to my Post, called out
to his Companion in the following elegant Style—'Zounds! Tom!
take Care! or this charming little Devil will save all.' Chetwood's
Post was that of Prompter.
[272] Martial, xiii. 2, 8.
[273] Cibber should have written Catiline.
[274] This second part was called Polly. In his Preface Gay gives
an account of its being vetoed. The prohibition undoubtedly was
in revenge for the political satire in The Beggar's Opera. Polly
was published by subscription, and probably brought the author
more in that way than its production would have done. It was
played for the first time at the Haymarket, 19th June, 1777. It is,
as Genest says, miserably inferior to the first part.
[275] Polly was officially prohibited on 12th December, 1728.
[276] I know only one case in which a new piece is said to have
been prohibited because the other house was going to play one
on the same subject. This is Swiney's Quacks; or, Love's the
Physician, produced at Drury Lane on 18th March, 1705, after
being twice vetoed. Swiney in his Preface gives the above as the
reason for the prohibition.
[277] Cibber afterwards formed the best scenes of Love in a
Riddle into a Ballad Opera, called Damon and Phillida.
[278] Bellchambers notes that this was probably Mrs. Oldfield. But
I think this more than doubtful, for this lady not only was fair, but](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-31-320.jpg)
![also, as Touchstone says, had the gift to know it. It is, of
course, impossible to say decidedly to whom Cibber referred; but
I fancy that Mrs. Barry is the actress who best fulfils the
conditions, though, of course, I must admit that her having been
dead for a quarter of a century weakens my case.
[279] A bite is what we now term a sell. In The Spectator,
Nos. 47 and 504, some account of Biters is given: a Race of
Men that are perpetually employed in laughing at those Mistakes
which are of their own Production.
[280] This is a capital sketch of Christopher Rich.
[281] Cibber's hint of Rich's weakness for the fair sex is
corroborated by the Comparison between the two Stages, page
16: Critick. He is Monarch of the Stage, tho' he knows not how to
govern one Province in his Dominion, but that of Signing, Sealing,
and something else, that shall be nameless.
[282] The Laureat, p. 48: If Minister Wilks was now alive to
hear thee prate thus, Mr. Bayes, I would not give one Half-penny
for thy Ears; but if he were alive, thou durst not for thy Ears rattle
on in this affected Matchiavilian stile.
[283] Characters in Ben Jonson's Silent Woman.
[284] The Laureat, p. 49: Did you not, by your general
Misbehaviour towards Authors and Actors, bring an Odium on
your Brother Menagers, as well as yourself; and were not these,
with many others, the Reasons, that sometimes gave Occasion to
Wilks, to chastise you, with his Tongue only.
[285] See memoir of John Mills at end of second volume.
[286] John Mills, in the advertisement issued by Rich, in 1709, in
the course of a dispute with his actors, is stated to have a salary
of £4 a week for himself, and £1 a week for his wife, for little or
nothing. This advertisement is quoted by me in Chap. XII. Mills's
salary was the same as Betterton's. No doubt Cibber, Wilks,
Dogget, and Booth had ultimately larger salaries, but they, of
course, were managers as well as actors.
[287] Booth seems to have joined the Lincoln's Inn Fields
Company in 1700.
[288] Steele's comedy was produced at Drury Lane in 1702.
Cibber played Lord Hardy.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-32-320.jpg)
![[289] The play was called Woman's Wit; or, the Lady in Fashion.
It was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. It must have been in the
early months of that year, for in his Preface Cibber says, to excuse
its failure, that it was hurriedly written, and that rather than lose
a Winter he forced himself to invent a fable. The Laureat, p.
50, stupidly says that the name of the play was Perolla and
Isadora. The cast was:—
Lord Lovemore Mr. Harland.
Longville
Mr.
Penkethman.
Jack Rakish Mr. Powel.
Mass Johnny, Lady Manlove's Son, a
schoolboy.
Mr. Dogget.
Father Benedic Mr. Smeaton.
Lady Manlove Mrs. Powel.
Leonora Mrs. Knight.
Emilia Mrs. Rogers.
Olivia Mrs. Cibber.
Lettice Mrs. Kent.
[290]
Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae.
Hor. Ars Poetica, 333.
[291]
Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci.
Hor. Ars Poetica, 343.
[292] Pepys (12th June, 1663) records that the Lady Mary
Cromwell at the Theatre, when the House began to fill, put on
her vizard, and so kept it on all the play; which of late is become
a great fashion among the ladies, which hides their whole face.
Very soon, however, ladies gave up the use of the mask, and
Vizard-mask became a synonym for Prostitute. In this sense it
is frequently used in Dryden's Prologues and Epilogues.
[293] Compare with Cibber's condemnation Genest's opinion of
this play. He says (i. 365): If it be the province of Comedy, not to
retail morality to a yawning pit, but to make the audience laugh,
and to keep them in good humour, this play must be allowed to
be one of the best comedies in the English language.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-33-320.jpg)
![[294] To The Pilgrim, revived in 1700, as Cibber states, Dryden's
Secular Masque was attached. Whether the revival took place
before or after Dryden's death (1st May, 1700) is a moot point.
See Genest, ii. 179, for an admirable account of the matter. He
thinks it probable that the date of production was 25th March,
1700. Cibber is scarcely accurate in stating that The Pilgrim was
revived for Dryden's benefit. It seems, rather, that Vanbrugh, who
revised the play, stipulated that, in consideration of Dryden's
writing The Secular Masque, and also the Prologue and
Epilogue, he should have the usual author's third night. The B. M.
copy of The Pilgrim is dated, in an old handwriting, Monday,
the 5 of May.
[295] Jeremy Collier.
[296] Genest notes (ii. 181) that in the original play the Servant in
the 2nd act did not stutter.
[297] Collier's famous work, which was entitled A Short View of
the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage: together
with the sense of Antiquity upon this Argument, was published in
1698. Collier was a Nonjuring clergyman. He was born on 23rd
September, 1650, and died in 1726. The circumstance to which
Cibber alludes in the second paragraph from the present, was
Collier's attending to the scaffold Sir John Friend and Sir William
Perkins, who were executed for complicity in plots against King
William in 1696.
[298] The facetious Joe Haines was an actor of great popularity,
and seems to have excelled in the delivery of Prologues and
Epilogues, especially of those written by himself. He was on the
stage from about 1672 to 1700 or 1701, in which latter year (on
the 4th of April) he died. He was the original Sparkish in
Wycherley's Country Wife, Lord Plausible in the same author's
Plain Dealer, and Tom Errand in Farquhar's Constant Couple.
Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 284) tells, on Quin's authority, an
anecdote of Haines's pretended conversion to Romanism during
James the Second's reign. He declared that the Virgin Mary
appeared to him in a vision. Lord Sunderland sent for Joe, and
asked him about the truth of his conversion, and whether he had
really seen the Virgin?—Yes, my Lord, I assure you it is a fact.—
How was it, pray?—Why, as I was lying in my bed, the Virgin
appeared to me, and said, Arise, Joe!—You lie, you rogue, said
the Earl; for, if it had really been the Virgin herself, she would](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-34-320.jpg)
![have said Joseph, if it had been only out of respect to her
husband. For an account of Haines, see also Anthony Aston.
[299] The Laureat (p. 53) states that soon after the publication
of Collier's book, informers were placed in different parts of the
theatres, on whose information several players were charged with
uttering immoral words. Queen Anne, however, satisfied that the
informers were not actuated by zeal for morality, stopped the
inquisition. These informers were paid by the Society for the
Reformation of Manners.
[300] Congreve's answer to Collier was entitled Amendments of
Mr. Collier's false and imperfect Citations, c. from the Old
Batchelour, Double Dealer, Love for Love, Mourning Bride. By the
Author of those Plays. Vanbrugh called his reply, A Short
Vindication of the Relapse and the Provok'd Wife, from Immorality
and Prophaneness. By the Author. Davies says, regarding
Congreve (Dram. Misc., iii. 401): Congreve's pride was hurt by
Collier's attack on plays which all the world had admired and
commended; and no hypocrite showed more rancour and
resentment, when unmasked, than this author, so greatly
celebrated for sweetness of temper and elegance of manners.
[301] Charles Killigrew, who died in 1725, having held the office
of Master of the Revels for over forty years.
[302] Produced at Drury Lane in 1700. For some account of
Cibber's playing of Richard, see ante, pp. 139, 140.
[303] Chalmers (Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare
Papers, page 535) comments unfavourably on Cibber's method
of stating this fact, saying, Well might Pope cry out, modest
Cibber! But Chalmers is unjust to Colley, who is not expressing
his own opinion of his play's importance, but merely reporting the
opinion of Killigrew.
[304] Steele's name first appears in a License granted 18th
October, 1714. His Patent was dated 19th January, 1715.
[305] Chalmers (Apology for the Believers, page 536) says:
The patentees sent Colley Cibber, as envoy-extraordinary, to
negotiate an amicable settlement with the Sovereign of the
Revels. It is amusing to hear, how this flippant negotiator
explained his own pretensions, and attempted to invalidate the
right of his opponent; as if a subsequent charter, under the great
seal, could supersede a preceding grant under the same authority.
Charles Killigrew, who was now sixty-five years of age, seems to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-35-320.jpg)
![have been oppressed by the insolent civility of Colley Cibber. But
this is an undeserved hit at Cibber, who had suffered the grossest
injustice at Killigrew's hands regarding the licensing of Richard
III. See ante, p. 275. The dispute regarding fees must have
occurred about 1715.
[306] The Licensing Act of 1737. This Act was passed by Sir
Robert Walpole's government, and gave to the Lord Chamberlain
the power to prohibit a piece from being acted at all, by making it
necessary to have every play licensed. This power, however, had
practically been exercised by the Chamberlain before, as in the
case of Gay's Polly, which Cibber has already mentioned. The
immediate cause of this Act of 1737 was a piece called The
Golden Rump, which was so full of scurrility against the powers
that were, that Giffard, the manager to whom it was submitted,
carried it to Walpole. In spite of the opposition of Lord
Chesterfield, who delivered a famous speech against it, the Bill
was passed, 21st June, 1737. The Biographia Dramatica hints
plainly that The Golden Rump was written at Walpole's
instigation to afford an excuse for the Act. Bellchambers has the
following note on this passage:—
The Abbé Le Blanc,{A} who was in England at the time this law
passed, has the following remarks upon it in his correspondence:
—
'This act occasioned an universal murmur in the nation, and was
openly complained of in the public papers: in all the coffee-houses
of London it was treated as an unjust law, and manifestly contrary
to the liberties of the people of England. When winter came, and
the play-houses were opened, that of Covent-garden began with
three new pieces, which had been approved of by the Lord
Chamberlain. There was a crowd of spectators present at the first,
and among the number myself. The best play in the world would
not have succeeded the first night.{B} There was a resolution to
damn whatever might appear, the word hiss not being sufficiently
expressive for the English. They always say, to damn a piece, to
damn an author, c. and, in reality, the word is not too strong to
express the manner in which they receive a play which does not
please them. The farce in question was damned indeed, without
the least compassion: nor was that all, for the actors were driven
off the stage, and happy was it for the author that he did not fall
into the hands of this furious assembly.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-36-320.jpg)
![did not hinder them from saying all the ill they could of the
French.
