A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

A Book of the Play by Dutton Cook

D >> Dutton Cook >> A Book of the Play




It seems certain that for some few years prior to the Restoration
there had been far less stringent treatment of the players than in the
earlier days of the triumph of Puritanism. Cromwell, perhaps, rather
despised the stage than condemned it seriously on religious grounds;
the while he did not object to indulge in buffoonery and horseplay,
even in the gallery of Whitehall. Some love of music he has been
credited with, and this, perhaps, induced him to tolerate the operatic
dramas of Sir William Davenant, which obtained representation during
the Commonwealth: such as "The History of Sir Francis Drake,"
"represented by instrumental and vocal music, and by art of
Perspective in Scenes," and "The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru."
According to Langbaine, the two plays called "The Siege of Rhodes"
were likewise acted _"in stilo recitativo"_ during the time of the
Civil Wars, and upon the Restoration were rewritten and enlarged for
regular performance at the Duke of York's Theatre, in Lincoln's Inn
Fields. It seems to have been held that a play was no longer a play if
its words were sung instead of spoken--or these representations of
Davenant's works may have been altogether stealthy, and without the
cognisance of the legal authorities of the time. Isaac Disraeli,
however, has pointed out that in some verses, published in 1653, and
prefixed to the plays of Richard Brome, there is evident a tone of
exultation at the passing away of power from the hands of those who
had oppressed the actors. The poet, in a moralising vein, alludes to
the fate of the players as it was affected by the dissolution of the
Long Parliament:

See the strange twirl of times! When such poor things
Outlive the dates of parliaments or kings!
This revolution makes exploded wit
Now see the fall of those that ruined it;
And the condemned stage hath now obtained
To see her executioners arraigned.
There's nothing permanent; those high great men
That rose from dust to dust may fall again;
And fate so orders things that the same hour
Sees the same man both in contempt and power!

For complete emancipation, however, the stage had to wait some years;
until, indeed, it pleased Monk, acting in accordance with the desire
of the nation, to march his army to London, and to restore the
monarchy. Encamped in Hyde Park, Monk was visited by one Rhodes, a
bookseller, who had been formerly occupied as wardrobe-keeper to King
Charles I.'s company of comedians in Blackfriars, and who now applied
to the general for permission to reopen the Cockpit in Drury Lane as a
playhouse. Monk, it seems, held histrionic art in some esteem; at any
rate the City companies, when with his council of state he dined in
their halls, were wont to entertain him with performances of a
theatrical kind: satirical farces, dancing and singing, "many shapes
and ghosts, and the like; and all to please His Excellency the Lord
General," say the newspapers of the time. Rhodes obtained the boon he
sought, and, promptly engaging a troop of actors, reopened the
Cockpit. His chief actor was his apprentice, Thomas Betterton, the son
of Charles I.'s cook. For some fifty years the great Mr. Betterton
held his place upon the stage, and upon his death was interred with
something like royal honours in Westminster Abbey.

Of the fate of Rhodes nothing further is recorded. He was the first to
give back to Londoners a theatre they might visit legally and safely;
and that done, he is heard of no more. Killigrew and Davenant were
soon invested with patent rights, and entitled to a monopoly of
theatrical management in London; probably they prospered by displacing
Rhodes--but so much cannot be positively asserted.

The drama was now out of its difficulties. Yet the influence and
effect of these did not soon abate. Upon them followed indeed a sort
of after-crop of troubles, seriously injurious to the stage. The
Cavaliers engendered a drama that was other than the drama the
Puritans had destroyed. The theatre was restored, it is true, but with
an altered constitution. It was not only that the old race of poets
and dramatists had died out, and that writing for the stage was as a
new profession, almost as a lost art. Taste had altered. As Evelyn
regretfully notes in 1662, after witnessing a performance of
Hamlet--to which, perhaps, the audience paid little heed, although the
incomparable Betterton appeared in the tragedy--"but now the old plays
begin to disgust this refined age, since his Majesty's being so long
abroad." Shakespeare and his brother-bards were out of fashion. There
was a demand for tragedies of the French school--with rhyming lines
and artificial sentiment--for comedies of intrigue and equivoque,
after a foreign pattern, in lieu of our old English plays of wit,
humour, and character. Plagiarism, translation, and adaptation took up
a secure position on the stage. The leading playwrights of the
Restoration--Dryden, Shadwell, Durfey, Wycherley--all borrowed freely
from the French. Dryden frankly apologised--he was required to produce
so many plays all could not be of his own inventing. The King
encouraged appropriation of foreign works. He drew Sir Samuel Tuke's
attention to an admired Spanish comedy, advising its adaptation to
the English stage: the result was "The Adventures of Five Hours," a
work very highly esteemed by Mr. Pepys. The introduction of scenery
was due in a great measure to French example, although "paintings in
perspective" had already been seen in an English theatre. But now
scenery was imperatively necessary to a dramatic performance, and a
sort of passion arose for mechanical devices and decorative appliances
of a novel kind. Dryden was no reformer--in truth, to suit his own
purposes, he pandered laboriously to the follies and caprices of his
patrons; nevertheless, he was fully sensible of the errors of the
time, and often chronicles these in his prologues and epilogues. He
writes:

