ENPages
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--Garrick's success the cause of hte introduction of an English company to America--Garrick's early struggles and triumphs--William Hallam--Lewis Hallam--Organization of a company to visit America--Preparations and anticipations.
"The imitation of life--the mirror of manners--the representative 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. Conceived 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 softened 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 condemnation, they unwisely strive to destroy that which is as indestructible as matter. It should be remembered that attempts to produce the transmutation 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 barley bread in barns and ale-houses. They had become stationary; they had risen of good manners, of good education, 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 entitled 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 influenced 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 supposed* 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 before 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 success 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 unceremoniously 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 medium of a prompter's note. This event was the more extraordinary, as she received a subsequently 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. Probably the denunciation of the terrors of the law was sufficient 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 riotous sports, plays and games". It was repealed the same year by the Queen and Privy Council. The Assembly reenacted 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 Assembly gave up the conte500 st for a period. There was no prohibition against stage plays till 1759, when an Act was passed "agasint lottteries and plays" reciting that "several companies of idle persons and strollers have lately come into this province from foreign parts, in the character of playyers" &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 company were in 1748. There is no doubt but that the Recorder made his complaint in 1750, as, at the same meeeting, reference was made to events in September, 1749. The theatrical company may have played during the month of December, 1749, and January, 1750, new style.
deemed the most polished and critical in England. The Bath theatre had been for y ears the preliminary nursery to the London stage. It was this lady's fortune to receive the countenance of those circles that led the fashion and formed the opinions in that elegant city. Among her patrons we find the Duchess of Devonshire, the poet Whalley, then in the enjoyment of literary celebrity, and many others of great distinction. To thier vast influence, this rare artiste was mainly indebted for the privilege 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 eulogiums 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 transcendant genius, that beamed in all the softness of 18, with the external attributs of a symmetrical 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 afterwards allotted to her were of a very secondary and subordinate class." "She walked as Venus, in the jubilee procession."
"Woodfall also, it appears, entertained but a slender opinion of her abilities, and advised her, in the Morning Chronicle, to return into the country, 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 essays. When public perception is dull, or blind to legitimate talent, the cause can only be attributed to prejudice, which often, in human nature, 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 criticism 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 invitation to accompany his friend David. Thus did friendship meet its just reward--thus did Garrick enter on his great triumphal career of histrionic glory. Those who feel a desire to trace this extraordinary actor's rise and progress, should read "Arthur Murphy's Life of Garrick;" the perusal will repay the labor.
On the seccession of Giffard from the nowal-
p. 29
most blasted Goodman's Fields theatre, that dramatic temple was for a period vacant. It had been made brilliant as the foster-home of the foundling Roscius, who was found like a second Moses, in obliviious rushes, and rescued by the kindly Giffard, who cherished the nursling into colossal grandeur. In the dawning of his theatrical glory, Garrick left his Egyptian stage, and sought his promised land, leaving thus the soil of his foster asylum unprotected. In this exigency, Mr. William Hallam succeeded to Giffard's throne, rendered renowned, but unfortunate, by the events just refeered to. Druary Lane now raised its drooping crest and became the centre of attraction, while its minor rival, Goodman's Fields, fell proportionably in the shade, and failed as a theatrical place in ten years afterward. Hallam encountered the reverses most skillfully and manfully, and proved, with his efficient co-laborers, good and industrious husbandmen; but they could not avert the course of the dramatic seasons. Thus, after a struggle of eight years, William Hallam became a bankrupt in 1750.
