i. 76) states that Colley Cibber applied to the Duke of Grafton, then
Lord Chamberlain, for a new License or Patent in favour of his son; but the Duke, on inquiring into the matter, was so disgusted at Cibber's conduct that he refused the application with strong expressions of disapprobation. The seceders had of course no Patent or License under which to act; but, from the circumstance that they took the name of Comedians of His Majesty's Revels, it is probable that they received a License from the Master of the Revels, Charles Henry Lee. Highmore, deserted by every actor of any importance except Miss Raftor (Mrs. Clive), Mrs. Horton, and Bridgwater, was at his wits' end. He summoned the seceders for an infringement of his Patent, but his case, tried on 5th November, 1733, was dismissed, apparently on some technical plea. He could not prevail upon the Lord Chamberlain to exert his authority to close the Haymarket, so he determined to try the efficacy of the Vagrant Act (12 Queen Anne) against the irregular performers. John Harper accordingly was arrested on 12th November, 1733, and committed to Bridewell. On the 20th of the same month he was tried before the Court of King's Bench as a rogue and vagabond; but, whether from the circumstance that Harper was a householder, or from a decision that playing at the Haymarket was not an act of vagrancy,[204] he was discharged upon his own recognizance, and the manager's action failed. He had therefore to bring actors from the country to make up his company; but of these Macklin was the only one who proved of any assistance, and the unfortunate Highmore, after meeting deficiencies of fifty or sixty pounds each week for some months, was forced to give up the struggle.[205] Another amateur then stepped into the breach--Charles Fleetwood, who purchased the shares of Highmore and Mrs. Wilks for little more than the former had paid for his own portion. Giffard seems to have retained his sixth of the Patent. Fleetwood first set about regaining the services of the seceders, and, as the majority of them were probably ashamed of following the leadership of Theophilus Cibber, he succeeded at once. The last performance at the Haymarket took place on 9th March, 1734, and on the 12th the deserters reappeared on Drury Lane stage. This transaction ended Colley Cibber's direct interference in the affairs of the theatre, and his only subsequent connection with the stage was as an actor. His first appearance after his retirement was on 31st October, 1734, when he played his great character of Bayes. During the season he acted Lord Foppington, Sir John Brute, Sir Courtly Nice, and Sir Fopling Flutter; and on 26th February, 1735, he appeared as Fondlewife for the benefit of his old friend and partner, Owen Swiney.[206] At the end of the season 1734-5, an arrangement was under consideration by which a committee of actors, including Mills, Johnson, Miller, Theo. Cibber, Mrs. Heron, Mrs. Butler, and others, were to rent Drury Lane from Fleetwood, for fifteen years, at £920 per annum; but the arrangement does not appear to have been carried out, and Fleetwood continued Patentee of Drury Lane until 1744-5.
The rival company, under the control of John Rich, acted at Lincoln's Inn Fields from 18th December, 1714, to 5th December, 1732; then they removed to the new Covent Garden Theatre, which was opened on 7th December with "The Way of the World." For several seasons both companies dragged along very uneventfully, so far as the artistic advancement of the stage was concerned, although the passing of the Licensing Act of 1737, already fully commented on, was an event of great historical importance. Artistically the period was one of rest, if not of retrogression; the methods of the older time were losing their meaning and vitality, and were becoming mere dry bones of tradition. The high priest of the stage was James Quin, a great actor, though not of the first order; and among the younger players perhaps the most notable was Charles Macklin, rough in manner as in person, but full of genius and a thorough reformer. Garrick was the direct means of revolutionizing the methods of the theatre, and it was his genius that swept away the formality and dulness of the old school; but it ought to be remembered that the way was prepared for him by Charles Macklin, whose rescue of Shylock from low comedy was an achievement scarcely inferior to Garrick's greatest. During this dull period Cibber's appearances must have had an importance and interest, which, after Garrick's advent, they lacked.
In the season 1735-6 he acted Sir Courtly Nice and Bayes, and in the next season his play of "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John," a miserable mutilation of Shakespeare's "King John," was put in rehearsal at Drury Lane. But such a storm of ridicule and abuse arose when this play was announced, that Cibber withdrew it,[207] and it was not seen till 1745, when, the nation being in fear of a Popish Pretender, it was produced at Covent Garden from patriotic motives.
Cibber's implacable foe, Fielding, was one of the ringleaders in the attack on him for mutilating Shakespeare; and in his "Historical Register for 1736,"[208] in which Colley is introduced as "Ground-Ivy,"[209] gives him the following excellent rebuke:--
"_Medley._ As _Shakspear_ is already good enough for People of Taste, he must be alter'd to the Palates of those who have none; and if you will grant that, who can be properer to alter him for the worse?"
In 1738, having, as Victor says ("History," ii. 48), "Health and Strength enough to be as useful as ever," he agreed with Fleetwood to perform a round of his favourite characters. He was successful in comedy, but in tragedy he felt that his strength was no longer sufficient; and Victor relates that, going behind the scenes while the third act of "Richard III." was on, he was told in a whisper by the old man, "That he would give fifty Guineas to be then sitting in his easy Chair by his own Fire-side." Probably he never played in tragedy again until the production of his own "Papal Tyranny"--at least I cannot discover that he did. In 1740-1 he acted Fondlewife for the benefit of Chetwood, late prompter at Drury Lane, who was then imprisoned in the King's Bench for debt; and his reception was so favourable that he repeated the character a second and third time for his own profit.[210] Upon these occasions he spoke an "Epilogue upon Himself," which is given in "The Egotist" (p. 57 _et seq._), and forms so good an epitome of Cibber's philosophy, besides giving an excellent specimen of his style, that I quote it at length:--
"Now worn with Years, and yet in Folly strong, Now to act Parts, your Grandsires saw when Young! What could provoke me!--I was always wrong. To hope, with Age, I could advance in Merit! Even Age well acted, asks a youthful Spirit: To feel my Wants, yet shew 'em thus detected, Is living to the Dotage, I have acted! T' have acted only Once excus'd might be, When I but play'd the Fool for Charity! But fondly to repeat it!--Senseless Ninny! --No--now--as Doctors do--I touch the Guinea! And while I find my Doses can affect you, 'Twere greater Folly still, should I neglect you. Though this Excuse, at _White'_s they'll not allow me; The Ralliers There, in Diff'rent Lights will shew me. They'll tell you There: I only act--sly Rogue! To play with _Cocky_![211]--O! the doting Dog! And howsoe'er an Audience might regard me, One--_tiss ye Nykin_,[212] amply might reward me! Let them enjoy the Jest, with Laugh incessant! For True, or False, or Right, or Wrong, 'tis pleasant! Mixt, in the wisest Heads, we find some Folly; Yet I find few such happy Fools--as _Colley_! So long t'have liv'd the daily Satire's Stroke, } Unmov'd by Blows, that might have fell'd an Oak, } And yet have laugh'd the labour'd Libel to a Joke. } Suppose such want of Feeling prove me dull! What's my Aggressor then--a peevish Fool! The strongest Satire's on a Blockhead lost; For none but Fools or Madmen strike a Post. If for my Folly's larger List you call, My Life has lump'd 'em! There you'll read 'em all. There you'll find Vanity, wild Hopes pursuing; A wide Attempt: to save the Stage from Ruin! There I confess, I have _out-done_ my _own out-doing_![213] As for what's left of Life, if still 'twill do; 'Tis at your Service, pleas'd while pleasing you: But then, mistake me not! when you've enough; One slender House declares both Parties off: Or Truth in homely Proverb to advance, I pipe no longer than you care to dance."