True wit has run its best days long ago,
It ne'er looked up since we were lost in show,
When sense in doggrel rhymes and clouds was lost,
And dulness nourished at the actor's cost.
Nor stopped it here; when tragedy was done,
Satire and humour the same fate have run,
And comedy is sunk to trick and pun.

* * * * *

Let them who the rebellion first began
To wit, restore the monarch if they can;
Our author dares not be the first bold man.

And upon another occasion:

But when all failed to strike the stage quite dumb,
Those wicked engines, called machines, are come.
Thunder and lightning now for wit are played,
And shortly scenes in Lapland will be laid.

* * * * *

Fletcher's despised, your Jonson out of fashion.
And wit the only drug in all the nation.

Actresses, too, were introduced upon the stage in pursuance of
continental example. But for these there was really great necessity.
The boys who, prior to the Civil War, had personated the heroines of
the drama, were now too mature, both in years and aspect, for such an
occupation.

Doubting we should never play agen,
We have played all our women into men!

says the prologue, introducing the first actress. Hart and Mohun,
Clun, Shatterel and Burt, who were now leading actors, had been
boy-actresses before the closing of the theatres. And even after the
Restoration, Mohun whose military title of major was always awarded
him in the playbills, still appeared as Bellamante, one of the
heroines of Shirley's tragedy of "Love's Cruelty." But this must have
been rather too absurd. At the time of the Restoration Mohun could
hardly have been less than thirty-five years of age. It is to be
noted, however, that Kynaston, a very distinguished boy-actress, who,
with Betterton, was a pupil of Rhodes, arose after the Restoration. Of
the earlier boy-actresses, their methods and artifices of performance,
Kynaston could have known nothing. He was undoubtedly a great artist,
winning extraordinary favour both in male and female characters, the
last and perhaps the best of all the epicene stage-players of the
past.

But if the stage, after the Restoration, differed greatly from what it
had been previously, it yet prospered and gained strength more and
more. It was most fortunate in its actors and actresses, who lent it
invaluable support. It never attained again the poetic heights to
which it had once soared; but it surrendered gradually much of its
grossness and its baser qualities, in deference to the improving
tastes of its patrons, and in alarm at the sound strictures of men
like Jeremy Collier. The plagiarist, the adapter, and the translator
did not relax their hold upon it; but eventually it obtained the aid
of numerous dramatists of enduring distinction. The fact that it again
underwent decline is traceable to various causes--among them, the
monopoly enjoyed by privileged persons under the patents granted by
Charles II.; the bungling intervention of court officials invested
with supreme power over the dramatic literature of the nation; and
defective copyright laws, that rendered justice neither to the native
nor to the foreign writer for the theatre. And something, too, the
stage of later years has been affected by a change in public taste,
which has subordinated the play to the novel or poem, and converted
playgoers into the supporters of circulating libraries.




CHAPTER XXII.

STAGE BANQUETS.


A veteran actor of inferior fame once expressed his extreme dislike to
what he was pleased to term "the sham wine-parties" of Macbeth and
others. He was aweary of the Barmecide banquets of the stage, of
affecting to quaff with gusto imaginary wine out of empty pasteboard
goblets, and of making believe to have an appetite for wooden apples
and "property" comestibles. He was in every sense a poor player, and
had often been a very hungry one. He took especial pleasure in
remembering the entertainments of the theatre in which the necessities
of performance, or regard for rooted tradition, involved the setting
of real edible food before the actors. At the same time he greatly
lamented the limited number of dramas in which these precious
opportunities occurred.

