p. 28

[For the Sunday Dispatch]
THE PHILADELPHIA STAGE;
FROM 1749 to 1821.

BY CHARLES DURANG.
PARTLY COMPILED FROM THE PAPERS OF HIS FATHER THE LATE
JOHN DURANG; WITH NOTES BY THE EDITORS.

CHAPTER I.
Introduction--Theatrical company of 1750--Interfered with
by the authorities--Early anti-theatrical legislation--Gar-
rick's success the cause of hte introduction of an English
company to America--Garrick's early struggles and tri-
umphs--William Hallam--Lewis Hallam--Organization
of a company to visit America--Preparations and anti-
cipations.

"The imitation of life--the mirror of manners--the re-
presentative of truth"--Cicero.

"Nothing existentuate,
Nor set down aught in malice."--Shakespeare.
e herein purpose to offer naught but desultory sketches of theatrical matters (principally pertaining to the Philadelphia stage) within a
definite period of the olden time. They may prove
entertaining to the general dramatic reader, and
serviceable data to the future histrionic historian
who may deem the subject worthy of more capable
and elaborate treatment. A love for the drama
and its mirror, the stage--the latter being the
practical illustration of the beautiful thoughts
of the former--exists in the heart of man. Con-
ceived in virtue, cradled in the purest morals,
connate in birth, together the twin stars arose
and threw the golden tissue of their mantles
over the feelings and imaginations of mankind.
They have swayed our rugged natures to soften-
ed and refined action; subdued our souls to love;
and all history proves our predilection for their
enchanting attributes. Hail! thrice hail! the
scenic muses, full of grace! If, therefore, the
principles of the drama are inherent in our
natures, vain must be the absurd endeavor to
annihilate so predominant a feeling of our very
earliest instincts. Truths so transparent sould
teach the busy reformers of morals in our social
relations to pause in their bigoted denunciations
of innocent enjoyments. While they heedlessly
denounce in indiscriminating, coarse condemna-
tion, they unwisely strive to destroy that which
is as indestructible as matter. It should be re-
membered that attempts to produce the trans-
mutation of gold often yield a baser metal. It
has been well said of actors, by a celebrated
English author and dramatic critic:

Formerly, the deeds of actors were of some moment.
Society was proud of these pleasant mimies. They were
no longer (as they had been in rude times) wanderers over
the land; no longer "vagabonds" grimaching for their bar-
ley bread in barns and ale-houses. They had become sta-
tionary; they had risen of good manners, of good educa-
tion, even genius. Fashion followed them; the wits and
high intellects of the time busied themselves with their
merits; and they formed, upon the whole, a body well en-
titled to distinction and respect. For they unquestionably
diffused more pleasure among all classes of men than any
other body of people whatsoever; and they materially in-
fluenced the progress of civilization; improving the morals
and raising and giving refinement to the public taste.

The introduction of the drama in our country
by the assistance of regular performers, had a
more elevated emanation than is generally sup-
posed* A splendid era of the London stage has-

*Mr. Durangs's attention has been turned particularly to
the introduction of the drama into America by "regular
performers" . It is proper for a correct understanding of
our dramatic history, that it should be known that plays
were performed in Philadelphia more than four years be-
fore the arrival of Hallam's company. Our memorials of these
dramatic pioneers are scanty. The only reference which
we have been able to find the subject is the minutes of
the corporation of the city of Philadelphia for the meeting
of January 8th, 1749-50, which, in the new style, would
be January, 1750. It is as follows:

tened the very early foundation of our first, though
rude, dramatic temple. The introduction of the
drama among us by actors of acknowleged
genius, was owing to the brilliant sudden suc-
cess of Garrick, who arose like a new-discovered
planet in the theatrical hemisphere, eclipsing all
former luminaries in the intense refulgency of
his rare genius.

In 1741 Garrick solicited an appearance at
both Drury Lane and Convent Garden, but was
most cavalierly rejected by Fleetwood and
Rich, the managers of those royal houses, then
in the zenith of their fame. Thus repudiated
by the metropolitan theatres, his mortified spirit
sought provincial protection. On the Ipswich
stage he flashed his youthful genius, and, after a
flattering probation that gave a preliminary
taste of his great future, he returned to London
to "flutter the Volscians" who had so uncere-
moniously condemned, unheard, his matchless
talent. It is a strange coincidence that Mrs.
Siddons should have received similar treatment
on her first appearance at London, (and that, too,
after a taste of her quality) through the means
of Garrick. That great tragedienne received a
summary dismissal through the common me-
dium of a prompter's note. This event was the
more extraordinary, as she received a subse-
quently the sanction of the Bath audience, then

"The Recorder then acquianted the Board that certain
persons had lately taken upon them to act plays in this
city, and as he was informed, intended, to make a frequent
practice thereof: which, it was feared, would be attended
with very mischievous effects, such as the encouraging of
idleness, and drawing great sums of money from weak and
inconsiderate people, who are apt to be fond of such kinds
of entertainments, though the performance be ever so mean
and contemptible. Whereupon the Board unanimously
requested the magistrates to take the most effectual mea
sures for suppressing this disorder, by sending for the
actors and binding them to their good behaviour, or by such
other means as they should judge most proper."