The representative of Lætitia (or _Cocky_) alluded to in this Epilogue was Mrs. Woffington, with whom stage-history has identified the "Susannah" of the following well-known anecdote, which I quote from an attack upon Cibber, published in 1742, entitled "A Blast upon _Bays_; or, A New Lick at the Laureat." The author writes: "No longer ago than when the _Bedford Coffee house_ was in Vogue, and Mr. _Cibber_ was writing _An Apology for his own Life_, there was one Mr. S---- (the Importer of an expensive _Haymarket_ Comedy) an old Acquaintance of Mr. _Cibber_, who, as well as he, retain'd a Smack of his antient Taste. In those Days there was also a fair smirking Damsel, whose name was _Susannah-Maria_ * * *, who happen'd to have Charms sufficient to revive the decay'd Vigour of these two Friends. They equally pursued her, even to the _Hazard of their Health_, and were frequently seen dangling after her, with tottering Knees, at one and the same Time. You have heard, Sir, what a witty Friend of your own said once on this Occasion: _Lo! yonder goes_ Susannah _and the two Elders._" Even Genest has applied this anecdote to Mrs. Woffington, but the only circumstance that lends confirmation to this view is the fact that Swiney (who is Mr. S----) left her his estate. Against this must be set the important points that Susannah Maria was not Mrs. Woffington's name, and that the joke depended for its neatness and applicability on the name Susannah. The narrator of the story, also, gives no hint that the damsel was the famous actress, as he certainly would have done; and, most important of all, it must be pointed out that at the period mentioned, that is, while Cibber was writing his "Apology," Mrs. Woffington had not appeared in London. The "Apology" was published in April, 1740, and had probably been completed in the preceding November; while Mrs. Woffington made her London _débût_ on 6th November, 1740.[214]
During the season 1741-2, "At the particular desire of several persons of Quality," Cibber made a few appearances at Covent Garden; the purpose being, in all probability, to oppose the extraordinary attraction of Garrick at Goodman's Fields. In 1743-4 he played at the same theatre as Garrick, being engaged at Drury Lane for a round of his famous characters; but there is no record that Garrick and he appeared in the same play. For the new actor Cibber had, naturally enough, no great admiration. He must have resented deeply the alteration in the method of acting tragedy which Garrick introduced, and is always reported as having lost no opportunity of expressing his low opinion of the new school.[215]
His last appearances on the stage were in direct rivalry with his young opponent. As has been related, Cibber's alteration of "King John," which had been "burked" in 1736-7, was produced, from patriotic motives, in 1745. As the principal purpose of the alteration was to make King John resent the insolence of the Pope's Nuncio in a much more emphatic manner than he does in Shakespeare, it may easily be imagined how wretched a production Cibber's play is. Genest's criticism is not too strong when he says (iv. 161): "In a word, Cibber has on this occasion shown himself utterly void of taste, judgment and modesty--well might Fielding call him Ground-Ivy, and say that no man was better calculated to alter Shakspeare for the worse ... in the Epilogue (which was spoken by Mrs. Clive) Cibber speaks of himself with modesty, but in the dedication, being emboldened by the favourable reception of his Tragedy, he has the insolence to say '_I have endeavoured to make it more like a play than I found it in Shakspeare._'" "Papal Tyranny" was produced at Covent Garden on 15th February, 1745,[216] and, in opposition to it, Shakespeare's play was put up at Drury Lane, with Garrick as King John, Macklin as Pandulph, and Mrs. Cibber (the great Mrs. Cibber, wife of Theophilus) as Constance. Cibber's play was, nevertheless, successful; the profit resulting to the author being, according to Victor, four hundred pounds, which he wisely laid out in a profitable annuity with Lord Mountford. In this play Cibber made his last appearance on the stage, on 26th February, 1745, on which day "Papal Tyranny" was played for the tenth time. "After which," says Victor ("History," ii. 49) "he retired to his easy Chair and his Chariot, to waste the Remains of Life with a chearful, contented Mind, without the least bodily Complaint, but that of a slow, unavoidable Decay."
His state of mind was probably the more "chearful and contented" because of his unquestionable success in his tilt with the formidable author of "The Dunciad;" a success none the less certain at the time, that the enduring fame of Pope has caused Cibber's triumph over him to be lost sight of now. The progress of the quarrel between these enemies has already been related up to the publication of Cibber's "Apology" (see vol. i. p. 36), and on pages 21, 35, and 36 of the first volume of this edition will be found Cibber's perfectly good-natured and proper remarks on Pope's attacks on him. Whether the very fact that Cibber did not show temper irritated his opponent, I do not know; but it probably did so, for in the fourth book of "The Dunciad," published in 1742, Pope had another fling at his opponent (line 17):--
"She mounts the throne: her head a cloud conceal'd, In broad effulgence all below reveal'd; ('Tis thus aspiring Dulness ever shines:) Soft on her lap her laureate son reclines."
And in line 532 he talks of "Cibberian forehead" as typical of unblushing impudence.
It is not surprising that this last attack exhausted Cibber's patience. He had hitherto received his punishment with good temper and good humour; but his powerful enemy had not therefore held his hand. He now determined to retaliate. Conscious of the diseased susceptibility of Pope to ridicule, he felt himself quite capable of replying, not with equal literary power, but with much superior practical effect. Accordingly in 1742 there appeared a pamphlet entitled "A Letter from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope, inquiring into the motives that might induce him in his Satyrical Works, to be so frequently fond of Mr. Cibber's name." To it was prefixed the motto: "_Out of thy own Mouth will I judge thee._ Pref. to the _Dunciad_."
Cibber commences by stating that he had been persuaded to reply to Pope by his friends; who insisted that for him to treat his attacker any longer with silent disdain might be thought a confession of Dulness indeed. This is a highly probable statement; for an encounter between the vivacious Cibber and the thin-skinned Pope promised a wealth of amusement for those who looked on--a promise which was amply fulfilled. Cibber proceeds to assure Pope that, having entered the lists, he will not in future avoid the fray, but reply to every attack made on him.[217] He confesses his vast inferiority to Pope, but adds: "I own myself so contented a Dunce, that I would not have even your merited Fame in Poetry, if it were to be attended with half the fretful Solicitude you seem to have lain under to maintain it; of which the laborious Rout you make about it, in those Loads of Prose Rubbish, wherewith you have almost smother'd your _Dunciad_, is so sore a Proof." On page 17 of his "Letter" Cibber gives an interesting account of a quarrel between Pope and himself, to which he, with sufficient probability, attributes much of Pope's enmity. The passage is curious and important, so I quote it in full:--
"The Play of the _Rehearsal_, which had lain some few Years dormant, being by his present Majesty (then Prince of _Wales_) commanded to be revived, the Part of _Bays_ fell to my share. To this Character there had always been allow'd such ludicrous Liberties of Observation, upon any thing new, or remarkable, in the state of the Stage, as Mr. _Bays_ might think proper to take. Much about this time, then, _The Three Hours after Marriage_ had been acted without Success;[218] when Mr. _Bays_, as usual, had a fling at it, which, in itself, was no Jest, unless the Audience would please to make it one: But however, flat as it was, Mr. _Pope_ was mortally sore upon it. This was the Offence. In this Play, two Coxcombs, being in love with a learned Virtuoso's Wife, to get unsuspected Access to her, ingeniously send themselves, as two presented Rarities, to the Husband, the one curiously swath'd up like an _Egyptian_ Mummy, and the other slily cover'd in the Pasteboard Skin of a Crocodile: upon which poetical Expedient, I, Mr. _Bays_, when the two Kings of _Brentford_ came from the Clouds into the Throne again, instead of what my Part directed me to say, made use of these Words, viz. 'Now, Sir, this Revolution, I had some Thoughts of introducing, by a quite different Contrivance; but my Design taking air, some of your sharp Wits, I found, had made use of it before me; otherwise I intended to have stolen one of them in, in the Shape of a _Mummy_, and t'other, in that of a _Crocodile_.' Upon which, I doubt, the Audience by the Roar of their Applause shew'd their proportionable Contempt of the Play they belong'd to. But why am I answerable for that? I did not lead them, by any Reflection of my own, into that Contempt: Surely to have used the bare Word _Mummy_, and _Crocodile_, was neither unjust, or unmannerly; Where then was the Crime of simply saying there had been two such things in a former Play? But this, it seems, was so heinously taken by Mr. _Pope_, that, in the swelling of his Heart, after the Play was over, he came behind the Scenes, with his Lips pale and his Voice trembling, to call me to account for the Insult: And accordingly fell upon me with all the foul Language, that a Wit out of his Senses could be capable of----How durst I have the Impudence to treat any Gentleman in that manner? _&c. &c. &c._ Now let the Reader judge by this Concern, who was the true Mother of the Child! When he was almost choked with the foam of his Passion, I was enough recover'd from my Amazement to make him (as near as I can remember) this Reply, _viz._ 'Mr. _Pope_----You are so particular a Man, that I must be asham'd to return your Language as I ought to do: but since you have attacked me in so monstrous a Manner; This you may depend upon, that so long as the Play continues to be acted, I will never fail to repeat the same Words over and over again.' Now, as he accordingly found I kept my Word, for several Days following, I am afraid he has since thought, that his Pen was a sharper Weapon than his Tongue to trust his Revenge with. And however just Cause this may be for his so doing, it is, at least, the only Cause my Conscience can charge me with. Now, as I might have concealed this Fact if my Conscience would have suffered me, may we not suppose, Mr. _Pope_ would certainly have mention'd it in his _Dunciad_, had he thought it could have been of service to him?"
Cibber afterwards proceeds to criticise and reply to allusions to himself in Pope's works, some of which are in conspicuously bad taste. Cibber, of course, does not miss the obvious point that to attack his successful plays was a foolish proceeding on Pope's part, whose own endeavours as a dramatist had been completely unsuccessful, and who thus laid himself open to the charge of envy. Nor is this accusation so ridiculous as it may seem to readers of to-day, for a successful playwright was a notable public figure, and the delicious applause of the crowded theatre was eagerly sought by even the most eminent men. And again, it must be remembered that Pope's fame was not then the perfectly assured matter that it is now.