He had grateful memories of the rather obsolete Scottish melodrama of
"Cramond Brig;" for in this work old custom demanded the introduction
of a real sheep's head with accompanying "trotters." He told of a
North British manager who was wont--especially when the salaries he
was supposed to pay were somewhat in arrear, and he desired to keep
his company in good humour and, may be, alive--to produce this play on
Saturday nights. For some days before the performance the dainties
that were destined to grace it underwent exhibition in the green-room.
A label bore the inscription: "This sheep's head will appear in the
play of 'Cramond Brig' on next Saturday night. God save the King!" "It
afforded us all two famous dinners," reveals our veteran. "We had a
large pot of broth made with the head and feet; these we ate on
Saturday night; the broth we had on Sunday." So in another Scottish
play, "The Gentle Shepherd" of Allan Ramsay, it was long the custom on
stages north of the Tweed to present a real haggis, although niggard
managers were often tempted to substitute for the genuine dish a far
less savoury if more wholesome mess of oatmeal. But a play more famous
still for the reality of its victuals, and better known to modern
times, was Prince Hoare's musical farce, "No Song no Supper." A
steaming-hot boiled leg of lamb and turnips may be described as quite
the leading character in this entertainment. Without this appetising
addition the play has never been represented. There is a story,
however, which one can only hope is incorrect, of an _impresario_ of
oriental origin, who supplying the necessary meal, yet subsequently
fined his company all round, on the ground that they had "combined to
destroy certain of the properties of the theatre."

There are many other plays in the course of which genuine food is
consumed on the stage. But some excuse for the generally fictitious
nature of theatrical repasts is to be found in the fact that eating
during performance is often a very difficult matter for the actors to
accomplish. Michael Kelly, in his "Memoirs," relates that he was
required to eat part of a fowl in the supper scene of a bygone
operatic play called, "A House to be Sold." Bannister at rehearsal had
informed him that it was very difficult to swallow food on the stage.
Kelly was incredulous however. "But strange as it may appear," he
writes, "I found it a fact that I could not get down a morsel. My
embarrassment was a great source of fun to Bannister and Suett, who
were both gifted with the accommodating talent of stage feeding.
Whoever saw poor Suett as the lawyer in 'No Song no Supper,' tucking
in his boiled leg of lamb, or in 'The Siege of Belgrade,' will be
little disposed to question my testimony to the fact." From this
account, however, it is manifest that the difficulty of "stage
feeding," as Kelly calls it, is not invariably felt by all actors
alike. And probably, although the appetites of the superior players
may often fail them, the supernumerary or the representative of minor
characters could generally contrive to make a respectable meal if the
circumstances of the case supplied the opportunity.

The difficulty that attends eating on the stage does not, it would
seem, extend to drinking, and sometimes the introduction of real and
potent liquors during the performance has led to unfortunate results.
Thus Whincop, to whose tragedy called "Scanderbeg," published in 1747,
added "a List of all the Dramatic Authors, with some Account of their
Lives," &c., describes a curious occurrence at the Theatre Royal in
1693. A comedy entitled "The Wary Widow, or Sir Noisy Parrot," written
by one Higden, and now a very scarce book, had been produced; but on
the first representation, "the author had contrived so much drinking
of punch in the play that the actors almost all got drunk, and were
unable to get through with it, so that the audience were dismissed at
the end of the third act." Upon subsequent performances of the comedy
no doubt the management reduced the strength of the punch, or
substituted some harmless beverage, toast-and-water perhaps, imitative
of that ardent compound so far as mere colour is concerned. There have
been actors, however, who have refused to accept the innocent
semblance of vinous liquor supplied by the management, and especially
when, as part of their performance, they were required to simulate
intoxication. A certain representative of Cassio was wont to carry to
the theatre a bottle of claret from his own cellar, whenever he was
called upon to sustain that character. It took possession of him too
thoroughly, he said, with a plausible air, to allow of his affecting
inebriety after holding an empty goblet to his lips, or swallowing
mere toast-and-water or small beer. Still his precaution had its
disadvantages. The real claret he consumed might make his intemperance
somewhat too genuine and accurate; and his portrayal of Cassio's
speedy return to sobriety might be in such wise very difficult of
accomplishment. So there have been players of dainty taste, who,
required to eat in the presence of the audience, have elected to bring
their own provisions, from some suspicion of the quality of the food
provided by the management. We have heard of a clown who, entering the
theatre nightly to undertake the duties of his part, was observed to
carry with him always a neat little paper parcel. What did it contain?
bystanders inquired of each other. Well, in the comic scenes of
pantomime it is not unusual to see a very small child, dressed perhaps
as a charity-boy, crossing the stage, bearing in his hands a slice of
bread-and-butter. The clown steals this article of food and devours
it; whereupon the child, crying aloud, pursues him hither and thither
about the stage. The incident always excites much amusement; for in
pantomimes the world is turned upside-down, and moral principles have
no existence; cruelty is only comical, and outrageous crime the best
of jokes. The paper parcel borne to the theatre by the clown under
mention enclosed the bread-and-butter that was to figure in the
harlequinade. "You see I'm a particular feeder," the performer
explained. "I can't eat bread-and-butter of anyone's cutting. Besides,
I've tried it, and they only afford salt butter. I can't stand that.
So as I've got to eat it and no mistake, with all the house looking at
me, I cut a slice when I'm having my own tea, at home, and bring it
down with me."