'Intractable as the populace appear in this country, those who
know how to take hold of their foibles, may easily carry their
point. Thus is the liberty of the stage reduced to just bounds, and
yet the English pit makes no farther attempt to oppose the new
regulation. The law is executed without the least trouble, all the
plays since having been quietly heard, and either succeeded, or
not, according to their merit.'
See article in Mr. Archer's About the Theatre, p. 101, and
Parliamentary Reports, 1832 and 1866.
{A} Mr. Garrick, when in Paris, refused to meet this writer, on
account of the irreverence with which he had treated
Shakspeare.
{B} The action was interrupted almost as soon as begun, in
presence of a numerous assembly, by a cabal who had
resolved to overthrow the first effect of this act of parliament,
though it had been thought necessary for the regulation of
the stage.
{C} Called here Inns of Court, as the two Temples, Lincoln's
Inn, Gray's Inn, Doctor's Commons, c.
[307] The theatre in Goodman's Fields was opened in October,
1729, by Thomas Odell, who was afterwards Deputy Licenser
under the 1737 Act. Odell, having no theatrical experience,
entrusted the management to Henry Giffard. Odell's theatre
seems to have been in Leman Street.
[308] I can find no hint that plays were ever stopped at Odell's
theatre. There is a pamphlet, published in 1730, with the
following title: A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Richard
Brocas, Lord Mayor of London. By a Citizen, which demands the
closing of the theatre, but I do not suppose any practical result
followed. In 1733 an attempt by the Patentees of Drury Lane and
Covent Garden to silence Giffard's Company, then playing at his
new theatre in Goodman's Fields, was unsuccessful. This theatre
was in Ayliffe Street.
[309] Half of Booth's share of the Patent was purchased by
Highmore, who also bought the whole of Cibber's share. Giffard
was the purchaser of the remainder of Booth's share.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-39-320.jpg)
![[310] This was John Harper. Davies (Life of Garrick, i. 40) says
that The reason of the Patentees fixing on Harper was in
consequence of his natural timidity. His trial was on the 20th
November, 1733. Harper was a low comedian of some ability, but
of no great note.
[311] Cibber again alludes to this in Chap. XIII.
[312] Sir Francis Wronghead is a character in The Provoked
Husband, a country squire who comes to London to seek a place
at Court. In Act iv. Sir Francis relates his interview with a certain
great man: Sir Francis, says my lord, pray what sort of a place
may you ha' turned your thoughts upon? My lord, says I, beggars
must not be chusers; but ony place, says I, about a thousand a-
year, will be well enough to be doing with, till something better
falls in—for I thowght it would not look well to stond haggling
with him at first.
[313] Giffard seems to have retained his sixth part.
[314] Some account of the entire dispute between Highmore and
his actors will be found in my Supplement to this book.
[315] This broken Wit was Henry Fielding, between whom and
Cibber there was war to the knife, Fielding taking every
opportunity of mocking at Colley and attacking his works.
Mr. Austin Dobson, in his Fielding, page 66, writes: When the
Champion was rather more than a year old, Colley Cibber
published his famous Apology. To the attacks made upon him by
Fielding at different times he had hitherto printed no reply—
perhaps he had no opportunity of doing so. But in his eighth
chapter, when speaking of the causes which led to the Licensing
Act, he takes occasion to refer to his assailant in terms which
Fielding must have found exceedingly galling. He carefully
abstained from mentioning his name, on the ground that it could
do him no good, and was of no importance; but he described him
as 'a broken Wit,' c.
Mr. Dobson, on page 69, gives his approval to the theory that
Fielding had openly expressed resentment at being described by
Cibber as 'a broken wit,' without being mentioned by name.
[316] The use of channel, meaning gutter, is obsolete in
England; but I am sure that I have heard it used in that sense in
Scotland. Shakespeare in King Henry the Sixth, third part, act ii.
sc. 2, has,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-40-320.jpg)
![As if a channel should be called the sea.
And in Marlowe's Edward the Second, act i. sc. 1, occur the
lines:—
Throw off his golden mitre, rend his stole,
And in the channel christen him anew.
[317] Juvenal, i. 73.
[318] Mr. Dobson (Fielding, page 67) says: He [Cibber] called
him, either in allusion to his stature, or his pseudonym in the
Champion, a 'Herculean Satyrist,' a 'Drawcansir in Wit.'
[319] Fielding's political satires, in such pieces as Pasquin and
The Historical Register for 1736, contributed largely to the
passing of the Act of 1737, although The Golden Rump was the
ostensible cause.
[320] Fielding, in the Champion for Tuesday, April 22nd, 1740,
says of Cibber's refusal to quote from Pasquin—the good
Parent seems to imagine that he hath produced, as well as my
Lord Clarendon, a [Greek: Ktêma es aei]; for he refuses to quote
anything out of Pasquin, lest he should give it a chance of being
remembered.
Mr. Dobson (Fielding, page 69) says Fielding never seems to
have wholly forgotten his animosity to the actor, to whom there
are frequent references in Joseph Andrews; and, as late as 1749,
he is still found harping on 'the withered laurel' in a letter to
Lyttelton. Even in his last work, the Voyage to Lisbon, Cibber's
name is mentioned. The origin of this protracted feud is obscure;
but, apart from want of sympathy, it must probably be sought for
in some early misunderstanding between the two in their
capacities of manager and author.
[321] By Lord Chesterfield.
[322] Horace, Ars Poetica, 180.
[323] Guiscard's attack on Harley occurred in 1711.
[324] Genest (iii. 521) remarks, If the power of the Licenser had
been laid under proper regulations, all would have been right.
The whole objection to the Licenser is simply that he is under no
regulations whatever. He is a perfectly irresponsible authority, and
one from whose decisions there is no appeal.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-41-320.jpg)
![[325] Cibber received three thousand guineas from Highmore for
his share in the Patent (See Victor's History, i. 8).
[326] The Laureat, page 72: Indeed, Laureat, notwithstanding
what thou may'st dream of the Immortality of this Work of thine,
and bestowing the same on thy Favourites by recording them
here; thou mayst, old as thou art, live to see thy precious Labours
become the vile Wrappers of Pastry-Grocers and Chandlery
Wares. The issue of the present edition of Cibber's Apology is
sufficient commentary on The Laureat's ill-natured prophecy.
[327] Cibber prints 1684, repeating his former blunder. (See p.
96.)
[328] The first play acted by the United Company was Hamlet.
In this Estcourt is cast for the Gravedigger, so that if Cibber's
anecdote is accurate, as no doubt it is, Estcourt must have
doubled the Gravedigger and the speaker of the Prologue.
[329] The first edition reads 1708, and in the next chapter
Cibber says 1708. In point of fact, the first performance by the
United Company took place 15th January, 1708. This does not
make Estcourt's gag incorrect, for though we now should not
consider May, 1707, and the following January in the same year,
yet up to 1752, when the style was changed in England, they
were so.
[330] Southerne's Oroonoko was produced at Drury Lane in
1696.
[331] Of Horden we know little more than Cibber tells us. He
seems to have been on the stage only for a year or two; and
during 1696 only, at Drury Lane, does his name appear to
important parts. Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 443) says Horden was
bred a Scholar: he complimented George Powell, in a Latin
encomium on his Treacherous Brothers.
The London News-Letter, 20th May, 1696, says: On Monday
Capt. Burges who kill'd Mr. Fane, and was found guilty of
Manslaughter at the Old Baily, kill'd Mr. Harding a Comedian in a
Quarrel at the Rose Tavern in Hatton [should be Covent] Garden,
and is taken into custody.
In Luttrell's Diary, on Tuesday, 19th May, 1696, is noted:
Captain Burgesse, convicted last sessions of manslaughter for
killing Mr. Fane, is committed to the Gatehouse for killing Mr.
Horden, of the Playhouse, last night in Covent Garden.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-42-320.jpg)
![And on Tuesday, 30th November, 1697, Captain Burgesse, who
killed Mr. Horden the player, has obtained his majesties pardon.
[332] This tavern seems to have been very near Drury Lane
Theatre, and to have been a favourite place of resort after the
play. In the Epilogue to the Constant Couple the Rose Tavern is
mentioned:—
Now all depart, each his respective way,
To spend an evening's chat upon the play;
Some to Hippolito's; one homeward goes,
And one with loving she, retires to th' Rose.
In the Comparison between the two Stages one scene is laid in
the Rose Tavern, and from it we gather that the house was of a
very bad character:—
Ramb. Defend us! what a hurry of Sin is in this House!
Sull. Drunkenness, which is the proper Iniquity of a Tavern, is
here the most excusable Sin; so many other Sins over-run it, 'tis
hardly seen in the crowd....
Sull. This House is the very Camp of Sin; the Devil sets up his
black Standard in the Faces of these hungry Harlots, and to enter
into their Trenches is going down to the Bottomless Pit according
to the letter.—Comp., p. 140.
Pepys mentions the Rose more than once. On 18th May, 1668,
the first day of Sedley's play, The Mulberry Garden, the diarist,
having secured his place in the pit, and feeling hungry, did slip
out, getting a boy to keep my place; and to the Rose Tavern, and
there got half a breast of mutton, off the spit, and dined all alone.
And so to the play again.
[333] Cibber's chronology cannot be reconciled with what we
believe to be facts. Horden was killed in 1696; Wilks seems to
have come to England not earlier than the end of 1698, while it
is, I should say, certain that Estcourt did not appear before 1704.
I can only suppose that Cibber, who is very reckless in his dates,
is here particularly confused.
[334] For Leigh's playing of this character, see ante, p. 145.
[335] Curll, in his Life of Mrs. Oldfield, says that the only part
she played, previous to appearing as Alinda, was Candiope in
Secret Love. She played Alinda in 1700.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-43-320.jpg)
![[336] In 1702, Gildon, in the Comparison between the two
Stages (p. 200), includes Mrs. Oldfield among the meer Rubbish
that ought to be swept off the Stage with the Filth and Dust.
[337] Miff, a colloquial expression signifying a slight degree of
resentment.
[338] Cibber is pleasantly candid in allowing that he had no share
in Mrs. Oldfield's success. The temptation to assume some credit
for teaching her something must have been great.
[339] Mrs. Anne Oldfield, born about 1683, was introduced to
Vanbrugh by Farquhar, who accidentally heard her reading aloud,
and was struck by her dramatic style. Cibber gives so full an
account of her that it is only necessary to add that she made her
last appearance on 28th April, 1730, at Drury Lane, and that she
died on the 23rd October in the same year. It was of Mrs. Oldfield
that Pope wrote the often-quoted lines (Moral Essays, Epistle I.,
Part iii.):—
Odious! in woollen! 'twould a saint provoke
(Were the last words that poor Narcissa spoke),
No, let a charming chintz and Brussels lace
Wrap my cold limbs, and shade my lifeless face:
One would not, sure, be frightful when one's dead—
And—Betty—give this cheek a little red.
I may note that, though Cibber enlarges chiefly on her comedy
acting, she acted many parts in tragedy with the greatest success.
[340] Produced 7th December, 1704, at Drury Lane.
The Careless Husband
Lord Morelove Mr. Powel.
Lord Foppington Mr. Cibber.
Sir Charles Easy Mr. Wilks.
Lady Betty Modish Mrs. Oldfield.
Lady Easy Mrs. Knight.
Lady Graveairs Mrs. Moore.
Mrs. Edging Mrs. Lucas.