But Cibber's great point, which made his opponent writhe with fury, was a little anecdote--Dr. Johnson terms it "an idle story of Pope's behaviour at a tavern"--which raised a universal shout of merriment at Pope's expense. The excuse for its introduction was found in these lines from the "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot":--
"Whom have I hurt? has poet yet or peer Lost the arch'd eyebrow or Parnassian sneer? And has not Colley still his lord and whore? His butchers Henley? his freemasons Moore?"
Cibber's anecdote cannot be defended on the ground of decency, but it is extremely ludicrous, and in the state of society then existing it must have been a knock-down blow to the unhappy subject of it. There can be little doubt that it was this pamphlet which Pope received on the occasion when the Richardsons visited him, as related by Johnson in his Life of the poet: "I have heard Mr. Richardson relate that he attended his father the painter on a visit, when one of Cibber's pamphlets came into the hands of Pope, who said, 'These things are my diversion.' They sat by him while he perused it, and saw his features writhing with anguish: and young Richardson said to his father, when they returned, that he hoped to be preserved from such diversion as had been that day the lot of Pope." How deeply Pope was galled by Cibber's ludicrous picture of him is manifested by the extraordinary revenge he took. And even now we can realize the bitterness of the provocation when we read the maliciously comic story of the vivacious Colley:--
"As to the first Part of the Charge, the _Lord_; Why--we have both had him, and sometimes the _same_ Lord; but as there is neither Vice nor Folly in keeping our Betters Company; the Wit or Satyr of the Verse! can only point at my Lord for keeping such _ordinary_ Company. Well, but if so! then _why_ so, good Mr. _Pope_? If either of us could be _good_ Company, our being professed Poets, I hope would be no Objection to my Lord's sometimes making one with us? and though I don't pretend to write like you, yet all the Requisites to make a good Companion are not confined to Poetry! No, Sir, even a Man's inoffensive Follies and Blunders may sometimes have their Merits at the best Table; and in those, I am sure, you won't pretend to vie with me: Why then may not my Lord be as much in the Right, in his sometimes choosing _Colley_ to laugh at, as at other times in his picking up _Sawney_, whom he can only admire?
"Thus far, then, I hope we are upon a par; for the Lord, you see, will fit either of us.
"As to the latter Charge, the _Whore_, there indeed, I doubt you will have the better of me; for I must own, that I believe I know more of _your_ whoring than you do of _mine_; because I don't recollect that ever I made you the least Confidence of _my_ Amours, though I have been very near an Eye-Witness of _Yours_----By the way, gentle Reader, don't you think, to say only, _a Man has his Whore_, without some particular Circumstances to aggravate the Vice, is the flattest Piece of Satyr that ever fell from the formidable Pen of Mr. _Pope_? because (_defendit numerus_) take the first ten thousand Men you meet, and I believe, you would be no Loser, if you betted ten to one that every single Sinner of them, one with another, had been guilty of the same Frailty. But as Mr. _Pope_ has so particularly picked me out of the Number to make an Example of: Why may I not take the same Liberty, and even single him out for another to keep me in Countenance? He must excuse me, then, if in what I am going to relate, I am reduced to make bold with a little private Conversation: But as he has shewn no Mercy to _Colley_, why should so unprovok'd an Aggressor expect any for himself? And if Truth hurts him, I can't help it. He may remember, then (or if he won't I will) when _Button_'s Coffee-house was in vogue, and so long ago, as when he had not translated above two or three Books of _Homer_; there was a late young Nobleman (as much his _Lord_ as mine) who had a good deal of wicked Humour, and who, though he was fond of having Wits in his Company, was not so restrained by his Conscience, but that he lov'd to laugh at any merry Mischief he could do them: This noble Wag, I say, in his usual _Gayetè de Coeur_, with another Gentleman still in Being,[219] one Evening slily seduced the celebrated Mr. _Pope_ as a Wit, and myself as a Laugher, to a certain House of Carnal Recreation, near the _Hay-Market_; where his Lordship's Frolick propos'd was to slip his little _Homer_, as he call'd him, at a Girl of the Game, that he might see what sort of Figure a Man of his Size, Sobriety, and Vigour (in Verse) would make, when the frail Fit of Love had got into him; in which he so far succeeded, that the smirking Damsel, who serv'd us with Tea, happen'd to have Charms sufficient to tempt the little-tiny Manhood of Mr. _Pope_ into the next Room with her: at which you may imagine, his Lordship was in as much Joy, at what might happen within, as our small Friend could probably be in Possession of it: But I (forgive me all ye mortified Mortals whom his fell Satyr has since fallen upon) observing he had staid as long as without hazard of his Health he might, I,
_Prick'd to it by foolish Honesty and Love,_
As _Shakespear_ says, without Ceremony, threw open the Door upon him, where I found this little hasty Hero, like a terrible _Tom Tit_, pertly perching upon the Mount of Love! But such was my Surprize, that I fairly laid hold of his Heels, and actually drew him down safe and sound from his Danger. My Lord, who staid tittering without, in hopes the sweet Mischief he came for would have been compleated, upon my giving an Account of the Action within, began to curse, and call me an hundred silly Puppies, for my impertinently spoiling the Sport; to which with great Gravity I reply'd; pray, my Lord, consider what I have done was, in regard to the Honour of our Nation! For would you have had so glorious a Work as that of making _Homer_ speak elegant _English_, cut short by laying up our little Gentleman of a Malady, which his thin Body might never have been cured of? No, my Lord! _Homer_ would have been too serious a Sacrifice to our Evening Merriment. Now as his _Homer_ has since been so happily compleated, who can say, that the World may not have been obliged to the kindly Care of _Colley_ that so great a Work ever came to Perfection?
"And now again, gentle Reader, let it be judged, whether the _Lord_ and the _Whore_ above-mentioned might not, with equal Justice, have been apply'd to sober _Sawney_ the Satyrist, as to _Colley_ the Criminal?
"Though I confess Recrimination to be but a poor Defence for one's own Faults; yet when the Guilty are Accusers, it seems but just, to make use of any Truth, that may invalidate their Evidence: I therefore hope, whatever the serious Reader may think amiss in this Story, will be excused, by my being so hardly driven to tell it."
In the remainder of Cibber's pamphlet there is not much that is of any importance, though an allusion to one of Pope's victims having hung up a birch in Button's Coffee House, wherewith to chastise his satirist, was skilfully calculated to rouse Pope's temper. Cibber thoroughly succeeded in this object,[220] perhaps to a degree that he rather regretted. Pope made no direct reply to his banter, but in the following year (1743) a new edition of "The Dunciad" appeared, in which Theobald was deposed from the throne of Dulness, and Cibber elevated in his place. By doing this Pope gratified his vengeance, but injured his poem, for the carefully painted peculiarities of Theobald, a slow and pedantic scholar, sat ill on the pert and vivacious Colley.[221] To this retaliation Cibber, as he had promised,[222] replied with another pamphlet, entitled "Another Occasional Letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope. Wherein the New Hero's Preferment to his Throne, in the _Dunciad_, seems not to be Accepted. And the Author of that Poem His more rightful Claim to it, is Asserted. With An Expostulatory Address to the Reverend Mr. _W. W----n_, Author of the new Preface, and Adviser in the curious Improvements of that Satire." The motto on the title-page was:--
"----_Remember_ Sauney's _Fate!_ _Bang'd by the Blockhead, whom he strove to beat._ Parodie on Lord _Roscommon_."
There is little that is of any note in this production, which is characterized by the same real or affected good-nature as marked the former pamphlet. The most interesting passages to us are those alluding to the effect of Cibber's previous attack, and exulting over Pope's distress at it. For instance (on page 7):--
"And now, Sir, give me leave to be a little surpriz'd at the impenetrable Skull of your Courage, that (after I had in my first Letter) so heartily teiz'd, and toss'd, and tumbled you through all the Mire, and Dirt, the madness of your Muse had been throwing at other People, it could still, so Vixen like, sprawl out the same feeble Paw of its Satyr, to have t'other Scratch at my Nose: But as I know the Vulgar (with whose Applause I humbly content my self) are apt to laugh when they see a curst Cat in a Kennel; so whenever I observe your _Grimalkin_ Spirit shew but the least grinning Gasp of Life, I shall take the honest liberty of old _Towser_ the House-dog, and merrily lift up my Leg to have a little more Game with you.
"Well Sir, in plainer Terms, I am now, you see, once more willing to bring Matters to an Issue, or (as the Boxers say) to answer your Challenge, and come to a Trial of Manhood with you; though by our slow Proceedings, we seem rather to be at _Law_, than at _Loggerheads_ with one another; and if you had not been a blinder Booby, than my self, you would have sate down quietly, with the last black Eye I gave you: For so loath was I to squabble with you, that though you had been snapping, and snarling at me for twenty Years together, you saw, I never so much as gave you a single Growl, or took any notice of you. At last, 'tis true, in meer Sport for others, rather than from the least Tincture of Concern for my self, I was inticed to be a little wanton, not to say waggish, with your Character; by which having (you know) got the strong Laugh on my Side, I doubt I have so offended the Gravity, and Greatness of your Soul, that to secure your more ample Revenge, you have prudently taken the full Term of thirteen Months Consideration, before you would pour it, upon me! But at last, it seems, we have it, and now Souse! out comes your old _Dunciad_, in a new Dress, like fresh Gold, upon stale Gingerbread, sold out in Penny-worth's of shining King _Colley_, crown'd the Hero of Immortal Stupidity!"