Rather among the refreshments of the side-wings than of the stage must
be counted that reeking tumbler of "very brown, very hot, and very
strong brandy-and-water," which, as Dr. Doran relates, was prepared
for poor Edmund Kean, as, towards the close of his career, he was wont
to stagger from before the foot-lights, and, overcome by his exertions
and infirmities, to sink, "a helpless, speechless, fainting, bent-up
mass," into the chair placed in readiness to receive the shattered,
ruined actor. With Kean's prototype in acting and in excess, George
Frederick Cooke, it was less a question of stage or side-wing
refreshments than of the measure of preliminary potation he had
indulged in. In what state would he come down to the theatre? Upon the
answer to that inquiry the entertainments of the night greatly
depended. "I was drunk the night before last," Cooke said on one
occasion; "still I acted, and they hissed me. Last night I was drunk
again, and I didn't act; they hissed all the same. There's no knowing
how to please the public." A fine actor, Cooke was also a genuine
humorist, and it must be said for him, although a like excuse has been
perhaps too often pleaded for such failings as his, that his senses
gave way, and his brain became affected after very slight indulgence.
From this, however, he could not be persuaded to abstain, and so made
havoc of his genius, and terminated, prematurely and ignobly enough,
his professional career.

Many stories are extant as to performances being interrupted by the
entry of innocent messengers bringing to the players, in the presence
of the audience, refreshments they had designed to consume behind the
scenes, or sheltered from observation between the wings. Thus it is
told of one Walls, who was the prompter in a Scottish theatre, and
occasionally appeared in minor parts, that he once directed a
maid-of-all-work, employed in the wardrobe department of the theatre,
to bring him a gill of whisky. The night was wet, so the girl, not
caring to go out, intrusted the commission to a little boy who
happened to be standing by. The play was "Othello," and Walls played
the Duke. The scene of the senate was in course of representation.
Brabantio had just stated:

My particular grief
Is of so flood-gate and o'erbearing nature,
That it engluts and swallows other sorrows,
And it is still itself--

and the Duke, obedient to his cue, had inquired:

Why, what's the matter?

when the little boy appeared upon the stage, bearing a pewter measure,
and explained: "It's just the whisky, Mr. Walls; and I couldna git ony
at fourpence, so yer awn the landlord a penny: and he says it's time
you was payin' what's doon i' the book." The senate broke up amidst
the uproarious laughter of the audience.

Upon our early stage a kind of biscuit--a "marchpane"--was consumed by
the players when they required to eat upon the stage. In "Romeo and
Juliet" one of the servants says: "Good thou, save me a piece of
marchpane." In Marston's "What you Will" occurs the passage:

Now work the cooks, the pastry sweats with slaves,
The marchpanes glitter.

And in Brome's "City Wit" Mrs. Pyannet tells Toby Sneakup: "You have
your kickshaws, your players' marchpanes--all show and no meat."

Real macaroni in "Masaniello," and real champagne in "Don Giovanni,"
in order that Leporello may have opportunities for "comic business" in
the supper scene, are demanded by the customs of the operatic stage.
Realism generally, indeed, is greatly affected in the modern theatre.
The audiences of to-day require not merely that real water shall be
seen to flow from a pump, or to form a cataract, but that real wine
shall proceed from real bottles, and be fairly swallowed by the
performers. In Paris, a complaint was recently made that, in a scene
representing an entertainment in modern fashionable society, the
champagne supplied was only of a second-rate quality. Through powerful
opera-glasses the bottle labels could be read, and the management's
sacrifice of truthfulness to economy was severely criticised. The
audience resented the introduction of the cheaper liquor as though
they had themselves been constrained to drink it.