[341] Mrs. Oldfield played Lady Townly in the Provoked
Husband, 10th January, 1728. I presume that Cibber means that
this was her last important original part, for she was the original](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-44-320.jpg)
![representative of Sophonisba (by James Thomson) and other
characters after January, 1728.
[342]
The Provoked Husband
Lord Townly Mr. Wilks.
Lady Townly Mrs. Oldfield.
Lady Grace Mrs. Porter.
Mr. Manley Mr. Mills, sen.
Sir Francis Wronghead Mr. Cibber, Sen.
Lady Wronghead Mrs. Thurmond.
Squire Richard Young Wetherelt.
Miss Jenny Mrs. Cibber.
John Moody Mr. Miller.
Count Basset Mr. Bridgewater.
Mrs. Motherly Mrs. Moore.
Myrtilla Mrs. Grace.
Mrs. Trusty Mrs. Mills.
Vanbrugh left behind him nearly four acts of a play entitled A
Journey to London, which Cibber completed, calling the finished
work The Provoked Husband. It was produced at Drury Lane on
10th January, 1728.
[343]
Verum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis
Offendar maculis.—Horace, Ars Poetica, 351.
[344] The Laureat, p. 57: But I can see no Occasion you have
to mention any Errors. She had fewer as an Actress than any; and
neither you, nor I, have any Right to enquire into her Conduct any
where else.
[345] The following is the passage referred to:—
But there is no doing right to Mrs. Oldfield, without putting
people in mind of what others, of great merit, have wanted to
come near her—'Tis not enough to say, she here outdid her usual
excellence. I might therefore justly leave her to the constant
admiration of those spectators who have the pleasure of living
while she is an actress. But as this is not the only time she has
been the life of what I have given the public, so, perhaps, my](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-45-320.jpg)
![saying a little more of so memorable an actress, may give this
play a chance to be read when the people of this age shall be
ancestors—May it therefore give emulation to our successors of
the stage, to know, that to the ending of the year 1727, a
cotemporary comedian relates, that Mrs. Oldfield was then in her
highest excellence of action, happy in all the rarely found
requisites that meet in one person to complete them for the
stage. She was in stature just rising to that height, where the
graceful can only begin to show itself; of a lively aspect, and a
command in her mien, that like the principal figure in the finest
painting, first seizes, and longest delights, the eye of the
spectators. Her voice was sweet, strong, piercing, and melodious;
her pronunciation voluble, distinct, and musical; and her emphasis
always placed, where the spirit of the sense, in her periods, only
demanded it. If she delighted more in the higher comic, than in
the tragic strain, 'twas because the last is too often written in a
lofty disregard of nature. But in characters of modern practised
life, she found occasion to add the particular air and manner
which distinguished the different humours she presented;
whereas, in tragedy, the manner of speaking varies as little as the
blank verse it is written in.—She had one peculiar happiness from
nature, she looked and maintained the agreeable, at a time when
other fine women only raise admirers by their understanding—The
spectator was always as much informed by her eyes as her
elocution; for the look is the only proof that an actor rightly
conceives what he utters, there being scarce an instance, where
the eyes do their part, that the elocution is known to be faulty.
The qualities she had acquired, were the genteel and the elegant;
the one in her air, and the other in her dress, never had her equal
on the stage; and the ornaments she herself provided
(particularly in this play) seemed in all respects the paraphernalia
of a woman of quality. And of that sort were the characters she
chiefly excelled in; but her natural good sense, and lively turn of
conversation, made her way so easy to ladies of the highest rank,
that it is a less wonder if, on the stage, she sometimes was, what
might have become the finest woman in real life to have
supported. [Bell's edition.]
[346] Mr. Julian Marshall, in his Annals of Tennis, p. 34,
describes the two different sorts of tennis courts—that which was
called Le Quarré, or the Square; and the other with the dedans,
which is almost the same as that of the present day. Cibber is](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2633766-250613174816-bc902f43/85/People-Processes-Services-And-Things-Using-Services-Innovation-To-Enable-The-Internet-Of-Everything-First-Edition-Dahir-46-320.jpg)
People Processes Services And Things Using Services Innovation To Enable The Internet Of Everything First Edition Dahir
- 1. People Processes Services And Things Using Services Innovation To Enable The Internet Of Everything First Edition Dahir download https://ebookbell.com/product/people-processes-services-and- things-using-services-innovation-to-enable-the-internet-of- everything-first-edition-dahir-5267532 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Integrated Management Of Systems Services Processes And People In It 20th Ifipieee International Workshop On Distributed Systems Operations And Management Dsom 2009 Venice Italy October 2728 2009 Proceedings 1st Edition Cristian Morariu https://ebookbell.com/product/integrated-management-of-systems- services-processes-and-people-in-it-20th-ifipieee-international- workshop-on-distributed-systems-operations-and-management- dsom-2009-venice-italy-october-2728-2009-proceedings-1st-edition- cristian-morariu-4142240 The Modern Security Operations Center The People Process And Technology For Operating Soc Services 1st Edition Joseph Muniz https://ebookbell.com/product/the-modern-security-operations-center- the-people-process-and-technology-for-operating-soc-services-1st- edition-joseph-muniz-33985406 The Modern Security Operations Center The People Process And Technology For Operating Soc Services Behavioral And Social Sciences Survey Mathematical Sciences Panel https://ebookbell.com/product/the-modern-security-operations-center- the-people-process-and-technology-for-operating-soc-services- behavioral-and-social-sciences-survey-mathematical-sciences- panel-44590570 The Executive Branch Of The Federal Government Purpose Process And People Us Government The Separation Of Powers 1st Edition Brian Duignan https://ebookbell.com/product/the-executive-branch-of-the-federal- government-purpose-process-and-people-us-government-the-separation-of- powers-1st-edition-brian-duignan-1822588
- 3. Portals People Processes Technology Andrew Cox https://ebookbell.com/product/portals-people-processes-technology- andrew-cox-51285004 Coping With Stress Effective People And Processes C R Snyder https://ebookbell.com/product/coping-with-stress-effective-people-and- processes-c-r-snyder-51335600 Systems Analysis And Design People Processes And Projects Keng Siau https://ebookbell.com/product/systems-analysis-and-design-people- processes-and-projects-keng-siau-2342038 Healthcare Affordability Motivate People Improve Processes And Increase Performance Odomirok https://ebookbell.com/product/healthcare-affordability-motivate- people-improve-processes-and-increase-performance-odomirok-9953242 Healthcare Affordability Motivate People Improve Processes And Increase Performance Odomirok https://ebookbell.com/product/healthcare-affordability-motivate- people-improve-processes-and-increase-performance-odomirok-9953244
- 5. People, Processes, Services, and Things Using Services Innovation to Enable the Internet of Everything Hazim Dahir Bil Dry Carlos Pignataro Service Systems and Innovations in Business and Society Collection Jim Spohrer and Haluk Demirkan, Editors People, Processes, Services, and Things Using Services Innovation to Enable the Internet of Everything Hazim Dahir • Bil Dry • Carlos Pignataro This book guides the reader through the technological advances, business needs, and societal shifts that drive the Internet of Everything (IoE). IoE offers many benefits to industries and organizations that embrace it, but there are real adoption and success barriers to address and overcome. In many cases, services are the solution because they drive IoE application and impact. The business and technical services need to deliver IoE and realize the promised benefits. Discussions include assisting candidate IoE customers to assess and rank priority gaps in business process insight, strategies to connected things, and ways to wrangle and transform data streams of new things into actionable information. Knowledge of leading practices, organizational values, and sensitivities are keys to successful IoE transformations. Hazim Dahir is a Cisco Distinguished Services Engineer. In his current role as the chief architect for the “Internet of Everything” Services Practice, he defines and influences next generation IoT/ IoE architectures across multiple technologies and verticals through direct interaction with customers and partners in the manufacturing, oil & gas, retail and healthcare industries. Bil Dry is the principal architect in Cisco’s Software Solution Factory and has more than 15 years of experience in network and soft- ware engineering. He has teamed with members of the Solution Factory to create innovative multimedia Collaboration Solutions for the global financial and health services markets driving next generation, omni-channel consumer and patient experiences. Carlos Pignataro, Cisco Distinguished Services Engineer and NC State University Adjunct Professor, is a self-described technology change agent who has spent his career on the “bleeding edge.” It all begins with innovation. Innovation, he believes, is not just central to change, it is change. A Services Patent Strategist and co-chair of the Services Patent Committee at Cisco, he has co-invented more than fifty patents (issued and pending), co-authored over thirty- five Internet Requests for Comments (RFCs) and two books, and is a sought-after speaker at networking conferences. PEOPLE, PROCESSES, SERVICES, AND THINGS DAHIR • DRY • PIGNATARO Service Systems and Innovations in Business and Society Collection Jim Spohrer and Haluk Demirkan, Editors ISBN: 978-1-63157-100-8 For further information, a free trial, or to order, contact: sales@businessexpertpress.com www.businessexpertpress.com/librarians THE BUSINESS EXPERT PRESS DIGITAL LIBRARIES EBOOKS FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS Curriculum-oriented, born- digital books for advanced business students, written by academic thought leaders who translate real- world business experience into course readings and reference materials for students expecting to tackle management and leadership challenges during their professional careers. POLICIES BUILT BY LIBRARIANS • Unlimited simultaneous usage • Unrestricted downloading and printing • Perpetual access for a one-time fee • No platform or maintenance fees • Free MARC records • No license to execute The Digital Libraries are a comprehensive, cost-effective way to deliver practical treatments of important business issues to every student and faculty member.
- 6. People, Processes, Services, and Things
- 8. People, Processes, Services, and Things Using Services Innovation to Enable the Internet of Everything Hazim Dahir, Bil Dry, and Carlos Pignataro
- 9. People, Processes, Services, and Things: Using Services Innovation to En able the Internet of Everything Copyright © Business Expert Press, LLC, 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—elec- tronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other except for brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published in 2015 by Business Expert Press, LLC 222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017 www.businessexpertpress.com ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-100-8 (paperback) ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-101-5 (e-book) Business Expert Press Service Systems and Innovations in Business and Society Collection Collection ISSN: 2326-2664 (print) Collection ISSN: 2326-2699 (electronic) Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd., Chennai, India First edition: 2015 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.