And again (on page 15): "At your Peril be it, little Gentleman, for I shall have t'other Frisk with you, and don't despair that the very Notice I am now taking of you, will once more make your Fame fly, like a yelping Cur with a Bottle at his Tail, the Jest and Joy of every Bookseller's Prentice between _Wapping_ and _Westminster_!"
To this pamphlet Pope, whose infirmities were very great, made no reply, and Cibber had, as he had vowed, the last word. Round the central articles of this quarrel a crowd of supplementary productions had gathered, a list of which will be found in the Bibliography of Cibber a few pages on.
Cibber's position of Poet Laureate furnished him with a steady income during his declining years, and his Odes were turned out as required, with mechanical precision and most unpoetic spirit. They were the standing joke of the pamphleteers and news-sheet writers, and were always accompanied with a running fire of banter and parody. Those curious in the matter will find excellent specimens, both of the Odes and the burlesques, in the early volumes of the "Gentleman's Magazine."
After the termination of his quarrel with Pope, Cibber's life was very uneventful; and, although it extended far beyond the allotted span, he continued to enjoy it to the very end. Horace Walpole greeted him one day, saying, "I am glad, Sir, to see you looking so well." "Egad, Sir," replied the old man, "at eighty-four it is well for a man that he can look at all." On 11th December, 1757, he died, having attained the great age of eighty-six.[223] Dr. Doran "Their Majesties' Servants," (1888 edition, ii. 235) says: "I read in contemporary publications that there 'died at his house in Berkeley Square, Colley Cibber, Esq., Poet Laureate;'" and although it has been stated that he died at Islington, I see no reason to doubt Dr. Doran's explicit statement. Cibber was buried in the Danish Church, Wellclose Square.[224]
So far as we know, only two of Cibber's children survived him, his ne'er-do-well son Theophilus, and his equally scapegrace daughter Charlotte, who married Charke the musician. The former was born in 1703, and was drowned in the winter of 1758, while crossing to Ireland to fulfil an engagement in Dublin. As an actor he was chiefly famous for playing Ancient Pistol, but he was also excellent in some of his father's characters, such as Lord Foppington, Bayes, and Sir Francis Wronghead. His private life was in the last degree disreputable, and especially so in his relations with his second wife, Susanna Maria Arne--the great Mrs. Cibber. The literature regarding Theophilus Cibber is considerable in quantity and curious in quality. Some account of it will be found in my "Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature," pp. 52-55. Charlotte Charke, who was born about 1710, and died in April, 1760, was of no note as an actress. Her private life, however, was madly eccentric, and her autobiography, published in 1755, is a curious and scarce work.
Cibber's principal plays have been noted in the course of his "Apology;" but, for the sake of convenience, I give here a complete list of his regular dramatic productions:--
Love's Last Shift--Comedy--Produced at Drury Lane, 1696.
Woman's Wit--Comedy--Drury Lane, 1697.
Xerxes--Tragedy--Lincoln's Inn Fields, 1699.
Richard III.--Tragedy (alteration of Shakespeare's play)--Drury Lane, 1700.
Love Makes a Man--Comedy--Drury Lane, 1701.
The School Boy--Comedy--Drury Lane, 26th October, 1702.
She Would and She Would Not--Comedy--Drury Lane, 26th November, 1702.
The Careless Husband--Comedy--Drury Lane, 7th December, 1704.
Perolla and Izadora--Tragedy--Drury Lane, 3rd December, 1705.
The Comical Lovers--Comedy--Haymarket, 4th February, 1707.
The Double Gallant--Comedy--Haymarket, 1st November, 1707.
The Lady's Last Stake--Comedy--Haymarket, 13th December, 1707.
The Rival Fools--Comedy--Drury Lane, 11th January, 1709.
The Rival Queans--Comical-Tragedy--Haymarket, 29th June, 1710.
Ximena--Tragedy--Drury Lane, 28th November, 1712.
Venus and Adonis--Masque--Drury Lane, 1715.
Bulls and Bears--Farce--Drury Lane, 1st December, 1715.
Myrtillo--Pastoral Interlude--Drury Lane, 1716.
The Nonjuror--Comedy--Drury Lane, 6th December, 1717.
The Refusal--Comedy--Drury Lane, 14th February, 1721.
Cæsar in Egypt--Tragedy--Drury Lane, 9th December, 1724.
The Provoked Husband--Comedy (in conjunction with Vanbrugh)--Drury Lane, 10th January, 1728.
Love in a Riddle--Pastoral--Drury Lane, 7th January, 1729.
Damon and Phillida--Pastoral Farce--Haymarket, 1729.
Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John--Tragedy (alteration of Shakespeare's "King John")--Covent Garden, 15th February, 1745.
Of these, his alteration of "Richard III." had practically undisputed possession of the stage, until the taste and judgment of Mr. Henry Irving gave us back the original play.[225] But in the provinces, when stars of the old school play a round of legitimate parts, the adulterated version still reigns triumphant, and the great effect of the night is got in Cibber's famous line:--
"Off with his head! So much for Buckingham!"
In "The Hypocrite," a comedy still played at intervals, Cibber's "Nonjuror" survives. Bickerstaffe, who was the author of the alteration, retained a very large portion of the original play, his chief change being the addition of the inimitable Mawworm.
That another of Cibber's plays survives is owing to the taste of an American manager and to the genius of an American company of comedians. Mr. Augustin Daly's company includes among its repertory Cibber's comedy of "She Would and She Would Not," and has shown in London as well as in New York how admirable a comedy it is. It goes without saying to those who have seen this company, that much of the success was due to Miss Ada Rehan, who showed in Hypolita, as she has done in Katharine ("Taming of the Shrew"), that she is mistress of classical comedy as of modern touch-and-go farce.[226]
Cibber was the cause of quite a considerable literature, mostly abusive. The following list, taken from my "Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature" (1888), is, I believe, a complete catalogue of all separate publications by, or relating to, Colley Cibber:--
A clue to the comedy of the Non-Juror. With some hints of consequence relating to that play. In a letter to N. Rowe, Esq; Poet Laureat to His Majesty. London (Curll): 1718. 8vo. 6d.
Cibber's "Non-Juror," produced at Drury-Lane, December 6, 1717, was written in favour of the Hanoverian succession. Rowe wrote the prologue, which was very abusive of Nonjurors. This tract is not an attack on the play, but a satire on, it is said, Bishop Hoadly.
A lash for the Laureat: or an address by way of Satyr; most humbly inscrib'd to the unparallel'd Mr. Rowe, on occasion of a late insolent Prologue to the Non-Juror. London (J. Morphew): 1718. folio. Title, 1 leaf: Pref. 1 leaf. pp. 8. 6d.
A furious attack on Rowe on account of his Prologue. A tract of extreme rarity.
A compleat key to the Non-Juror. Explaining the characters in that play, with observations thereon. By Mr. Joseph Gay. The second edioion (_sic_). London (Curll): 1718. 8vo. pp. 24 including title and half-title.
3rd edition: 1718. Joseph Gay is a pseudonym. Pope is said to be the author of the pamphlet, which is very unfriendly to Cibber.
The Theatre-Royal turn'd into a mountebank's stage. In some remarks upon Mr. Cibber's quack-dramatical performance, called the Non-Juror. By a Non-Juror. London (Morphew): 1718. 8vo. Title 1 leaf. pp. 38. 6d.
The Comedy call'd the Non-Juror. Shewing the particular scenes wherein that hypocrite is concern'd. With remarks, and a key, explaining the characters of that excellent play. London (printed for J. L.): 1718. 8vo. pp. 24, including title. 2d.
Some cursory remarks on the play call'd the Non-Juror, written by Mr. Cibber. In a letter to a friend. London (Chetwood): 1718. 8vo.
Dated from Button's Coffee-House and signed "H. S." Very laudatory.
A journey to London. Being part of a comedy written by the late Sir John Vanbrugh, Knt. and printed after his own copy: which (since his decease) has been made an intire play, by Mr. Cibber, and call'd The provok'd husband, &c. London (Watts): 1728. 8vo. pp. 51, including title.
"The Provok'd Husband," by Vanbrugh and Cibber, was produced at Drury Lane, January 10, 1728; and though Cibber's Nonjuror enemies tried to condemn it, was very successful. This tract shows how much of the play was written by Vanbrugh.
Reflections on the principal characters in the Provoked Husband. London: 1728. 8vo.
An apology for the life of Mr. Colley Cibber, comedian, and late patentee of the Theatre-Royal. With an historical view of the stage during his own time. Written by himself. London (Printed by John Watts for the author): 1740. 4to. Port.