As part also of the modern regard for realism may be noted the
"cooking scenes" which have frequently figured in recent plays. The
old conjuring trick of making a pudding in a hat never won more
admiration than is now obtained by such simple expedients as frying
bacon or sausages, or broiling chops or steaks, upon the stage in
sight of the audience. The manufacture of paste for puddings or pies
by one of the _dramatis personae_ has also been very favourably
received, and the first glimpse of the real rolling-pin and the real
flour to be thus employed has always been attended with applause. In a
late production, the opening of a soda-water bottle by one of the
characters was generally regarded as quite the most impressive effect
of the representation.

At Christmas-time, when the shops are so copiously supplied with
articles of food as to suggest a notion that the world is content to
live upon half-rations at other seasons of the year, there is
extraordinary storing of provisions at certain of the theatres. These
are not edible, however; they are due to the art of the
property-maker, and are designed for what are known as the "spill and
pelt" scenes of the pantomime. They represent juicy legs of mutton,
brightly streaked with red and white, quartern loaves, trussed fowls,
turnips, carrots, and cabbages, strings of sausages, fish of all
kinds, sizes, and colours; they are to be stolen and pocketed by the
clown, recaptured by the policeman, and afterwards wildly whirled in
all directions in a general "rally" of all the characters in the
harlequinade. They are but adroitly painted canvas stuffed with straw
or sawdust. No doubt the property-maker sometimes views from the wings
with considerable dismay the severe usage to which his works of art
are subjected. "He's an excellent clown, sir," one such was once heard
to say, regarding from his own standpoint the performance of the
jester in question; "he don't destroy the properties as some do."
Perhaps now and then, too, a minor actor or a supernumerary, who has
derided "the sham wine-parties of Macbeth and others," may lament the
scandalous waste of seeming good victuals in a pantomime. But, as a
rule, these performers are not fanciful on this, or, indeed, on any
other subject. They are not to be deceived by the illusions of the
stage; they are themselves too much a part of its shams and artifices.
Property legs of mutton are to them not even food for reflection but
simply "properties," and nothing more.




CHAPTER XXIII.

STAGE WIGS.


Wigs have claims to be considered amongst the most essential
appliances of the actors; means at once of their disguise and their
decoration. Without false hair the fictions of the stage could
scarcely be set forth. How could the old look young, or the young look
old, how could scanty locks be augmented, or baldness concealed, if
the _coiffeur_ did not lend his aid to the costumier? Nay, oftentimes
calvity has to be simulated, and fictitious foreheads of canvas
assumed. Hence the quaint advertisements of the theatrical hairdresser
in professional organs, that he is prepared to vend "old men's bald
pates" at a remarkably cheap rate. King Lear has been known to appear
without his beard--Mr. Garrick, as his portrait reveals, played the
part with a clean-shaven face, and John Kemble followed his example;
but could the ghost of Hamlet's father ever have defied the poet's
portraiture of him, and walked the platform of Elsinore Castle without
a "sable-silvered" chin? Has an audience ever viewed tolerantly a bald
Romeo, or a Juliet grown gray in learning how to impersonate that
heroine to perfection? It is clear that at a very early date the
players must have acquired the simple arts of altering and amending
their personal appearance in these respects.

The accounts still extant of the revels at court during the reigns of
Elizabeth and James contain many charges for wigs and beards. Thus a
certain John Ogle is paid "for four yeallowe heares for head-attires
for women, twenty-six shillings and eightpence;" and "for a pound of
heare twelvepence." Probably the auburn tresses of Elizabeth had made
blonde wigs fashionable. John Owgle, who is no doubt the same trader,
receives thirteen shillings and fourpence for "eight long white berds
at twenty pence the peece." He has charges also on account of "a black
fyzician's berde," "berds white and black," "heares for palmers,"
"berds for fyshers," &c. It would seem, however, that these adornments
were really made of silk. There is an entry: "John Ogle for curling of
heare made of black silk for Discord's heade (being sixty ounces),
price of his woorkmanshipp thereon only is seven shillings and
eightpence;" and mention is made of a delivery to Mrs. Swegoo the
silk-woman, of "Spanish silke of sundry cullers, weighing four ounces
and three quarters, at two shillings and sixpence the ounce, to
garnishe nine heads and nine scarfes for the nine muses; heads of
heare drest and trimmed at twenty-three shillings and fourpence the
peece, in all nine, ten pounds ten shillings."

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

W. E. Gladstone et al. - "Handbook of Home Rule (1887)"

Henry C. Lahee - "Famous Violinists of To day and Yesterday"

Moses Grandy - "Narrative of the Life of Moses Grandy, Late a Slave in the United States of America"

Various - "Bay State Monthly, Vol. II, No. 1, October, 1884"