- 10. To my father, my favorite librarian, wish this book could have made it to your shelf; to my mother, with heartfelt gratitude. To my wife Angela, and to our “three little birds each by my doorstep,” Hala, Leila, and Zayd, thank you for your love and patience. — Hazim To my wife, Silvija, for all her patience and understanding along the way … — Bil To Sofía, Luca, and Verónica, with all my 3! /smiles and waves/ — Carlos
- 12. Abstract People, Processes, Services, and Things: Using Services Innovation to Enable the Internet of Everything guides the reader through the technological advances, business needs, and societal shifts that drive the Internet of Everything (IoE). It continues by explaining the differences and relation- ships between the Internet of Things (IoT) and IoE. IoE offers many benefits to industries and organizations that embrace it, but there are real adoption and success barriers to address and overcome. This book discusses those barriers and offers solutions. In many cases, services are the solution because they drive IoE application and impact. The business and technical services need to deliver IoE and realize the promised benefits that are discussed in this book. Discussions include assisting candidate IoE customers to assess and rank priority gaps in business process insight, strategies to connected things, and ways to wrangle and transform data streams of new things into actionable information. The last section of this book discusses IoE applications and use cases. It includes in-depth use cases on manufacturing process changes and retail store operational improvements from customer queue management to augmented reality along with changes in security considerations, design practices, and operating procedures to ensure malicious intent does not disrupt the emerging and growing IoE networks. Knowledge of leading practices and organizational values and sensitivities are keys to successful IoE transfor- mations. This book concludes with a complete checklist of considerations for IoE transformation success. Keywords augmented reality, cloud, data analysis, data at rest, data in motion, fog computing, innovation, Internet, Internet of Everything, IoE, Internet of Things, people, processes, service innovation, services
- 14. Contents Foreword�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xi Acknowledgments���������������������������������������������������������������������������������xiii Chapter 1 Defining the Internet of Everything���������������������������������1 Chapter 2 Benefits and Challenges of IoE���������������������������������������15 Chapter 3 Drivers of IoE�����������������������������������������������������������������21 Chapter 4 Barriers to IoE Adoption������������������������������������������������25 Chapter 5 Service Innovation for IoE����������������������������������������������27 Chapter 6 IoE Privacy and Security�������������������������������������������������35 Chapter 7 The Changing World: Where IoE Is Making the Biggest Difference�����������������������������������������������������41 Chapter 8 IoE Use Cases�����������������������������������������������������������������47 Chapter 9 Use Case in Depth—How Will Manufacturing Benefit from IoE������������������������������������������������������������51 Chapter 10 Use Case in Depth—IoE Solutions for the Retail Industry���������������������������������������������������������������65 Chapter 11 Conclusions�������������������������������������������������������������������77 Chapter 12 A Service Industry Call to Action�����������������������������������79 References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 Index���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������83
- 16. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 17. expedient that has often been used, in similar cases, to cover the nakedness of outrageous lust. He warmly pursues her, she yielded her charms, And bless'd the kind youngster in her kinder arms: But at length the poor nymph did for justice implore, And he's married her now, though he'd —— her before. On a subsequent page of the same precious miscellany, there is a most offensive statement of the cause which detached our great comic writer from the object of his passion. The thing is too filthy to be even described. [194] Rowe and Congreve. [195] In Congreve's Way of the World. [196] Cibber's chronology is a little shaky here. Mrs. Bracegirdle's name appeared for the last time in the bill of 20th February, 1707. Betterton's benefit, for which she returned to the stage for one night, took place on 7th April, 1709. [197] Mrs. Anne Bracegirdle made her first appearance on the stage as a very young child. In the cast of Otway's Orphan, 1680, the part of Cordelio, Polydore's Page, is said to be played by the little girl, who, Curll (History, p. 26) informs us, was Anne Bracegirdle, then less than six years of age. In 1688 her name appears to the part of Lucia in The Squire of Alsatia; but it is not till 1691 that she can be said to have regularly entered upon her career as an actress. She was the original representative of some of the most famous heroines in comedy: Araminta, in The Old Bachelor; Cynthia, in The Double Dealer; Angelica, in Love for Love; Belinda, in The Provoked Wife; Millamant; Flippanta, in The Confederacy, and many others. Mrs. Bracegirdle appears to have been a good and excellent woman, as well as a great actress. All the scandal about her seems to have had no further foundation than, to quote Genest, the extreme difficulty with which an actress at this period of the stage must have preserved her chastity. Genest goes on to remark, with delicious naïveté, Mrs. Bracegirdle was perhaps a woman of a cold constitution. Her retirement from the stage when not much over thirty is accounted for by Curll, by a story of a competition between her and Mrs. Oldfield in the part of Mrs. Brittle in The Amorous Widow, in which the latter was the more applauded. He says that they played the part on two successive nights; but I have
- 18. carefully examined Dr. Burney's MSS. in the British Museum for the season 1706-7, and The Amorous Widow was certainly not played twice successively. I doubt the story altogether. That Mrs. Bracegirdle retired because Mrs. Oldfield was excelling her in popular estimation is most likely, but I can find no confirmation whatever for Curll's story. The Laureat, p. 36, attributes her retirement to Mrs. Oldfield's being preferr'd to some Parts before her, by our very Apologist; but though the reason thus given is probably accurate, the person blamed is as probably guiltless; for I do not think Cibber could have sufficient authority to distribute parts in 1706-7. Mrs. Bracegirdle died September, 1748, but was dead to the stage from 1709. Cibber's remark on p. 99 had therefore no reference to her. [198] Cibber writes here with feeling; for, after his Nonjuror abused the Jacobites and Nonjurors, that party took every opportunity of revenging themselves on him by maltreating his plays. [199] See ante, p. 63, for an allusion to this passage by Fielding in The Champion. [200] Æneid, i. 630. [201] This is a curious statement, and has never, so far as I know, been commented on; the cause of Cibber's retirement having always been considered mysterious. I suppose this reference to ill-treatment must be held as confirming Davies's statement that the public lost patience at Cibber's continually playing tragic parts, and fairly hissed him off the stage. Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 471) relates the following incident: When Thomson's Sophonisba was read to the actors, Cibber laid his hand upon Scipio, a character, which, though it appears only in the last act, is of great dignity and importance. For two nights successively, Cibber was as much exploded as any bad actor could be. Williams, by desire of Wilks, made himself master of the part; but he, marching slowly, in great military distinction, from the upper part of the stage, and wearing the same dress as Cibber, was mistaken for him, and met with repeated hisses, joined to the music of cat-cals; but, as soon as the audience were undeceived, they converted their groans and hisses to loud and long continued applause. [202] Cibber retired in May, 1733. The reappearance he refers to was not that he made in 1738, as Bellchambers states. He no doubt alludes to his performances in 1734-35, when he played Bayes, Lord Foppington, Sir John Brute, and other comedy parts.
- 19. On the nights he played, the compliment was paid him of putting no name in the bill but his own. [203] The original holders of the Patents, Sir William Davenant and Thomas Killigrew, were dead in 1690; and their successors, Alexander Davenant, to whom Charles Davenant had assigned his interest, and Charles Killigrew, seem to have taken little active interest in the management; for Christopher Rich, who acquired Davenant's share in 1691, seems at once to have become managing proprietor. [204] Davies (Dramatic Miscellanies, iii. 444) gives the following account of Cibber's first salary: But Mr. Richard Cross, late prompter of Drury-lane theatre, gave me the following history of Colley Cibber's first establishment as a hired actor. He was known only, for some years, by the name of Master Colley. After waiting impatiently a long time for the prompter's notice, by good fortune he obtained the honour of carrying a message on the stage, in some play, to Betterton. Whatever was the cause, Master Colley was so terrified, that the scene was disconcerted by him. Betterton asked, in some anger, who the young fellow was that had committed the blunder. Downes replied, 'Master Colley.'—'Master Colley! then forfeit him.'—'Why, sir,' said the prompter, 'he has no salary.'—'No!' said the old man; 'why then put him down ten shillings a week, and forfeit him 5s.' [205] Complexion is a point of no importance now, and this allusion suggests a theory to me which I give with all diffidence. We know that actresses painted in Pepys's time (1667, Oct. 5. But, Lord! To see how they [Nell Gwynne and Mrs. Knipp] were both painted would make a man mad, and did make me loathe them), and we also know that Dogget was famous for the painting of his face to represent old age. If, then, complexion was a point of importance for a lover, as Cibber states, it suggests that young actors playing juvenile parts did not use any make-up or paint, but went on the stage in their natural complexion. The lighting of the stage was of course much less brilliant than it afterwards became, so that make-up was not so necessary. [206] The Laureat (p. 103) describes Cibber's person thus:— He was in Stature of the middle Size, his Complexion fair, inclinable to the Sandy, his Legs somewhat of the thickest, his Shape a little clumsy, not irregular, and his Voice rather shrill than loud or articulate, and crack'd extremely, when he endeavour'd to
- 20. raise it. He was in his younger Days so lean, as to be known by the Name of Hatchet Face. [207] Bellchambers notes that this part was originally played by Percival, who came into the Duke's Company about 1673. [208] Of Cibber's wife there is little record. In 1695 the name of Mrs. Cibbars appears to the part of Galatea in Philaster, and she was the original Hillaria in Cibber's Love's Last Shift in 1696; but she never made any great name or played any famous part. She was a Miss Shore, sister of John Shore, Sergeant-trumpet of England. The Biographia Dramatica (i. 117) says that Miss Shore's father was extremely angry at her marriage, and spent that portion of his fortune which he had intended for her in building a retreat on the Thames which was called Shore's Folly. [209] The Double Dealer, 1693, was not very successful, and when played at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 18th October, 1718, was announced as not having been acted for fifteen years; so that this incident no doubt occurred in the course of the first few nights of the play, which, Malone says, was produced in November, 1693. [210] The Prophetess, now supposed to be mostly Fletcher's work (see Ward's English Dramatic Literature, ii. 218), was made into an opera by Betterton, the music by Purcell. It was produced in 1690, with a Prologue written by Dryden, which, for political reasons, was forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain after the first night. [211] King Arthur; or, the British Worthy, a Dramatic Opera, as Dryden entitles it, was produced in 1691. In his Dedication to the Marquis of Halifax, Dryden says: This Poem was the last Piece of Service, which I had the Honour to do, for my Gracious Master, King Charles the Second. Downes says 'twas very Gainful to the Company, but Cibber declares it was not so successful as it appeared to be. [212] End of 1692. [213] Betterton seems to have been a very politic person. In the Comparison between the two Stages (p. 41) he is called, though not in reference to this particular matter, a cunning old Fox. [214] This is no doubt a hit at Wilks, whose temper was extremely impetuous. [215] The Laureat, p. 39: He (Cibber) was always against raising, or rewarding, or by any means encouraging Merit of any
- 21. kind. He had many Disputes with Wilks on this Account, who was impatient, when Justice required it, to reward the Meritorious. [216] This is a reference to the secession of seven or eight actors in 1714, caused, according to Cibber, by Wilks's overbearing temper. See Chapter XV. [217] Downes and Davies give the following accounts of the transaction:— Some time after, a difference happening between the United Patentees, and the chief Actors: As Mr. Betterton; Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle; the latter complaining of Oppression from the former; they for Redress, Appeal'd to my Lord of Dorset, then Lord Chamberlain, for Justice; who Espousing the Cause of the Actors, with the assistance of Sir Robert Howard, finding their Complaints just, procur'd from King William, a Seperate License for Mr. Congreve, Mr. Betterton, Mrs. Bracegirdle and Mrs. Barry, and others, to set up a new Company, calling it the New Theatre in Lincolns-Inn-Fields.—Roscius Anglicanus, p. 43. The nobility, and all persons of eminence, favoured the cause of the comedians; the generous Dorset introduced Betterton, Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Bracegirdle, and others, to the King, who granted them an audience.... William, who had freed all the subjects of England from slavery, except the inhabitants of the mimical world, rescued them also from the insolence and tyranny of their oppressors.—Dram. Miscellanies, iii. 419. [218] 28th December, 1694. [219] The Comparison between the two Stages says (p. 7): 'twas almost impossible in Drury-Lane, to muster up a sufficient number to take in all the Parts of any Play. [220] See memoir of Johnson at end of second volume. [221] See memoir of Bullock at end of second volume. [222] I do not think that the date of this Licence has ever been stated. It was 25th March, 1695. [223] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 12: We know what importuning and dunning the Noblemen there was, what flattering, and what promising there was, till at length, the incouragement they received by liberal Contributions set 'em in a