Second edition, London, 1740, 8vo., no portrait; third edition, London, 1750, 8vo., portrait; fourth edition, 1756, 2 vols. 12mo., portrait. A good edition was published, London, 1822, 8vo., with notes by E. Bellchambers and a portrait. The "Apology" forms one of Hunt's series of autobiographies, London, 1826. One of the most famous and valuable of theatrical books.
An apology for the life of Mr. T---- C----, comedian. Being a proper sequel to the Apology for the life of Mr. Colley Cibber, comedian. With an historical view of the stage to the present year. Supposed to be written by himself. In the stile and manner of the Poet Laureat. London (Mechell): 1740. 8vo. 2s.
The object of this pamphlet, ascribed to Fielding, is chiefly to ridicule Colley Cibber's "Apology." Herman, 22s.
A brief supplement to Colley Cibber, Esq; his lives of the late famous Actors and Actresses. _Si tu scis, melior ego._ By Anthony, Vulgò Tony Aston. Printed for the Author, N.P. (London): N.D. (1747-8). 8vo. pp. 24 including title.
A pamphlet of extreme rarity. Isaac Reed purchased a copy in 1769; and in 1795 he notes on it that, though he has had it twenty-six years, he has never seen another copy. Reed's copy was bought by Field for 65s., at whose sale, in 1827, Genest bought it for 36s.
The tryal of Colley Cibber, comedian, &c. for writing a book intitled An apology for his life, &c. Being a thorough examination thereof; wherein he is proved guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors against the English language, and in characterising many persons of distinction.... Together with an indictment exhibited against Alexander Pope of Twickenham, Esq; for not exerting his talents at this juncture: and the arraignment of George Cheyne, Physician at Bath, for the Philosophical, Physical, and Theological heresies, uttered in his last book on Regimen. London (for the author): 1740. 8vo. pp. vii. 40. 1s.
With motto--"Lo! He hath written a Book!" The Dedication is signed "T. Johnson."
The Laureat: or, the right side of Colley Cibber, Esq; containing explanations, amendments, and observations, on a book intituled, An apology for the life, and writings of Mr. Colley Cibber. Not written by himself. With some anecdotes of the Laureat, which he (thro' an excess of modesty) omitted. To which is added, The history of the life, manners and writings of Æsopus the tragedian, from a fragment of a Greek manuscript found in the Library of the Vatican; interspers'd with observations of the translator. London (Roberts): 1740. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
A furious attack on Cibber. The Life of Æsopus is a burlesque Life of Cibber. Daniel. 7s. 6d.
The history of the stage. In which is included, the theatrical characters of the most celebrated actors who have adorn'd the theatre. Among many others are the following, _viz._ Mr. Betterton, Mr. Montfort, Mr. Dogget, Mr. Booth, Mr. Wilks, Mr. Nokes. Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Montfort, Mrs. Gwin, Mrs. Bracegirdle, Mrs. Porter, Mrs. Oldfield. Together with, the theatrical life of Mr. Colly Cibber. London (Miller): 1742. 8vo.
A "boil-down" of Cibber's Apology.
A letter from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope, inquiring into the motives that might induce him in his satyrical works, to be so frequently fond of Mr. Cibber's name. London (Lewis): 1742. 8vo. 1s.
Second edition, London, 1744, 8vo.; reprinted, London, 1777, 8vo. The sting of this pamphlet lies in an anecdote told of Pope at a house of ill-fame, in retaliation for his line:
"And has not Colley still his lord and whore?"
A letter to Mr. C--b--r, on his letter to Mr. P---- London (Roberts): 1742. 8vo. 26 pp. 6d.
Very scarce. Abusive of Pope--laudatory towards Cibber.
Difference between verbal and practical virtue. With a prefatory epistle from Mr. C--b--r to Mr. P. London (Roberts): 1742. Folio. Title 1 leaf: Epistle 1 leaf: pp. 7.
Very rare. A rhymed attack on Pope.
A blast upon Bays; or, a new lick at the Laureat. Containing, remarks upon a late tatling performance, entitled, A letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope, &c. _And lo there appeared an old woman!_ Vide the Letter throughout. London (Robbins): 1742. 8vo. pp. 26. 6d.
A bitter attack on Cibber.
Sawney and Colley, a poetical dialogue: occasioned by a late letter from the Laureat of St. James's, to the Homer of Twickenham. Something in the manner of Dr. Swift. London (for J. H.): n.d. (1742). Folio. Title 1 leaf: pp. 21. 1s.
Very scarce. A coarse and ferocious attack on Pope in rhyme.
The egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber. Being his own picture retouch'd, to so _plain_ a likeness, that no one, _now_, would have the face to own it, but himself. London (Lewis): 1743. 8vo. pp. 78 including title. 1s.
Anonymous, but undoubtedly by Cibber himself.
Another occasional letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope. Wherein the new hero's preferment to his throne, in the Dunciad, seems not to be accepted. And the author of that poem his more rightful claim to it, is asserted. With an expostulatory address to the Reverend Mr. W. W----n, author of the new preface, and adviser in the curious improvements of that satire. By Mr. Colley Cibber. London (Lewis): 1744. 8vo. 1s.
The Rev. W. W----n is Warburton. This tract was reprinted, Glasgow, n. d., 8vo. The two "Letters" were reprinted, London, 1777, with, I believe, a curious frontispiece representing the adventure related by Cibber at Pope's expense in the first "Letter." I am not certain whether the frontispiece was issued with the London or Glasgow reprint, having seen it in copies of both. In Bonn's "Lowndes" (1865) is mentioned a parody on this first "Letter," with the same title, except that "Mrs. Cibber's name" is substituted for "Mr. Cibber's name." Lowndes says: "A copy is described in Mr. Thorpe's catalogue, p. iv, 1832, 'with the frontispiece of Pope surprized with Mrs. Cibber.'" I gravely doubt the existence of any such work, and fancy that this frontispiece is the one just mentioned, but wrongly described. Herman (two Letters, with scarce front.), 40s.
A letter to Colley Cibber, Esq; on his transformation of King John. London. 1745. 8vo.
Cibber's mangling of "King John," entitled "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John," was produced at Covent Garden, February 15, 1745.
A new book of the Dunciad: occasion'd by Mr. Warburton's new edition of the Dunciad complete. By a gentleman of one of the Inns of Court. With several of Mr. Warburton's own notes, and likewise Notes _Variorum_. London (J. Payne & J. Bouquet): 1750. 4to. 1s.
Cibber dethroned and Warburton elevated to the throne of Dulness.
Shakspere's tragedy of Richard III., considered dramatically and historically; and in comparison with Cibber's alteration as at present in use on the stage, in a lecture delivered to the members of the Liverpool Literary, Scientific and Commercial Institution, by Thos. Stuart, of the Theatre Royal. (Liverpool): n. d. (about 1850). 12mo.
Cibber published in 1747 a work entitled "The Character and Conduct of Cicero, considered from the history of his life by Dr. Middleton;" but it is of little value or interest.
A BRIEF
SUPPLEMENT
TO
_Colley Cibber_, Esq;
HIS
LIVES
Of the late FAMOUS
ACTORS and ACTRESSES.
_Si tu scis, melior ego._
By _ANTHONY_, } Vulgò _TONY_} _ASTON_.
Printed for the AUTHOR.
* * * * *
Mr. Cibber _is guilty of Omission, that he hath not given us any Description of the several Personages' Beauties, or Faults----Faults (I say) of the several_ ACTORS, &c. _for_
Nemo sine crimine vivit.
_Or, as the late Duke of_ Buckingham _says of_ Characters, _that, to shew a Man not defective,_ ------------------------------------were to draw A faultless Monster, that the World ne'er saw.
* * * * *
A BRIEF SUPPLEMENT TO COLLEY CIBBER, ESQ; HIS LIVES OF THE LATE FAMOUS ACTORS AND ACTRESSES.