Perhaps at no period in the history of England's drama, did it stand on a more elevated pedestal of enlightened glory than at this time. Its refinement and poetical purity was not at the same degree of brillancy in the former half century. The era referred to is the proudest in English dramatic history. The most eminent literary men of that day, and those renowned for morals, talent and genius, surrounded the drama with ardent solicitude. They wrote for the stage, and attended its exhibitions, accompanied by princes, prime ministers, and leading stesmen. The imperious aristocracy of old England were grouped in the boxes, and rapt in attention to watch the performances. There, too, seated in the front forms of the pit, were to be seen the most learned men of the day, with the wits, lis-tening with critical acumen to the beauties and faults of hte language, weighing the elocution and just emphasis of hte actors with nice judgment. Thus encircled by peerless beauty, taste, refinement, poets and literary men, the actors mored amid an assemblage of so impressive a character, that we may well be astounded when we reflect at the melancholy contrast of the present audiences who mainly give support to the struggling efforts of the drama to exist. We may well ask the reason, why the drama has thus deterioated to even cimmerian darkness, while the sister arts have steadily progressed to unprecedented perfection? It was at this brilliant era of the London stage, when the first poets and writers of the day contributed to its well-being, and their works were illustrated by Macklin, Barry, Mossop the elder Sheridan, King, Dodd, Moody, Parsons, J and C Bannister, Mrs. Cibber, Mrs Crawford, the first Mrs. Pope (the ci-devant Miss Young) and last, not least, the imcomparable David Garrick! It was this halcyon jubilee of the British stage that gave birth to the American drama.
We have stated that William Hallam was Giffard's successor in the proprietorship and management of Goodman's Fields, in 1750, and as its governor, he had strined every nerve to sustain its fortunes. He failed! and became an
utter bankrupt. His fanancial difficulties were strictly investigated by his creditors, and the examination developed a minus of five thousand pounds. The creditors were so well satisfied with the integrity of his accounts, his unflagging zeal, prudent dirscretion and untiring industry, that they not only unanimously forgave him their debts, but presented him with all the theatrical assests such as the wardrobe, properties and a portion of the moveable scenery, some of which served to illustrate the scenic exhibitions of our first stage. Most of these appendages of the theatre were brought to this country. I remember that a number of the original properties, brought out in the first company, were kicking about the scenes of the old South street theatre in 1807. An old sceptre, which I found over the dome of the house, old Mr. Lewis Hallam said had been used by Garrick, in Goodman's Fields. He was rehearsing on the stage at the tie when I brought it down. He seemed much pleased with its discovery, and chuckled over its aged, crumbling remains, with much gout. On this theme, and other anecdotes connected with the original company, he dilated with much dry humor and interest to the per formers during the morning, near the stage door of the old South street theatre. But, more anon, of these reminiscences.
Mr William Hallam was thus, through the generosity of his creditors, placed in a condition, by the re-possession of his theatrical property, to again commence business. He perceived truly that he could not contend successfully against the two royal theatres--one backed by the fame and influence of Garrick, who, in 1747, had become a manger. The two metropolitan houses had concentrated the talent of England, Ireland and Scotland and their rivalship absorbed all theatrical interest and patronage. In this crisis of his managerial affairs, Hallam cast about for a fresh field of action. London had not then a redundant population. The provincial ground of Thespis was duly occupied throughout Britain. Like another Columbus, he be thought him of a western world. The English colonies of North America, yet in the cradle of suckling childhood, were supposed to be uncivillized in all social relations; yet a California fame (as at the present day pertains to that El Dorado) tingled in the ears of Bull's subjects, and promised ample scope for all kinds of enterprize. In this mood of reflection, Wm. Hallam planned a theatrical voyage of discovery, the doncuting of which adventure he confided to his brother, Lewis Hallam, an actor, and who was reputed to be an excellent low comedian.
The idea of planting the drama in the new world was a bold and an original thought at that early time, and could only have been conceived by an ardent and vigorous mind. A writer has well said that "What I admire in Columbus is not his having discovered a world, but his having gone to search for it on the faith of an opinion." Hallam's scheme, at the time, was thought to be perfectly Uto[ian, and was the subject of green-room jest and jeu d'esprit while he was organizing the details at London. The asylum which he opened, subsequently