- 22. Condition to go on. This theatre was the theatre in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields. See further details in Chap. XIII. [224] No doubt, Rich. [225] Downes says (p. 43), the House being fitted up from a Tennis-Court, they Open'd it the last Day of April, 1695. [226] It will be noticed that Downes in the passage quoted by me (p. 192, note 1) mentions Congreve as if he had been an original sharer in the Licence; but the statement is probably loosely made. [227] Bellchambers has here the following notes, the entire substance of which will be found in Malone (Shakespeare, 1821, iii. 170, et seq.): In Shakspeare's time the nightly expenses for lights, supernumeraries, etc., was but forty-five shillings, and having deducted this charge, the clear emoluments were divided into shares, (supposed to be forty in number,) between the proprietors, and principal actors. In the year 1666, the whole profit arising from acting plays, masques, etc., at the King's theatre, was divided into twelve shares and three quarters, of which Mr. Killegrew, the manager, had two shares and three quarters, each share computed to produce about £250, net, per annum. In Sir William D'Avenant's company, from the time their new theatre was opened in Portugal-row, the total receipt, after deducting the nightly expenses, was divided into fifteen shares, of which it was agreed that ten should belong to D'Avenant, for various purposes, and the remainder be divided among the male members of his troops according to their rank and merit. I cannot relate the arrangement adopted by Betterton in Lincoln's-inn- fields, but the share accepted by Congreve was, doubtless, presumed to be of considerable value. Dryden had a share and a quarter in the king's company, for which he bound himself to furnish not two, but three plays every season. The following paper, which, after remaining long in the Killegrew family, came into the hands of the late Mr. Reed, and was published by Mr. Malone in his 'Historical Account of the English Stage,' incontestably proves the practice alluded to. The superscription is lost, but it was probably addressed to the lord- chamberlain, or the king, about the year 1678, 'Œdipus,' the ground of complaint, being printed in 1679: 'Whereas upon Mr. Dryden's binding himself to write three playes a yeere, hee the said Mr. Dryden was admitted and continued as a sharer in the king's playhouse for diverse years, and received for
- 23. his share and a quarter three or four hundred pounds, communibus annis; but though he received the moneys, we received not the playes, not one in a yeare. After which, the house being burnt, the company in building another, contracted great debts, so that shares fell much short of what they were formerly. Thereupon Mr. Dryden complaining to the company of his want of proffit, the company was so kind to him that they not only did not presse him for the playes which he so engaged to write for them, and for which he was paid beforehand, but they did also at his earnest request give him a third day for his last new play called All for Love; and at the receipt of the money of the said third day, he acknowledged it as a guift, and a particular kindnesse of the company. Yet notwithstanding this kind proceeding, Mr. Dryden has now, jointly with Mr. Lee, (who was in pension with us to the last day of our playing, and shall continue,) written a play called Oedipus, and given it to the Duke's company, contrary to his said agreement, his promise, and all gratitude, to the great prejudice and almost undoing of the company, they being the only poets remaining to us. Mr. Crowne, being under the like agreement with the duke's house, writt a play called The Destruction of Jerusalem, and being forced by their refusall of it, to bring it to us, the said company compelled us, after the studying of it, and a vast expence in scenes and cloaths, to buy off their clayme, by paying all the pension he had received from them, amounting to one hundred and twelve pounds paid by the king's company, besides near forty pounds he the said Mr. Crowne paid out of his owne pocket. 'These things considered, if notwithstanding Mr. Dryden's said agreement, promise, and moneys freely giving him for his said last new play, and the many titles we have to his writings, this play be judged away from us, we must submit. be judged away from us, we must submit. (Signed) 'Charles Killigrew. 'Charles Hart. 'Rich. Burt. 'Cardell Goodman. 'Mic. Mohun.' [228] The interval between the two plays cannot have been quite three years. The first was produced in April, 1695, the second some time in 1697.
- 24. [229] Produced early in 1700. [230] Mrs. Mountfort was now Mrs. Verbruggen. [231] The passage is:— The Freedom man was born to, you've restor'd, And to our World such Plenty you afford, It seems, like Eden, fruitful of its own accord. But since, in Paradise, frail Flesh gave Way, And when but two were made, both went astray; Forbear your Wonder, and the Fault forgive, If, in our larger Family, we grieve One falling Adam, and one tempted Eve. [232] In his Preface to Woman's Wit, Cibber says, But however a Fort is in a very poor Condition, that (in a Time of General War) has but a Handful of raw young Fellows to maintain it. He also talks of himself and his companions as an uncertain Company. [233] Bellchambers has here this note: Mr. Cibber's usage of the verb regret here, may be said to confirm the censure of Fielding, who urged, in reviewing some other of his inadvertencies, that it was 'needless for a great writer to understand his grammar.' See note 1 on page 69. [234] Genest (ii. 65) has the following criticism of Cibber's statement: There can be no doubt but that the acting at the Theatre Royal was miserably inferiour to what it had been—but perhaps Cibber's account is a little exaggerated—he had evidently a personal dislike to Powell—everything therefore that he says, directly or indirectly, against him must be received with some grains of allowance—Powell seems to have been eager to exhibit himself in some of Betterton's best parts, whereas a more diffident actor would have wished to avoid comparisons—we know from the Spectator that Powell was too apt to tear a passion to tatters, but still he must have been an actor of considerable reputation at this time, or he would not have been cast for several good parts before the division of the Company. [235] Old Bachelor, act iv. sc. 4:— Fondlewife. Come kiss Nykin once more, and then get you in—So —Get you in, get you in. By by.
- 25. Lætitia. By, Nykin. Fondlewife. By, Cocky. Lætitia. By, Nykin. Fondlewife. By, Cocky, by, by. [236] Regarding Powell's playing in imitation of Betterton, Chetwood (History of the Stage, p. 155) says: Mr. George Powel, a reputable Actor, with many Excellencies, gave out, that he would perform the part of Sir John Falstaff in the manner of that very excellent English Roscius, Mr. Betterton. He certainly hit his Manner, and Tone of Voice, yet to make the Picture more like, he mimic'd the Infirmities of Distemper, old Age, and the afflicting Pains of the Gout, which that great Man was often seiz'd with. [237] Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli. Juvenal, i. 85. [238] That is, January, 1696. The cast was:— Love's last Shift; or, the Fool in Fashion. Sir William Wisewoud Mr. Johnson. Loveless Mr. Verbruggen. Sir Novelty Fashion Mr. Cibber. Elder Worthy Mr. Williams. Young Worthy Mr. Horden. Snap Mr. Penkethman. Sly Mr. Bullock. Lawyer Mr. Mills. Amanda Mrs. Rogers. Narcissa Mrs. Verbruggen. Hillaria Mrs. Cibber. Mrs. Flareit Mrs. Kent. Amanda's Woman Mrs. Lucas. [239] In the Dedication to this play Cibber says that Mr. Southern's Good-nature (whose own Works best recommend his Judgment) engaged his Reputation for the Success.
- 26. [240] Gildon praises this play highly in the Comparison between the two Stages, p. 25:— Ramble. Ay, marry, that Play was the Philosopher's Stone; I think it did wonders. Sullen. It did so, and very deservedly; there being few Comedies that came up to't for purity of Plot, Manners and Moral: It's often acted now a daies, and by the help of the Author's own good action, it pleases to this Day. [241] Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 437) says: So little was hoped from the genius of Cibber, that the critics reproached him with stealing his play. To his censurers he makes a serious defence of himself, in his dedication to Richard Norton, Esq., of Southwick, a gentleman who was so fond of stage-plays and players, that he has been accused of turning his chapel into a theatre. The furious John Dennis, who hated Cibber for obstructing, as he imagined, the progress of his tragedy called the Invader of his Country, in very passionate terms denies his claim to this comedy: 'When the Fool in Fashion was first acted (says the critic) Cibber was hardly twenty years of age—how could he, at the age of twenty, write a comedy with a just design, distinguished characters, and a proper dialogue, who now, at forty, treats us with Hibernian sense and Hibernian English?' [242] This same accusation was made against Cibber on other occasions. Dr. Johnson, referring to one of these, said: There was no reason to believe that the Careless Husband was not written by himself.—Boswell's Johnson, ii. 340. [243] The Relapse; or, Virtue in Danger, was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. Cibber's part in it, Lord Foppington, became one of his most famous characters. The Comparison between the two Stages, p. 32, says: Oronoko, Æsop, and Relapse are Master- pieces, and subsisted Drury-lane House, the first two or three Years. [244] The Provoked Wife was produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1697; and, as Cibber states, Æsop was played at Drury Lane in the same year. It seems (see Prologue to The Confederacy) that Vanbrugh gave his first three plays as presents to the Companies. [245] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 12: In the meantime the Mushrooms in Drury-Lane shoot up from such a
- 27. desolate Fortune into a considerable Name; and not only grappled with their Rivals, but almost eclipst 'em. [246] The last performance of this comedy which Genest indexes was at Covent Garden, 14th February, 1763. [247] Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 469) says: The truth is, Cibber was endured, in this and other tragic parts, on account of his general merit in comedy; and the author of The Laureat, p. 41, remarks: I have often heard him blamed as a Trifler in that Part; he was rarely perfect, and, abating for the Badness of his Voice and the Insignificancy and Meanness of his Action, he did not seem to understand either what he said or what he was about. [248] The Laureat, p. 44: Whatever the Actors appeard upon the Stage, they were most of them Barbarians off on't, few of them having had the Education, or whose Fortunes could admit them to the Conversation of Gentlemen. [249] Davies praises Cibber in Fondlewife, saying that he was much and justly admired and applauded (Dram. Misc., iii. 391); and in the same work (i. 306) he gives an admirable sketch of Cibber as Justice Shallow:— Whether he was a copy or an original in Shallow, it is certain no audience was ever more fixed in deep attention, at his first appearance, or more shaken with laughter in the progress of the scene, than at Colley Cibber's exhibition of this ridiculous justice of peace. Some years after he had left the stage, he acted Shallow for his son's benefit. I believe in 1737, when Quin was the Falstaff, and Milward the King. Whether it was owing to the pleasure the spectators felt on seeing their old friend return to them again, though for that night only, after an absence of some years, I know not; but, surely, no actor or audience were better pleased with each other. His manner was so perfectly simple, his look so vacant, when he questioned his cousin Silence about the price of ewes, and lamented, in the same breath, with silly surprise, the death of Old Double, that it will be impossible for any surviving spectator not to smile at the remembrance of it. The want of ideas occasions Shallow to repeat almost every thing he says. Cibber's transition, from asking the price of bullocks, to trite, but grave reflections on mortality, was so natural, and attended with such an unmeaning roll of his small pigs-eyes, accompanied with an important utterance of tick! tick! tick! not much louder than the balance of a watch, that I question if any
- 28. actor was ever superior in the conception or expression of such solemn insignificancy. [250] I presume Cibber means 1695. The Company was self- governed from its commencement in 1695, and the disintegration seems to have begun in the next season. See what Cibber says of Dogget's defection a few pages on. [251] In Lee's tragedy of Cæsar Borgia, originally played at Dorset Garden in 1680. Borgia was Betterton's part, and was evidently one of those which Powell laid violent hands on. [252] Among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is a curious Decision, dated 26 Oct. 1696, regarding this desertion. By it, Dogget, who is stated to have been seduced from Lincoln's Inn Fields, is permitted to act where he likes. [253] Genest's list of Dogget's characters shows that he was apparently not engaged 1698 to 1700, both inclusive; for the seasons 1706-7 and 1707-8; and for the season 1708-9. This would make the three occasions mentioned by Cibber. [254] Dryden, in his Address to Granville on his tragedy of Heroic Love in 1698, says of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company:— Their setting sun still shoots a glimmering ray, Like ancient Rome, majestic in decay; And better gleanings their worn soil can boast, Than the crab-vintage of the neighbouring coast. [255] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 13: But this [the success of 'Love for Love'] like other things of that kind, being only nine Days wonder, and the Audiences, being in a little time sated with the Novelty of the New-house, return in Shoals to the Old. [256] Cibber says nothing of his having been a member of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company. But he was, for he writes in his Preface to Woman's Wit: during the Time of my writing the two first Acts I was entertain'd at the New Theatre.... In the Middle of my Writing the Third Act, not liking my Station there, I return'd again to the Theatre Royal. Cibber must have joined Betterton, I should think, about the end of 1696. It is curious that he should in his Apology have entirely suppressed this incident. It almost suggests that there was something in it of which he was in later years somewhat ashamed.
