Chapter IX (5)

[Footnote 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 5_s._'"]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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 raise it. He was in his younger Days so lean, as to be known by the Name of _Hatchet Face_."]

[Footnote 207: Bellchambers notes that this part was originally played by Percival, who came into the Duke's Company about 1673.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 212: End of 1692.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 214: This is no doubt a hit at Wilks, whose temper was extremely impetuous.]

[Footnote 215: "The Laureat," p. 39: "He (Cibber) was always against raising, or rewarding, or by any means encouraging Merit of any kind." He had "many Disputes with _Wilks_ on this Account, who was impatient, when Justice required it, to reward the Meritorious."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 218: 28th December, 1694.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 220: See memoir of Johnson at end of second volume.]

[Footnote 221: See memoir of Bullock at end of second volume.]

[Footnote 222: I do not think that the date of this Licence has ever been stated. It was 25th March, 1695.]

[Footnote 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 Condition to go on." This theatre was the theatre in _Little_ Lincoln's Inn Fields. See further details in Chap. XIII.]

[Footnote 224: No doubt, Rich.]

[Footnote 225: Downes says (p. 43), "the House being fitted up from a Tennis-Court, they Open'd it the last Day of _April, 1695_."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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, 'OEdipus,' 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 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.

(Signed) "'Charles Killigrew.
"'Charles Hart.
"'Rich. Burt.
"'Cardell Goodman.
"'Mic. Mohun.'"]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 229: Produced early in 1700.]

[Footnote 230: Mrs. Mountfort was now Mrs. Verbruggen.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.

_Lætitia._ By, _Nykin_.
_Fondlewife._ By, Cocky.
_Lætitia._ By, _Nykin_.
_Fondlewife._ By, Cocky, by, by."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 237:

"Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas,
Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli."
Juvenal, i. 85.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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?'"]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 245: "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 12: "In the meantime the Mushrooms in _Drury-Lane_ shoot up from such a desolate Fortune into a considerable Name; and not only grappled with their Rivals, but almost eclipst 'em."]

[Footnote 246: The last performance of this comedy which Genest indexes was at Covent Garden, 14th February, 1763.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 248: "The Laureat," p. 44: "Whatever the Actors appear'd 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."]

[Footnote 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 actor was ever superior in the conception or expression of such solemn insignificancy."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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_."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 261: Cibber is probably incorrect here. It seems certain from the bills that Wilks did not re-appear in London before 1698.]

[Footnote 262: See note on page 235.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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 Lincoln's Inn Fields (or the Haymarket), but arresting him when he deserted back again to Drury Lane, see after, in Chap. X.]

[Footnote 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?"]

[Footnote 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_)."]

[Footnote 268: Alexander in "The Rival Queens."]

[Footnote 269: In "The Man of the Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter."]

[Footnote 270: Produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 29th January, 1728.]

[Footnote 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.
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.]

[Footnote 272: Martial, xiii. 2, 8.]

[Footnote 273: Cibber should have written _Catiline_.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 275: "Polly" was officially prohibited on 12th December, 1728.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 277: Cibber afterwards formed the best scenes of "Love in a Riddle" into a Ballad Opera, called "Damon and Phillida."]

[Footnote 278: Bellchambers notes that this was probably Mrs. Oldfield. But I think this more than doubtful, for this lady not only was fair, but 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 280: This is a capital sketch of Christopher Rich.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 283: Characters in Ben Jonson's "Silent Woman."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 285: See memoir of John Mills at end of second volume.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 287: Booth seems to have joined the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company in 1700.]

[Footnote 288: Steele's comedy was produced at Drury Lane in 1702. Cibber played Lord Hardy.]

[Footnote 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. Cibber.
MAJOR RAKISH .................................... 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.]

[Footnote 290:

"Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae." Hor. _Ars
Poetica_, 333.]

[Footnote 291:

"Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci." Hor.
_Ars Poetica_, 343.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 295: Jeremy Collier.]

[Footnote 296: Genest notes (ii. 181) that in the original play the Servant in the 2nd act did not stutter.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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 have said _Joseph_, if it had been only out of respect to her husband." For an account of Haines, see also Anthony Aston.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 301: Charles Killigrew, who died in 1725, having held the office of Master of the Revels for over forty years.]

[Footnote 302: Produced at Drury Lane in 1700. For some account of Cibber's playing of Richard, see _ante_, pp. 139, 140.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 304: Steele's name first appears in a License granted 18th October, 1714. His Patent was dated 19th January, 1715.]

[Footnote 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 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.]

[Footnote 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.

"'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.

"'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 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.

{Subnote A: Mr. Garrick, when in Paris, refused to meet this
writer, on account of the irreverence with which he had
treated Shakspeare.}

{Subnote 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.}

{Subnote C: Called here Inns of Court, as the two Temples,
Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Doctor's Commons, &c.}]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 311: Cibber again alludes to this in Chap. XIII.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 313: Giffard seems to have retained his sixth part.]

[Footnote 314: Some account of the entire dispute between Highmore and his actors will be found in my Supplement to this book.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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,

"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."]

[Footnote 317: Juvenal, i. 73.]

[Footnote 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.'"]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 321: By Lord Chesterfield.]

[Footnote 322: Horace, _Ars Poetica_, 180.]

[Footnote 323: Guiscard's attack on Harley occurred in 1711.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 325: Cibber received three thousand guineas from Highmore for his share in the Patent (See Victor's "History," i. 8).]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 327: Cibber prints 1684, repeating his former blunder. (See p. 96.)]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 330: Southerne's "Oroonoko" was produced at Drury Lane in 1696.]

[Footnote 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."

And on Tuesday, 30th November, 1697, "Captain Burgesse, who killed Mr. Horden the player, has obtained his majesties pardon."]