Mr. _Betterton_ (although a superlative good Actor) labour'd under ill Figure, being clumsily made, having a great Head, a short thick Neck, stoop'd in the Shoulders, and had fat short Arms, which he rarely lifted higher than his Stomach.--His Left Hand frequently lodg'd in his Breast, between his Coat and Waist-coat, while, with his Right, he prepar'd his Speech.--His Actions were few, but just.--He had little Eyes, and a broad Face, a little Pock-fretten, a corpulent Body, and thick Legs, with large Feet.--He was better to meet, than to follow; for his Aspect was serious, venerable, and majestic; in his latter Time a little paralytic.--His Voice was low and grumbling; yet he could Tune it by an artful _Climax_, which enforc'd universal Attention, even from the _Fops_ and _Orange-Girls_.--He was incapable of dancing, even in a Country-Dance; as was Mrs. _BARRY_: But their good Qualities were more than equal to their Deficiencies.--While Mrs. _BRACEGIRDLE_ sung very agreeably in the LOVES of _Mars_ and _Venus_, and danced in a Country-Dance, as well as Mr. _WILKS_, though not with so much Art and Foppery, but like a well-bred Gentlewoman.--Mr. _Betterton_ was the most extensive Actor, from _Alexander_ to Sir _John Falstaff_; but, in _that_ last Character, he wanted the Waggery of _ESTCOURT_, the Drollery of _HARPER_, the Sallaciousness of _JACK EVANS_.--But, then, _Estcourt_ was too trifling; _Harper_ had too much of the _Bartholomew-Fair_; and _Evans_ misplac'd his Humour.--Thus, you see what _Flaws_ are in _bright Diamonds_:--And I have often wish'd that Mr. _Betterton_ would have resign'd the Part of HAMLET to some young Actor, (who might have Personated, though not have Acted, it better) for, when he threw himself at _Ophelia's_ Feet, he appear'd a little too grave for a young Student, lately come from the University of _Wirtemberg_; and his _Repartees_ seem'd rather as _Apopthegms_ from a _sage Philosopher_, than the _sporting Flashes_ of a Young HAMLET; and no one else could have pleas'd the Town, he was so rooted in their Opinion.--His younger Cotemporary, (_Betterton_ 63, _Powel_ 40, Years old) _POWEL_, attempted several of _Betterton's_ Parts, as _Alexander_, _Jaffier_, &c. but lost his Credit; as, in _Alexander_, he maintain'd not the Dignity of a King, but _Out-Heroded_ HEROD; and in his poison'd, mad Scene, _out-rav'd all Probability_; while _Betterton_ kept his Passion under, and shew'd it most (as Fume smoaks most, when stifled). _Betterton_, from the Time he was dress'd, to the End of the Play, kept his Mind in the same Temperament and Adaptness, as the present Character required.--If I was to write of him all Day, I should still remember fresh Matter in his Behalf; and, before I part with him, suffer this facetious Story of him, and a Country Tenant of his.
Mr. _Betterton_ had a small Farm near _Reading_, in the County of _Berks_; and the Countryman came, in the Time of _Bartholomew-Fair_, to pay his Rent.--Mr. _Betterton_ took him to the Fair, and going to one _Crawley's_ Puppet-Shew, offer'd _Two Shillings_ for himself and _Roger_, his Tenant.--_No, no, Sir_, said _Crawley_; _we never take Money of one another_. This affronted Mr. _Betterton_ who threw down the Money, and they enter'd.--_Roger_ was hugeously diverted with _Punch_, and bred a great Noise, saying, that he would drink with him, for he was a merry Fellow.--Mr. _Betterton_ told him, he was only a Puppet, made up of _Sticks and Rags_: However, _Roger_ still cried out, that he would go and drink with _Punch_.--When Master took him behind, where the Puppets hung up, he swore, he thought _Punch_ had been alive.--_However_, said he, _though he be but_ Sticks and Rags, _I'll give him Six-pence to drink my Health_.--At Night, Mr. _Betterton_ went to the _Theatre_, when was play'd the ORPHAN; Mr. _Betterton_ acting _Castalio_; Mrs. _Barry_, _Monimia_.----_Well_ (said Master) _how dost like this Play_, Roger? _Why, I don't knows_, (says _Roger_) _its well enought for_ Sticks and Rags.
To end with this _Phoenix_ of the Stage, I must say of him, as _Hamlet_ does of his Father: "He was a Man (take him for all in all) I cannot look upon his Like again."
His Favourite, Mrs. _BARRY_, claims the next in Æstimation. They were both never better pleas'd, than in Playing together.--Mrs. _Barry_ outshin'd Mrs. _Bracegirdle_ in the Character of ZARA in the _Mourning Bride_, altho' Mr. _Congreve_ design'd Almeria for that Favour.--And yet, this fine Creature was not handsome, her Mouth op'ning most on the Right Side, which she strove to draw t'other Way, and, at Times, composing her Face, as if sitting to have her Picture drawn.--Mrs. _Barry_ was middle-siz'd, and had darkish Hair, light Eyes, dark Eye-brows, and was indifferently plump:--Her Face somewhat preceded her Action, as the latter did her Words, her Face ever expressing the Passions; not like the Actresses of late Times, who are afraid of putting their Faces out of the Form of Non-meaning, lest they should crack the Cerum, White-Wash, or other Cosmetic, trowel'd on. Mrs. _Barry_ had a Manner of drawing out her Words, which became her, but not Mrs. _Braidshaw_, and Mrs. _Porter_, (Successors.)----To hear her speak the following Speech in the ORPHAN, was a Charm:
_I'm ne'er so well pleas'd, as when I hear thee speak, And listen to the Music of thy Voice._
And again:
_Who's he that speaks with a Voice so sweet, As the Shepherd pipes upon the Mountain, When all his little Flock are gath'ring round him?_
Neither she, nor any of the Actors of those Times, had any Tone in their speaking, (too much, lately, in Use.)--In _Tragedy_ she was solemn and august--in _Free Comedy_ alert, easy, and genteel--pleasant in her Face and Action; filling the Stage with Variety of Gesture.--She was Woman to Lady _Shelton_, of _Norfolk_, (my Godmother)--when Lord _Rochester_ took her on the Stage; where for some Time, they could make nothing of her.--She could neither sing, nor dance, no, not in a Country-Dance.
* * * * *
Mrs. _BRACEGIRDLE_, that _Diana_ of the Stage, hath many Places contending for her Birth--The most received Opinion is, that she was the Daughter of a Coachman, Coachmaker, or Letter-out of Coaches, in the Town of _Northampton_.--But I am inclinable to my Father's Opinion, (who had a great Value for her reported Virtue) that she was a distant Relation, and came out of _Staffordshire_, from about _Walsal_ or _Wolverhampton_.--She had many Assailants on her Virtue, as Lord _Lovelace_, Mr. _Congreve_, the last of which had her Company most; but she ever resisted his vicious Attacks, and, yet, was always uneasy at his leaving her; on which Observation he made the following Song:
PIOUS Celinda _goes to Pray'rs, Whene'er I ask the Favour; Yet, the tender Fool's in Tears, When she believes I'll leave her. Wou'd I were free from this Restraint, Or else had Power to win her! Wou'd she cou'd make of me a Saint, Or I of her a Sinner!_
And, as Mr. _Durfey_ alludes to it in his Puppet Song--in _Don Quixot_,
_Since that our Fate intends Our Amity shall be no dearer, Still let us kiss and be Friends, And sigh we shall never come nearer._
She was very shy of Lord _Lovelace's_ Company, as being an engaging Man, who drest well: And as, every Day, his Servant came to her, to ask her how she did, she always return'd her Answer in the most obeisant Words and Behaviour, _That she was indifferent well, she humbly thank'd his Lordship_.--She was of a lovely Height, with dark-brown Hair and Eye-brows, black sparkling Eyes, and a fresh blushy Complexion; and, whenever she exerted herself, had an involuntary Flushing in her Breast, Neck and Face, having continually a chearful Aspect, and a fine Set of even white Teeth; never making an _Exit_, but that she left the Audience in an Imitation of her pleasant Countenance. Genteel Comedy was her chief Essay, and that too when in Men's Cloaths, in which she far surmounted all the Actresses of that and this Age.--Yet she had a Defect scarce perceptible, _viz._ her Right Shoulder a little protended, which, when in Men's Cloaths, was cover'd by a long or Campaign Peruke.--She was finely shap'd, and had very handsome Legs and Feet; and her Gait, or Walk, was free, manlike, and modest, when in Breeches.--Her Virtue had its Reward, both in Applause and _Specie_; for it happen'd, that as the Dukes of _Dorset_ and _Devonshire_, Lord _Hallifax_, and other Nobles, over a Bottle, were all extolling Mrs. _Bracegirdle's_ virtuous Behaviour, Come, says Lord _Hallifax_--_You all commend her Virtue, &c. but why do we not present this incomparable Woman with something worthy her Acceptance?_ His Lordship deposited 200 Guineas, which the rest made up 800, and sent to her, with Encomiums on her Virtue.--She was, when on the _Stage_, diurnally Charitable, going often into _Clare-Market_, and giving Money to the poor unemploy'd Basket-women, insomuch that she could not pass that Neighbourhood without the thankful Acclamations of People of all Degrees; so that, if any Person had affronted her, they would have been in Danger of being kill'd directly; and yet this good Woman was an Actress.--She has been off the Stage these 26 Years or more, but was alive _July 20, 1747_; for I saw her in the _Strand, London_, then--with the Remains of charming _Bracegirdle_.