- 29. [257] Comparison between the two Stages, p. 14: The Town ... chang'd their Inclinations for the two Houses, as they found 'emselves inclin'd to Comedy or Tragedy: If they desir'd a Tragedy, they went to Lincolns-Inn-Fields; if to Comedy, they flockt to Drury-lane. [258] Christopher Rich, of whom the Comparison between the two Stages says (p. 15): Critick. In the other House there's an old snarling Lawyer Master and Sovereign; a waspish, ignorant, pettifogger in Law and Poetry; one who understands Poetry no more than Algebra; he wou'd sooner have the Grace of God than do everybody Justice. [259] This privilege seems to have been granted about 1697 or 1698. It was not abolished till 1737. On 5th May, 1737, footmen having been deprived of their privilege, 300 of them broke into Drury Lane and did great damage. Many were, however, arrested, and no attempt was made to renew hostilities. [260] Queen Anne issued several Edicts forbidding persons to be admitted behind the scenes, and in the advertisements of both theatres there appeared the announcement, By Her Majesty's Command no Persons are to be admitted behind the Scenes. Cibber here, no doubt, refers to the Sign Manual of 13 Nov. 1711, a copy of which is among the Chamberlain's Papers. [261] Cibber is probably incorrect here. It seems certain from the bills that Wilks did not re-appear in London before 1698. [262] See note on page 235. [263] The Laureat, p. 44: Wilks, in this Part of Palamede, behav'd with a modest Diffidence, and yet maintain'd the Spirit of his Part. The author says, on the same page, that Powel never could appear a Gentleman. His Conversation, his Manners, his Dress, neither on nor off the Stage, bore any Similitude to that Character. [264] The Laureat, p. 44: I believe he (Wilks) was obliged to fight the Heroic George Powel, as well as one or two others, who were piqued at his being so highly encouraged by the Town, and their Rival, before he cou'd be quiet. [265] Powell seems to have been at Lincoln's Inn Fields for two seasons, those of 1702 and 1703, and for part of a third, 1703-4. He returned to Drury Lane about June, 1704. For the arbitrary conduct of the Lord Chamberlain, in allowing him to desert to
- 30. Lincoln's Inn Fields (or the Haymarket), but arresting him when he deserted back again to Drury Lane, see after, in Chap. X. [266] Cibber is here somewhat in the position of Satan reproving sin, if Davies's statements (Dram. Misc., iii. 480) are accurate. He says:— This attention to the gaming-table would not, we may be assured, render him [Cibber] fitter for his business of the stage. After many an unlucky run at Tom's Coffee-house [in Russell Street], he has arrived at the playhouse in great tranquillity; and then, humming over an opera-tune, he has walked on the stage not well prepared in the part he was to act. Cibber should not have reprehended Powell so severely for neglect and imperfect representation: I have seen him at fault where it was least expected; in parts which he had acted a hundred times, and particularly in Sir Courtly Nice; but Colley dexterously supplied the deficiency of his memory by prolonging his ceremonious bow to the lady, and drawling out 'Your humble servant, madam,' to an extraordinary length; then taking a pinch of snuff, and strutting deliberately across the stage, he has gravely asked the prompter, what is next? [267] The Laureat, p. 45: I have known him (Wilks) lay a Wager and win it, that he wou'd repeat the Part of Truewitt in the Silent Woman, which consists of thirty Lengths of Paper, as they call 'em, (that is, one Quarter of a Sheet on both Sides to a Length) without misplacing a single Word, or missing an (and) or an (or). [268] Alexander in The Rival Queens. [269] In The Man of the Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter. [270] Produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 29th January, 1728. [271] Love in a Riddle. A Pastoral. Produced at Drury Lane, 7th January, 1729. Arcas Mr. Mills. Ægon Mr. Harper. Amyntas Mr. Williams. Iphis Mrs. Thurmond. Philautus, a conceited Corinthian courtier Mr. Cibber.
- 31. Corydon Mr. Griffin. Cimon Mr. Miller. Mopsus Mr. Oates. Damon Mr. Ray. Ianthe, daughter to Arcas Mrs. Cibber. Pastora, daughter to Ægon Mrs. Lindar. Phillida, daughter to Corydon Mrs. Raftor. Mrs. Raftor (at this time Miss was not generally used) was afterwards the famous Mrs. Clive. Chetwood, in his History of the Stage, 1749 (p. 128), says: I remember the first night of Love in a Riddle (which was murder'd in the same Year) a Pastoral Opera wrote by the Laureat, which the Hydra-headed Multitude resolv'd to worry without hearing, a Custom with Authors of Merit, when Miss Raftor came on in the part of Phillida, the monstrous Roar subsided. A Person in the Stage-Box, next to my Post, called out to his Companion in the following elegant Style—'Zounds! Tom! take Care! or this charming little Devil will save all.' Chetwood's Post was that of Prompter. [272] Martial, xiii. 2, 8. [273] Cibber should have written Catiline. [274] This second part was called Polly. In his Preface Gay gives an account of its being vetoed. The prohibition undoubtedly was in revenge for the political satire in The Beggar's Opera. Polly was published by subscription, and probably brought the author more in that way than its production would have done. It was played for the first time at the Haymarket, 19th June, 1777. It is, as Genest says, miserably inferior to the first part. [275] Polly was officially prohibited on 12th December, 1728. [276] I know only one case in which a new piece is said to have been prohibited because the other house was going to play one on the same subject. This is Swiney's Quacks; or, Love's the Physician, produced at Drury Lane on 18th March, 1705, after being twice vetoed. Swiney in his Preface gives the above as the reason for the prohibition. [277] Cibber afterwards formed the best scenes of Love in a Riddle into a Ballad Opera, called Damon and Phillida. [278] Bellchambers notes that this was probably Mrs. Oldfield. But I think this more than doubtful, for this lady not only was fair, but
- 32. also, as Touchstone says, had the gift to know it. It is, of course, impossible to say decidedly to whom Cibber referred; but I fancy that Mrs. Barry is the actress who best fulfils the conditions, though, of course, I must admit that her having been dead for a quarter of a century weakens my case. [279] A bite is what we now term a sell. In The Spectator, Nos. 47 and 504, some account of Biters is given: a Race of Men that are perpetually employed in laughing at those Mistakes which are of their own Production. [280] This is a capital sketch of Christopher Rich. [281] Cibber's hint of Rich's weakness for the fair sex is corroborated by the Comparison between the two Stages, page 16: Critick. He is Monarch of the Stage, tho' he knows not how to govern one Province in his Dominion, but that of Signing, Sealing, and something else, that shall be nameless. [282] The Laureat, p. 48: If Minister Wilks was now alive to hear thee prate thus, Mr. Bayes, I would not give one Half-penny for thy Ears; but if he were alive, thou durst not for thy Ears rattle on in this affected Matchiavilian stile. [283] Characters in Ben Jonson's Silent Woman. [284] The Laureat, p. 49: Did you not, by your general Misbehaviour towards Authors and Actors, bring an Odium on your Brother Menagers, as well as yourself; and were not these, with many others, the Reasons, that sometimes gave Occasion to Wilks, to chastise you, with his Tongue only. [285] See memoir of John Mills at end of second volume. [286] John Mills, in the advertisement issued by Rich, in 1709, in the course of a dispute with his actors, is stated to have a salary of £4 a week for himself, and £1 a week for his wife, for little or nothing. This advertisement is quoted by me in Chap. XII. Mills's salary was the same as Betterton's. No doubt Cibber, Wilks, Dogget, and Booth had ultimately larger salaries, but they, of course, were managers as well as actors. [287] Booth seems to have joined the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company in 1700. [288] Steele's comedy was produced at Drury Lane in 1702. Cibber played Lord Hardy.
- 33. [289] The play was called Woman's Wit; or, the Lady in Fashion. It was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. It must have been in the early months of that year, for in his Preface Cibber says, to excuse its failure, that it was hurriedly written, and that rather than lose a Winter he forced himself to invent a fable. The Laureat, p. 50, stupidly says that the name of the play was Perolla and Isadora. The cast was:— Lord Lovemore Mr. Harland. Longville Mr. Penkethman. Jack Rakish Mr. Powel. Mass Johnny, Lady Manlove's Son, a schoolboy. Mr. Dogget. Father Benedic Mr. Smeaton. Lady Manlove Mrs. Powel. Leonora Mrs. Knight. Emilia Mrs. Rogers. Olivia Mrs. Cibber. Lettice Mrs. Kent. [290] Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae. Hor. Ars Poetica, 333. [291] Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci. Hor. Ars Poetica, 343. [292] Pepys (12th June, 1663) records that the Lady Mary Cromwell at the Theatre, when the House began to fill, put on her vizard, and so kept it on all the play; which of late is become a great fashion among the ladies, which hides their whole face. Very soon, however, ladies gave up the use of the mask, and Vizard-mask became a synonym for Prostitute. In this sense it is frequently used in Dryden's Prologues and Epilogues. [293] Compare with Cibber's condemnation Genest's opinion of this play. He says (i. 365): If it be the province of Comedy, not to retail morality to a yawning pit, but to make the audience laugh, and to keep them in good humour, this play must be allowed to be one of the best comedies in the English language.