There is no doubt but that this company assumed to be
sufficient adepts in the dramatic art to be entitled to charge
for admission, and that their representations had been in
tended by fair audiences. The reference of the Recorder
to the expenditures of money by "weak and inconsiderate
persons" is a proof that our dramatic corps had sold tickets:
whilst his sneer at "mean and contemptible performances"
might have been a biased criticism on the acting. The
fate of the unfortunate thespians who thus dared to run
counter to the prejudices of the town, is not known. Pro-
bably the denunciation of the terrors of the law was suffi-
cient to frighten them, although, there was no statute
against theatrical performances at the time. The history
of our early legislation is very curious on this subject.
There was a continual struggle on the part of the Quakers
to prevent the introduction of theatrical performances in
the province, and as firm a resolution on the part of the
English government to prevent such laws from going into
force. In 1705, the Assembly passed a law "against riot-
ous sports, plays and games". It was repealed the same
year by the Queen and Privy Council. The Assembly re-
enacted the law in the same year. It was repealed in England on the 24th of October 1709. In 1711, the Assembly again passed a law against "sports, plays, and games." It was repealed in February, 1713. At this point the Assem-
bly gave up the conte500 st for a period. There was no prohi-
bition against stage plays till 1759, when an Act was passed
"agasint lottteries and plays" reciting that "several com-
panies of idle persons and strollers have lately come into
this province from foreign parts, in the character of play-
yers" &c. and prohibiting the exhibition of plays under a
penalty of [pounds] 500. This Act was repealed immediately in
England. In January 1750, there was no law against
plays or theatrical entertainments, and the effort of his
Honor the Recorder to prevent these exhibitions was a
stretch of power not uncommon in times when might made
right. We have no reliable data as to the character of these
actors, whether they were offshoots from the profession who
had left England, or whether they were Americans , and
self-taught geniuses. The belief is that they were amateurs.
We are also without any reliable information as to the place
where their exhibitions were given. In order ot prevent
any misunderstanding as to the time of these perform
ances, it is proper that we should say that the confusion
between the new and old style has caused a s tatement to
be made that the performances of the Philadelphia com-
pany were in 1748. There is no doubt but that the Re-
corder made his complaint in 1750, as, at the same meeeting,
reference was made to events in September, 1749. The the-
atrical company may have played during the month of De-
cember, 1749, and January, 1750, new style.

deemed the most polished and critical in Eng-
land. The Bath theatre had been for y ears the
preliminary nursery to the London stage.
It was this lady's fortune to receive the counte-
nance of those circles that led the fashion and
formed the opinions in that elegant city.
Among her patrons we find the Duchess of De-
vonshire, the poet Whalley, then in the enjoy-
ment of literary celebrity, and many others of
great distinction. To thier vast influence, this
rare artiste was mainly indebted for the privi-
lege of a second trail in the metropolis. Mrs.
Siddon's first efforts form a striking parallel to
those of the elder Kean. In the obscurity of her
earliest professional life, the most warm eulo-
giums and flattering presages of her future fame were awarded by many discriminating minds.
The majestic expression of classical features
which mirrored the embryo functions of a tran-
scendant genius, that beamed in all the softness
of 18, with the external attributs of a symme-
trical figure and polished manners, under the
guidance of an energetic and cultivated mind,
emphatically declared the future "Tragic Muse!"

"Mrs. Siddons made her first appearance at
Drury Lane in 'Portia' says D. Terry "without
any very powerful effect, and the parts after-
wards allotted to her were of a very secondary
and subordinate class."
"She walked as Venus, in the jubilee proces-
sion."

"Woodfall also, it appears, entertained but a
slender opinion of her abilities, and advised her,
in the Morning Chronicle, to return into the coun-
try, where the small theatres might be better
adapted to her very feeble voice."

Thus say her biographers. These failures
have been common to the London stage, and were
often the result of the British genius in its early es-
says. When public perception is dull, or blind
to legitimate talent, the cause can only be attributed to prejudice, which often, in human na-
ture, conquers a clear judgement.

Giffard, properitor and manger of the theatre
in Goodman's Fields, happened to be the friend of
Garrick; he extended to him his protection, and
gave him the opportunity of acting on the boards
of his theatre. This was a lucky hit for both
the manager and actors. Garrick's name at once
illuminated the town--Goodman's Fields became,
as by magic, the focus of fashion, learned cri-
ticism and overflowing houses. Croweds of all
castes thronged the avenues to this minor house,
while the national magnificent temples were
literally deserted. At the end of the season, in
1742, Fleetwood, the mananger of Drury Lane, gained the young Roscius over to his banner;
but, with commendable feeling, Garrick would
not secede from his original friend's standard,
without ample provision were made also for
him. Consequently, Giffard received an invita-
tion to accompany his friend David. Thus did
friendship meet its just reward--thus did Gar-
rick enter on his great triumphal career of his-
trionic glory. Those who feel a desire to trace
this extraordinary actor's rise and progress,
should read "Arthur Murphy's Life of Gar-
rick;" the perusal will repay the labor.

On the seccession of Giffard from the nowal-