* * * * *
Mr. _SANDFORD_, although not usually deem'd an Actor of the first Rank, yet the Characters allotted him were such, that none besides, then, or since, ever topp'd; for his Figure, which was diminutive and mean, (being Round-shoulder'd, Meagre-fac'd, Spindle-shank'd, Splay-footed, with a sour Countenance, and long lean Arms) render'd him a proper Person to discharge _Jago_, _Foresight_, and _Ma'lignij_, in the VILLAIN. But he fail'd in succeeding in a fine Description of a triumphant Cavalcade, in _Alonzo_, in the MOURNING BRIDE, because his Figure was despicable, (although his Energy was, by his Voice and Action, enforc'd with great Soundness of Art, and Justice.)--This Person acted strongly with his Face,--and (as King _Charles_ said) was the best Villain in the World.--He proceeded from the _Sandfords_ of _Sandford_, that lies between _Whitchurch_ and _Newport_, in Shropshire.--He would not be concern'd with Mr. _Betterton_, Mrs. _Barry_, _&c._ as a Sharer in the Revolt from _Drury-Lane_ to _Lincoln's-Inn-Fields_; but said, _This is my Agreement_.--_To_ Samuel Sandford, _Gentleman_, Threescore Shillings a Week.----Pho! pho! _said Mr._ Betterton, _Three Pounds a Week_.----_No, no, said_ Sandford;--_To_ Samuel Sandford, _Gentleman_, Threescore Shillings a Week. For which _Cave Underhill_, who was a 3/4 Sharer, would often jeer _Sandford_; saying, _Samuel Sandford, Gent, my Man._----Go, you Sot, said _Sandford_.--To which t'other ever replied, _Samuel Sandford, my Man_ Samuel.
_CAVE UNDERHILL_, and Mr. _DOGGET_, will be the next treated of.
* * * * *
_CAVE UNDERHILL_, though not the best Actor in the Course of Precedency, was more admired by the Actors than the Audience--there being then no Rivals in his dry, heavy, downright Way in Low Comedy.--His few Parts were, The first Grave-digger in HAMLET,--_Sancho Pancha_, in the first Part of DON QUIXOT,--_Ned Blunt_, in the ROVER,--_Jacomo_, in the LIBERTINE, and the _Host_, in the VILLAIN:--All which were dry, heavy Characters, except in _Jacomo_; in which, when he aim'd at any Archness, he fell into downright Insignificance.--He was about 50 Years of Age the latter End of King _William's_ Reign, about six Foot high, long and broad-fac'd, and something more corpulent than this Author; his Face very like the _Homo Sylvestris_, or _Champanza_; for his Nose was flattish and short, and his Upper Lip very long and thick, with a wide Mouth and short Chin, a churlish Voice, and awkward Action, (leaping often up with both Legs at a Time, when he conceived any Thing waggish, and afterwards hugging himself at the Thought.)----He could not enter into any serious Character, much more Tragedy; and was the most confin'd Actor I ever saw: And could scarce be brought to speak a short _Latin_ Speech in DON QUIXOT, when _Sancho_ is made to say, _Sit bonus Populus, bonus ero Gubernator_; which he pronounced thus:
_Shit bones and bobble arse, Bones, and ears Goble Nature._
He was obliged to Mr. _Betterton_ for thrusting him into the Character of _Merryman_ in his _Wanton Wife_, or _Amorous Widow_; but _Westheart Cave_ was too much of a Dullman.--His chief Atchievement was in _Lolpoop_, in the _'Squire of Alsatia_; where it was almost impossible for him to deviate from himself: But he did great Injustice to Sir _Sampson Legend_ in _Love for Love_, unless it had been true, that the Knight had been bred a Hog-driver.--In short, _Underhill_ was far from being a good Actor--as appear'd by the late _Ben. Johnson's_ assuming his Parts of _Jacomo_--the Grave-digger in _Hamlet_--and Judge _Grypus_ in _Amphytrion_.--I know, Mr. _Underhill_ was much cry'd up in his Time; but I am so stupid as not to know why.
* * * * *
Mr. _DOGGET_, indeed, cannot reasonably be so censur'd; for whoever decry'd him, must inevitably have laugh'd much, whenever he saw him act.
Mr. _Dogget_ was but little regarded, 'till he chopp'd on the Character of _Solon_ in the _Marriage-Hater Match'd_; and from that he vegetated fast in the Parts of _Fondlewife_ in the _Old Batchelor_--_Colignii_, in the _Villain_--_Hob_, in the _Country Wake_--and _Ben_ the Sailor, in _Love for Love_.--But, on a Time, he suffer'd himself to be expos'd, by attempting the serious Character of _Phorbas_ in _Oedipus_, than which nothing cou'd be more ridiculous--for when he came to these Words--(_But, oh! I wish_ Phorbas _had perish'd in that very Moment_)--the Audience conceived that it was spoke like _Hob_ in his Dying-Speech.--They burst out into a loud Laughter; which sunk _Tom Dogget's_ Progress in Tragedy from that Time.
_Fælix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum._
But our present LAUREAT had a better Opinion of himself;--for, in a few Nights afterwards, _COLLEY_, at the old Theatre, attempted the same Character; but was hiss'd,--his Voice sounding like _Lord Foppington's_--_Ne Sutor ultra Crepidam._
Mr. _Dogget_ was a little, lively, spract Man, about the Stature of Mr. L----, Sen. Bookseller in B--h, but better built.--His Behaviour modest, chearful, and complaisant.--He sung in Company very agreeably, and in Public very comically.--He danc'd the _Cheshire Round_ full as well as the fam'd Capt. _George_, but with much more Nature and Nimbleness.--I have had the Pleasure of his Conversation for one Year, when I travell'd with him in his strolling Company, and found him a Man of very good Sense, but illiterate; for he wrote me Word thus--_Sir, I will give you a_ hole instead of (_whole_) _Share_.--He dress'd neat, and something fine--in a plain Cloth Coat, and a brocaded Waistcoat:--But he is so recent, having been so often at _Bath_,--_satis est_.--He gave his Yearly Water-Badge, out of a warm Principle, (being a _staunch Revolution-Whig_.)----I cannot part with this _Nonpareil_, without saying, that he was the most faithful, pleasant Actor that ever was--for he never deceiv'd his Audience--because, while they gaz'd at him, he was working up the Joke, which broke out suddenly in involuntary Acclamations and Laughter.--Whereas our modern Actors are fumbling the dull Minutes, keeping the gaping Pit in Suspence of something delightful a coming,--_Et parturiunt Montes, nascitur ridiculus Mus_.
He was the best Face-player and Gesticulator, and a thorough Master of the several Dialects, except the _Scots_, (for he never was in _Scotland_) but was, for all that, a most excellent _Sawney_. Whoever would see him pictur'd, may view his Picture, in the Character of _Sawney_, at the _Duke's Head_ in _Lynn-Regis_, in _Norfolk_.----While I travell'd with him, each Sharer kept his Horse, and was every where respected as a Gentleman.
_Jack Verbruggen_, in Point of Merit, will salute you next.
_JACK VERBRUGGEN_, that rough Diamond, shone more bright than all the artful, polish'd Brillants that ever sparkled on our Stage.--(_JACK bore the BELL away._)--He had the Words perfect at one View, and Nature directed 'em into Voice and Action, in which last he was always pleasing--his Person being tall, well-built and clean; only he was a little In-kneed, which gave him a shambling Gate, which was a Carelessness, and became him.--His chief Parts were _Bajazet_, _Oroonoko_, _Edgar_ in King _Lear_, _Wilmore_ in the _Rover_, and _Cassius_, when Mr. _Betterton_ play'd _Brutus_ with him.--Then you might behold the grand Contest, _viz._ whether Nature or Art excell'd--_Verbruggen_ wild and untaught, or _Betterton_ in the Trammels of Instruction.---In _Edgar_, in King _Lear_, _Jack_ shew'd his Judgment most; for his Madness was unlimited: Whereas he sensibly felt a Tenderness for _Cordelia_, in these Words, (speaking to her)--_As you did once know_ Edgar!--And you may best conceive his manly, wild Starts, by these Words in _Oroonoko_,--_Ha! thou hast rous'd the Lyon [in] his Den; he stalks abroad, and the wild Forest trembles at his Roar:_--Which was spoke, like a Lyon, by _Oroonoko_, and _Jack Verbruggen_; for Nature was so predominant, that his second Thoughts never alter'd his prime Performance.--The late Marquess of _Hallifax_ order'd Oroonoko to be taken from _George Powel_, saying to Mr. _Southern_, the Author,--That _Jack_ was the unpolish'd Hero, and wou'd do it best.--In the _Rover_ (_Wilmore_) never were more beautiful Scenes than between him, and Mrs. _Bracegirdle_, in the Character of _Helena_; for, what with _Verbruggen's_ untaught Airs, and her smiling Repartees, the Audience were afraid they were going off the Stage every Moment.--_Verbruggen_ was Nature, without Extravagance--Freedom, without Licentiousness--and vociferous, without bellowing.----He was most indulgently soft, when he says to _Imoinda_,--_I cannot, as I wou'd, bestow thee; and, as I ought, I dare not._--Yet, with all these Perfections, _Jack_ did, and said, more silly Things than all the Actors besides; for he was drawn in at the common Cheat of Pricking at the Girdle, Cups and Balls, _&c._ and told his Wife one Day that he had found out a Way to raise a great Benefit.--_I hope_, said she, _you'll have your_ Bills _printed in_ Gold Letters.--_No, no, better than that_, said he; _for I'll have the King's-Arms all in Gold Letters_.--As Mr. _Verbruggen_ had Nature for his Directress in Acting, so had a known Singer, _Jemmy Bowen_, the same in Music:--He, when practising a Song set by Mr. PURCELL, some of the Music told him to grace and run a Division in such a Place. _O let him alone_, said Mr. _Purcell_; _he will grace it more naturally than you, or I, can teach him_.--In short, an Actor, like a Poet,
_Nascitur, non fit._
And this Author prizes himself on that Attempt, as he hath had the Judgment of all the best Critics in the Character of _Fondlewife_ in the _Old Batchelor_.--_If you wou'd see Nature_, say they, _see_ Tony Aston--_if Art_, Colley Cibber;--and, indeed, I have shed mock Tears in that Part often involuntarily.