- 34. [294] To The Pilgrim, revived in 1700, as Cibber states, Dryden's Secular Masque was attached. Whether the revival took place before or after Dryden's death (1st May, 1700) is a moot point. See Genest, ii. 179, for an admirable account of the matter. He thinks it probable that the date of production was 25th March, 1700. Cibber is scarcely accurate in stating that The Pilgrim was revived for Dryden's benefit. It seems, rather, that Vanbrugh, who revised the play, stipulated that, in consideration of Dryden's writing The Secular Masque, and also the Prologue and Epilogue, he should have the usual author's third night. The B. M. copy of The Pilgrim is dated, in an old handwriting, Monday, the 5 of May. [295] Jeremy Collier. [296] Genest notes (ii. 181) that in the original play the Servant in the 2nd act did not stutter. [297] Collier's famous work, which was entitled A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage: together with the sense of Antiquity upon this Argument, was published in 1698. Collier was a Nonjuring clergyman. He was born on 23rd September, 1650, and died in 1726. The circumstance to which Cibber alludes in the second paragraph from the present, was Collier's attending to the scaffold Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins, who were executed for complicity in plots against King William in 1696. [298] The facetious Joe Haines was an actor of great popularity, and seems to have excelled in the delivery of Prologues and Epilogues, especially of those written by himself. He was on the stage from about 1672 to 1700 or 1701, in which latter year (on the 4th of April) he died. He was the original Sparkish in Wycherley's Country Wife, Lord Plausible in the same author's Plain Dealer, and Tom Errand in Farquhar's Constant Couple. Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 284) tells, on Quin's authority, an anecdote of Haines's pretended conversion to Romanism during James the Second's reign. He declared that the Virgin Mary appeared to him in a vision. Lord Sunderland sent for Joe, and asked him about the truth of his conversion, and whether he had really seen the Virgin?—Yes, my Lord, I assure you it is a fact.— How was it, pray?—Why, as I was lying in my bed, the Virgin appeared to me, and said, Arise, Joe!—You lie, you rogue, said the Earl; for, if it had really been the Virgin herself, she would
- 35. have said Joseph, if it had been only out of respect to her husband. For an account of Haines, see also Anthony Aston. [299] The Laureat (p. 53) states that soon after the publication of Collier's book, informers were placed in different parts of the theatres, on whose information several players were charged with uttering immoral words. Queen Anne, however, satisfied that the informers were not actuated by zeal for morality, stopped the inquisition. These informers were paid by the Society for the Reformation of Manners. [300] Congreve's answer to Collier was entitled Amendments of Mr. Collier's false and imperfect Citations, c. from the Old Batchelour, Double Dealer, Love for Love, Mourning Bride. By the Author of those Plays. Vanbrugh called his reply, A Short Vindication of the Relapse and the Provok'd Wife, from Immorality and Prophaneness. By the Author. Davies says, regarding Congreve (Dram. Misc., iii. 401): Congreve's pride was hurt by Collier's attack on plays which all the world had admired and commended; and no hypocrite showed more rancour and resentment, when unmasked, than this author, so greatly celebrated for sweetness of temper and elegance of manners. [301] Charles Killigrew, who died in 1725, having held the office of Master of the Revels for over forty years. [302] Produced at Drury Lane in 1700. For some account of Cibber's playing of Richard, see ante, pp. 139, 140. [303] Chalmers (Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare Papers, page 535) comments unfavourably on Cibber's method of stating this fact, saying, Well might Pope cry out, modest Cibber! But Chalmers is unjust to Colley, who is not expressing his own opinion of his play's importance, but merely reporting the opinion of Killigrew. [304] Steele's name first appears in a License granted 18th October, 1714. His Patent was dated 19th January, 1715. [305] Chalmers (Apology for the Believers, page 536) says: The patentees sent Colley Cibber, as envoy-extraordinary, to negotiate an amicable settlement with the Sovereign of the Revels. It is amusing to hear, how this flippant negotiator explained his own pretensions, and attempted to invalidate the right of his opponent; as if a subsequent charter, under the great seal, could supersede a preceding grant under the same authority. Charles Killigrew, who was now sixty-five years of age, seems to
- 36. have been oppressed by the insolent civility of Colley Cibber. But this is an undeserved hit at Cibber, who had suffered the grossest injustice at Killigrew's hands regarding the licensing of Richard III. See ante, p. 275. The dispute regarding fees must have occurred about 1715. [306] The Licensing Act of 1737. This Act was passed by Sir Robert Walpole's government, and gave to the Lord Chamberlain the power to prohibit a piece from being acted at all, by making it necessary to have every play licensed. This power, however, had practically been exercised by the Chamberlain before, as in the case of Gay's Polly, which Cibber has already mentioned. The immediate cause of this Act of 1737 was a piece called The Golden Rump, which was so full of scurrility against the powers that were, that Giffard, the manager to whom it was submitted, carried it to Walpole. In spite of the opposition of Lord Chesterfield, who delivered a famous speech against it, the Bill was passed, 21st June, 1737. The Biographia Dramatica hints plainly that The Golden Rump was written at Walpole's instigation to afford an excuse for the Act. Bellchambers has the following note on this passage:— The Abbé Le Blanc,{A} who was in England at the time this law passed, has the following remarks upon it in his correspondence: — 'This act occasioned an universal murmur in the nation, and was openly complained of in the public papers: in all the coffee-houses of London it was treated as an unjust law, and manifestly contrary to the liberties of the people of England. When winter came, and the play-houses were opened, that of Covent-garden began with three new pieces, which had been approved of by the Lord Chamberlain. There was a crowd of spectators present at the first, and among the number myself. The best play in the world would not have succeeded the first night.{B} There was a resolution to damn whatever might appear, the word hiss not being sufficiently expressive for the English. They always say, to damn a piece, to damn an author, c. and, in reality, the word is not too strong to express the manner in which they receive a play which does not please them. The farce in question was damned indeed, without the least compassion: nor was that all, for the actors were driven off the stage, and happy was it for the author that he did not fall into the hands of this furious assembly.
- 37. 'As you are unacquainted with the customs of this country, you cannot easily devise who were the authors of all this disturbance. Perhaps you may think they were schoolboys, apprentices, clerks, or mechanics. No, sir, they were men of a very grave and genteel profession; they were lawyers, and please you; a body of gentlemen, perhaps less honoured, but certainly more feared here than they are in France. Most of them live in colleges,{C} where, conversing always with one another, they mutually preserve a spirit of independency through the body, and with great ease form cabals. These gentlemen, in the stage entertainments of London, behave much like our footboys, in those at a fair. With us, your party-coloured gentry are the most noisy; but here, men of the law have all the sway, if I may be permitted to call so those pretended professors of it, who are rather the organs of chicanery, than the interpreters of justice. 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 writers. 'The players were not dismayed, but soon after stuck up bills for another new piece: there was the same crowding at Covent- garden, to which I again contributed. I was sure, at least, that if the piece advertised was not performed, I should have the pleasure of beholding some very extraordinary scene acted in the pit. 'Half an hour before the play was to begin, the spectators gave notice of their dispositions by frightful hisses and outcries, equal, perhaps, to what were ever heard at a Roman amphitheatre. I could not have known, but by my eyes only, that I was among an assembly of beings who thought themselves to be reasonable. The author, who had foreseen this fury of the pit, took care to be armed against it. He knew what people he had to deal with, and, to make them easy, put in his prologue double the usual dose of incense that is offered to their vanity; for there is an established tax of this kind, from which no author is suffered to dispense himself. This author's wise precaution succeeded, and the men that were before so redoubtable grew calm; the charms of flattery, more strong than those of music, deprived them of all their fierceness.
- 38. 'You see, sir, that the pit is the same in all countries: it loves to be flattered, under the more genteel name of being complimented. If a man has tolerable address at panegyric, they swallow it greedily, and are easily quelled and intoxicated by the draught. Every one in particular thinks he merits the praise that is given to the whole in general; the illusion operates, and the prologue is good, only because it is artfully directed. Every one saves his own blush by the authority of the multitude he makes a part of, which is, perhaps, the only circumstance in which a man can think himself not obliged to be modest. 'The author having, by flattery, begun to tame this wild audience, proceeded entirely to reconcile it by the first scene of his performance. Two actors came in, one dressed in the English manner very decently, and the other with black eyebrows, a ribbon of an ell long under his chin, a bag-peruke immoderately powdered, and his nose all bedaubed with snuff. What Englishman could not know a Frenchman by this ridiculous picture! The common people of London think we are indeed such sort of folks, and of their own accord, add to our real follies all that their authors are pleased to give us. But when it was found, that the man thus equipped, being also laced down every seam of his coat, was nothing but a cook, the spectators were equally charmed and surprised. The author had taken care to make him speak all the impertinencies he could devise, and for that reason, all the impertinencies of his farce were excused, and the merit of it immediately decided. There was a long criticism upon our manners, our customs, and above all, upon our cookery. The excellence and virtues of English beef were cried up, and the author maintained, that it was owing to the qualities of its juice, that the English were so courageous, and had such a solidity of understanding, which raised them above all the nations in Europe: he preferred the noble old English pudding beyond all the finest ragouts that were ever invented by the greatest geniuses that France has produced; and all these ingenious strokes were loudly clapped by the audience. 'The pit, biassed by the abuse that was thrown on the French, forgot that they came to damn the play, and maintain the ancient liberty of the stage. They were friends with the players, and even with the court itself, and contented themselves with the privilege left them, of lashing our nation as much as they pleased, in the room of laughing at the expense of the minister. The license of authors did not seem to be too much restrained, since the court
- 39. did not hinder them from saying all the ill they could of the French. 'Intractable as the populace appear in this country, those who know how to take hold of their foibles, may easily carry their point. Thus is the liberty of the stage reduced to just bounds, and yet the English pit makes no farther attempt to oppose the new regulation. The law is executed without the least trouble, all the plays since having been quietly heard, and either succeeded, or not, according to their merit.' See article in Mr. Archer's About the Theatre, p. 101, and Parliamentary Reports, 1832 and 1866. {A} Mr. Garrick, when in Paris, refused to meet this writer, on account of the irreverence with which he had treated Shakspeare. {B} The action was interrupted almost as soon as begun, in presence of a numerous assembly, by a cabal who had resolved to overthrow the first effect of this act of parliament, though it had been thought necessary for the regulation of the stage. {C} Called here Inns of Court, as the two Temples, Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Doctor's Commons, c. [307] The theatre in Goodman's Fields was opened in October, 1729, by Thomas Odell, who was afterwards Deputy Licenser under the 1737 Act. Odell, having no theatrical experience, entrusted the management to Henry Giffard. Odell's theatre seems to have been in Leman Street. [308] I can find no hint that plays were ever stopped at Odell's theatre. There is a pamphlet, published in 1730, with the following title: A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Richard Brocas, Lord Mayor of London. By a Citizen, which demands the closing of the theatre, but I do not suppose any practical result followed. In 1733 an attempt by the Patentees of Drury Lane and Covent Garden to silence Giffard's Company, then playing at his new theatre in Goodman's Fields, was unsuccessful. This theatre was in Ayliffe Street. [309] Half of Booth's share of the Patent was purchased by Highmore, who also bought the whole of Cibber's share. Giffard was the purchaser of the remainder of Booth's share.
- 40. [310] This was John Harper. Davies (Life of Garrick, i. 40) says that The reason of the Patentees fixing on Harper was in consequence of his natural timidity. His trial was on the 20th November, 1733. Harper was a low comedian of some ability, but of no great note. [311] Cibber again alludes to this in Chap. XIII. [312] Sir Francis Wronghead is a character in The Provoked Husband, a country squire who comes to London to seek a place at Court. In Act iv. Sir Francis relates his interview with a certain great man: Sir Francis, says my lord, pray what sort of a place may you ha' turned your thoughts upon? My lord, says I, beggars must not be chusers; but ony place, says I, about a thousand a- year, will be well enough to be doing with, till something better falls in—for I thowght it would not look well to stond haggling with him at first. [313] Giffard seems to have retained his sixth part. [314] Some account of the entire dispute between Highmore and his actors will be found in my Supplement to this book. [315] This broken Wit was Henry Fielding, between whom and Cibber there was war to the knife, Fielding taking every opportunity of mocking at Colley and attacking his works. Mr. Austin Dobson, in his Fielding, page 66, writes: When the Champion was rather more than a year old, Colley Cibber published his famous Apology. To the attacks made upon him by Fielding at different times he had hitherto printed no reply— perhaps he had no opportunity of doing so. But in his eighth chapter, when speaking of the causes which led to the Licensing Act, he takes occasion to refer to his assailant in terms which Fielding must have found exceedingly galling. He carefully abstained from mentioning his name, on the ground that it could do him no good, and was of no importance; but he described him as 'a broken Wit,' c. Mr. Dobson, on page 69, gives his approval to the theory that Fielding had openly expressed resentment at being described by Cibber as 'a broken wit,' without being mentioned by name. [316] The use of channel, meaning gutter, is obsolete in England; but I am sure that I have heard it used in that sense in Scotland. Shakespeare in King Henry the Sixth, third part, act ii. sc. 2, has,
- 41. As if a channel should be called the sea. And in Marlowe's Edward the Second, act i. sc. 1, occur the lines:— Throw off his golden mitre, rend his stole, And in the channel christen him anew. [317] Juvenal, i. 73. [318] Mr. Dobson (Fielding, page 67) says: He [Cibber] called him, either in allusion to his stature, or his pseudonym in the Champion, a 'Herculean Satyrist,' a 'Drawcansir in Wit.' [319] Fielding's political satires, in such pieces as Pasquin and The Historical Register for 1736, contributed largely to the passing of the Act of 1737, although The Golden Rump was the ostensible cause. [320] Fielding, in the Champion for Tuesday, April 22nd, 1740, says of Cibber's refusal to quote from Pasquin—the good Parent seems to imagine that he hath produced, as well as my Lord Clarendon, a [Greek: Ktêma es aei]; for he refuses to quote anything out of Pasquin, lest he should give it a chance of being remembered. Mr. Dobson (Fielding, page 69) says Fielding never seems to have wholly forgotten his animosity to the actor, to whom there are frequent references in Joseph Andrews; and, as late as 1749, he is still found harping on 'the withered laurel' in a letter to Lyttelton. Even in his last work, the Voyage to Lisbon, Cibber's name is mentioned. The origin of this protracted feud is obscure; but, apart from want of sympathy, it must probably be sought for in some early misunderstanding between the two in their capacities of manager and author. [321] By Lord Chesterfield. [322] Horace, Ars Poetica, 180. [323] Guiscard's attack on Harley occurred in 1711. [324] Genest (iii. 521) remarks, If the power of the Licenser had been laid under proper regulations, all would have been right. The whole objection to the Licenser is simply that he is under no regulations whatever. He is a perfectly irresponsible authority, and one from whose decisions there is no appeal.
- 42. [325] Cibber received three thousand guineas from Highmore for his share in the Patent (See Victor's History, i. 8). [326] The Laureat, page 72: Indeed, Laureat, notwithstanding what thou may'st dream of the Immortality of this Work of thine, and bestowing the same on thy Favourites by recording them here; thou mayst, old as thou art, live to see thy precious Labours become the vile Wrappers of Pastry-Grocers and Chandlery Wares. The issue of the present edition of Cibber's Apology is sufficient commentary on The Laureat's ill-natured prophecy. [327] Cibber prints 1684, repeating his former blunder. (See p. 96.) [328] The first play acted by the United Company was Hamlet. In this Estcourt is cast for the Gravedigger, so that if Cibber's anecdote is accurate, as no doubt it is, Estcourt must have doubled the Gravedigger and the speaker of the Prologue. [329] The first edition reads 1708, and in the next chapter Cibber says 1708. In point of fact, the first performance by the United Company took place 15th January, 1708. This does not make Estcourt's gag incorrect, for though we now should not consider May, 1707, and the following January in the same year, yet up to 1752, when the style was changed in England, they were so. [330] Southerne's Oroonoko was produced at Drury Lane in 1696. [331] Of Horden we know little more than Cibber tells us. He seems to have been on the stage only for a year or two; and during 1696 only, at Drury Lane, does his name appear to important parts. Davies (Dram. Misc., iii. 443) says Horden was bred a Scholar: he complimented George Powell, in a Latin encomium on his Treacherous Brothers. The London News-Letter, 20th May, 1696, says: On Monday Capt. Burges who kill'd Mr. Fane, and was found guilty of Manslaughter at the Old Baily, kill'd Mr. Harding a Comedian in a Quarrel at the Rose Tavern in Hatton [should be Covent] Garden, and is taken into custody. In Luttrell's Diary, on Tuesday, 19th May, 1696, is noted: Captain Burgesse, convicted last sessions of manslaughter for killing Mr. Fane, is committed to the Gatehouse for killing Mr. Horden, of the Playhouse, last night in Covent Garden.
- 43. And on Tuesday, 30th November, 1697, Captain Burgesse, who killed Mr. Horden the player, has obtained his majesties pardon. [332] This tavern seems to have been very near Drury Lane Theatre, and to have been a favourite place of resort after the play. In the Epilogue to the Constant Couple the Rose Tavern is mentioned:— Now all depart, each his respective way, To spend an evening's chat upon the play; Some to Hippolito's; one homeward goes, And one with loving she, retires to th' Rose. In the Comparison between the two Stages one scene is laid in the Rose Tavern, and from it we gather that the house was of a very bad character:— Ramb. Defend us! what a hurry of Sin is in this House! Sull. Drunkenness, which is the proper Iniquity of a Tavern, is here the most excusable Sin; so many other Sins over-run it, 'tis hardly seen in the crowd.... Sull. This House is the very Camp of Sin; the Devil sets up his black Standard in the Faces of these hungry Harlots, and to enter into their Trenches is going down to the Bottomless Pit according to the letter.—Comp., p. 140. Pepys mentions the Rose more than once. On 18th May, 1668, the first day of Sedley's play, The Mulberry Garden, the diarist, having secured his place in the pit, and feeling hungry, did slip out, getting a boy to keep my place; and to the Rose Tavern, and there got half a breast of mutton, off the spit, and dined all alone. And so to the play again. [333] Cibber's chronology cannot be reconciled with what we believe to be facts. Horden was killed in 1696; Wilks seems to have come to England not earlier than the end of 1698, while it is, I should say, certain that Estcourt did not appear before 1704. I can only suppose that Cibber, who is very reckless in his dates, is here particularly confused. [334] For Leigh's playing of this character, see ante, p. 145. [335] Curll, in his Life of Mrs. Oldfield, says that the only part she played, previous to appearing as Alinda, was Candiope in Secret Love. She played Alinda in 1700.
- 44. [336] In 1702, Gildon, in the Comparison between the two Stages (p. 200), includes Mrs. Oldfield among the meer Rubbish that ought to be swept off the Stage with the Filth and Dust. [337] Miff, a colloquial expression signifying a slight degree of resentment. [338] Cibber is pleasantly candid in allowing that he had no share in Mrs. Oldfield's success. The temptation to assume some credit for teaching her something must have been great. [339] Mrs. Anne Oldfield, born about 1683, was introduced to Vanbrugh by Farquhar, who accidentally heard her reading aloud, and was struck by her dramatic style. Cibber gives so full an account of her that it is only necessary to add that she made her last appearance on 28th April, 1730, at Drury Lane, and that she died on the 23rd October in the same year. It was of Mrs. Oldfield that Pope wrote the often-quoted lines (Moral Essays, Epistle I., Part iii.):— Odious! in woollen! 'twould a saint provoke (Were the last words that poor Narcissa spoke), No, let a charming chintz and Brussels lace Wrap my cold limbs, and shade my lifeless face: One would not, sure, be frightful when one's dead— And—Betty—give this cheek a little red. I may note that, though Cibber enlarges chiefly on her comedy acting, she acted many parts in tragedy with the greatest success. [340] Produced 7th December, 1704, at Drury Lane. The Careless Husband Lord Morelove Mr. Powel. Lord Foppington Mr. Cibber. Sir Charles Easy Mr. Wilks. Lady Betty Modish Mrs. Oldfield. Lady Easy Mrs. Knight. Lady Graveairs Mrs. Moore. Mrs. Edging Mrs. Lucas. [341] Mrs. Oldfield played Lady Townly in the Provoked Husband, 10th January, 1728. I presume that Cibber means that this was her last important original part, for she was the original
- 45. representative of Sophonisba (by James Thomson) and other characters after January, 1728. [342] The Provoked Husband Lord Townly Mr. Wilks. Lady Townly Mrs. Oldfield. Lady Grace Mrs. Porter. Mr. Manley Mr. Mills, sen. Sir Francis Wronghead Mr. Cibber, Sen. Lady Wronghead Mrs. Thurmond. Squire Richard Young Wetherelt. Miss Jenny Mrs. Cibber. John Moody Mr. Miller. Count Basset Mr. Bridgewater. Mrs. Motherly Mrs. Moore. Myrtilla Mrs. Grace. Mrs. Trusty Mrs. Mills. Vanbrugh left behind him nearly four acts of a play entitled A Journey to London, which Cibber completed, calling the finished work The Provoked Husband. It was produced at Drury Lane on 10th January, 1728. [343] Verum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis Offendar maculis.—Horace, Ars Poetica, 351. [344] The Laureat, p. 57: But I can see no Occasion you have to mention any Errors. She had fewer as an Actress than any; and neither you, nor I, have any Right to enquire into her Conduct any where else. [345] The following is the passage referred to:— But there is no doing right to Mrs. Oldfield, without putting people in mind of what others, of great merit, have wanted to come near her—'Tis not enough to say, she here outdid her usual excellence. I might therefore justly leave her to the constant admiration of those spectators who have the pleasure of living while she is an actress. But as this is not the only time she has been the life of what I have given the public, so, perhaps, my
- 46. saying a little more of so memorable an actress, may give this play a chance to be read when the people of this age shall be ancestors—May it therefore give emulation to our successors of the stage, to know, that to the ending of the year 1727, a cotemporary comedian relates, that Mrs. Oldfield was then in her highest excellence of action, happy in all the rarely found requisites that meet in one person to complete them for the stage. She was in stature just rising to that height, where the graceful can only begin to show itself; of a lively aspect, and a command in her mien, that like the principal figure in the finest painting, first seizes, and longest delights, the eye of the spectators. Her voice was sweet, strong, piercing, and melodious; her pronunciation voluble, distinct, and musical; and her emphasis always placed, where the spirit of the sense, in her periods, only demanded it. If she delighted more in the higher comic, than in the tragic strain, 'twas because the last is too often written in a lofty disregard of nature. But in characters of modern practised life, she found occasion to add the particular air and manner which distinguished the different humours she presented; whereas, in tragedy, the manner of speaking varies as little as the blank verse it is written in.—She had one peculiar happiness from nature, she looked and maintained the agreeable, at a time when other fine women only raise admirers by their understanding—The spectator was always as much informed by her eyes as her elocution; for the look is the only proof that an actor rightly conceives what he utters, there being scarce an instance, where the eyes do their part, that the elocution is known to be faulty. The qualities she had acquired, were the genteel and the elegant; the one in her air, and the other in her dress, never had her equal on the stage; and the ornaments she herself provided (particularly in this play) seemed in all respects the paraphernalia of a woman of quality. And of that sort were the characters she chiefly excelled in; but her natural good sense, and lively turn of conversation, made her way so easy to ladies of the highest rank, that it is a less wonder if, on the stage, she sometimes was, what might have become the finest woman in real life to have supported. [Bell's edition.] [346] Mr. Julian Marshall, in his Annals of Tennis, p. 34, describes the two different sorts of tennis courts—that which was called Le Quarré, or the Square; and the other with the dedans, which is almost the same as that of the present day. Cibber is
- 47. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com