* * * * *
Mrs. _VERBRUGGEN_ claims a Place next. She was all Art, and her Acting all acquir'd, but dress'd so nice, it look'd like Nature. There was not a Look, a Motion, but what were all design'd; and these at the same Word, Period, Occasion, Incident, were every Night, in the same Character, alike; and yet all sat charmingly easy on her.--Her Face, Motion, _&c._ chang'd at once: But the greatest, and usual, Position was Laughing, Flirting her Fan, and _je ne scay quois_,--with a Kind of affected Twitter.--She was very loath to accept of the Part of _Weldon_ in _Oroonoko_, and that with just Reason, as being obliged to put on Men's Cloaths--having thick Legs and Thighs, corpulent and large Posteriours;--but yet the Town (that respected her) compounded, and receiv'd her with Applause; for she was the most pleasant Creature that ever appear'd: Adding to these, that she was a fine, fair Woman, plump, full-featur'd; her Face of a fine, smooth Oval, full of beautiful, well-dispos'd Moles on it, and on her Neck and Breast--Whatever she did was not to be call'd Acting; no, no, it was what she represented: She was neither more nor less, and was the most easy Actress in the World. The late Mrs. OLDFIELD borrow'd something of her Manner in free Comedy;--as for Tragedy, Mrs. _Verbruggen_ never attempted it. _Melanthe_ was her Master-piece; and the Part of _Hillaria_ in _Tunbridge-Walks_ cou'd not be said to be Acted by any one but her.--Her Maiden-Name was _Percival_; and she was the Widow of Mr. _Mountford_, (who was kill'd by Lord _Mohun_) when Mr. _Verbruggen_ married her.--She was the best Conversation possible; never captious, or displeas'd at any Thing but what was gross or indecent; for she was cautious, lest fiery _Jack_ shou'd so resent it as to breed a Quarrel;--for he wou'd often say,--_Dammee! tho' I don't much value my Wife, yet no Body shall affront her, by G--d_; and his Sword was drawn on the least Occasion, which was much in Fashion at the latter End of King _William's_ Reign;--at which Time I came on the Stage, when Mr. _Dogget_ left it; and then the facetious _Joe Haines_ was declining in Years and Reputation, tho' a good Actor and Poet, his Prologues exceeding all ever wrote.--[_Vide_ Love and a Bottle.]
* * * * *
_JOE HAINES_ is more remarkable for the witty, tho' wicked, Pranks he play'd, and for his Prologues and Epilogues, than for Acting.--He was, at first, a Dancer.--After he had made his Tour of _France_, he narrowly escaped being seiz'd, and sent to the _Bastile_, for personating an _English_ Peer, and running 3000 Livres in Debt in _Paris_; but, happily landing at Dover, he went to _London_, where in _Bartholomew-Fair_, he set up a Droll-Booth, and acted a new Droll, call'd, _The Whore of Babylon, the Devil, and the Pope_. This was in the first Year of King _James_ II. when _Joe_ was sent for, and roundly admonish'd, by Judge _Pollixfen_ for it. _Joe_ reply'd, _That he did it in Respect to his_ Holiness; _for, whereas many ignorant People believed the_ Pope _to be a_ Beast, _he shew'd him to be a fine, comely old Gentleman, as he was; not with Seven Heads, and Ten Horns, as the_ Scotch _Parsons describe him_. However, this Affair spoil'd _Joe's_ expiring Credit; for next Morning, a Couple of Bailiffs seiz'd him in an Action of 20_l._ as the Bishop of _Ely_ was passing by in his Coach.--Quoth _Joe_ to the Bailiffs,--_Gentlemen, here's my Cousin, the Bishop of_ Ely, _going into his House; let me but speak to him, and he'll pay the Debt and Charges_. The Bailiffs thought they might venture that, as they were within three or four Yards of him. So, up goes _Joe_ to the Coach, pulling off his Hat, and got close to it. The Bishop order'd the Coach to stop, whilst _Joe_ (close to his Ear) said softly, _My Lord, here are two poor Men, who have such great Scruples of Conscience, that, I fear, they'll hang themselves._--Very well, _said the Bishop_. So, calling to the Bailiffs, he said, _You two Men, come to me To-morrow Morning, and I'll satisfy you_. The Men bow'd, and went away. _Joe_ (hugging himself with his fallacious Device) went also his Way. In the Morning, the Bailiffs (expecting the Debt and Charges) repair'd to the Bishop's; where being introduced,--_Well_, said the Bishop, _what are your Scruples of Conscience?_--_Scruples!_ (said the Bailiffs) _we have no Scruples: We are Bailiffs, my Lord, who, Yesterday, arrested your Cousin_, Joe Haines, _for 20l. Your Lordship promised to satisfy us To-day, and we hope your Lordship will be as good as your Word._--The Bishop, reflecting that his Honour and Name would be expos'd, (if he complied not) paid the Debt and Charges.--There were two Parts of Plays (_Nol Bluff_ in the _Old Batchelor_, and _Roger_ in _Æsop_) which none ever touch'd but _Joe Haines_.--I own, I have copied him in _Roger_, as I did Mr. _Dogget_ in _Fondlewife_.--But, now, for another Story of him.
In the long Vacation, when Harlots, Poets, and Players, are all poor,--_Joe_ walking in _Cross-Street_, by _Hatton-Garden_, sees a fine Venison-Pasty come out of _Glassop's_, a Pastry-Cook's Shop, which a Boy carried to a Gentleman's House thereby.--_Joe_ watch'd it; and seeing a Gentleman knock at the Door, he goes to the Door, and ask'd him if he had knock'd at it: _Yes_, said the Gentleman; _the Door is open'd_.--In goes the Gentleman, and _Joe_ after him, to the Dining-Room.--Chairs were set, and all ready for the Pasty. The Master of the House took _Joe_ for the Gentleman's Friend, whom he had invited to Dinner; which being over, the Gentleman departed. _Joe_ sat still.--Says the Master of the House to _Joe_, _Sir, I thought you would have gone with your Friend_!--_My Friend_, said _Joe_; _alas! I never saw him before in my Life_.--_No, Sir_, replied the other: _Pray, Sir, then how came you to Dinner here?_--_Sir_, said _Joe_, _I saw a Venison-Pasty carried in here; and, by this Means, have din'd very heartily of it_. _My Name is_ Joe Haines, (said he) _I belong to the_ Theatre.--_Oh, Mr._ Haines, (continued the Gentleman) _you are very welcome; you are a Man of Wit: Come, bring t'other bottle_; which being finish'd, _Joe_, with good Manners, departed, and purposely left his Cane behind him, which he design'd to be an Introduction to another Dinner there: For, next Day, when they were gone to Dinner, _Joe_ knock'd briskly at the Door, to call for his Cane, when the Gentleman of the House was telling a Friend of his the Trick he play'd the Day before.--_Pray call Mr._ Haines _in_.--_So, Mr._ Haines, said he; _sit down, and partake of another Dinner_.--_To tell you the Truth_, said _Joe_, _I left my Cane Yesterday on purpose_: At which they all laugh'd.--Now _Joe_ (altho' while greedily eating) was very attentive to a Discourse on Humanity begun, and continued, by the Stranger Gentleman; wherein he advanced, that every Man's Duty was to assist another, whether with Advice, Money, Cloaths, Food, or whatever else. This Sort of Principle suited _Joe's_ End, as by the Sequel will appear. The Company broke up, and _Joe_, and the Gentleman, walk'd away, (_Joe_ sighing as he went along.) The Gentleman said to him, _What do you sigh for?_--_Dear Sir_, (quoth _Joe_) _I fear my Landlord will, this Day, seize my Goods for only a Quarter's Rent, due last Week_.--_How much is the Money?_ said the Gentleman.--_Fifty Shillings_, said _Joe_, _and the Patentees owe me Ten Pounds, which will be paid next Week._--_Come_, said the Gentleman, _I'll lend thee Fifty Shillings on your Note, to pay me faithfully in three Weeks_. Which _Joe_, with many Promises and Imprecations, sign'd.--But _Joe_, thereafter, had his Eyes looking out before him; and, whenever he saw the Gentleman, would carefully avoid him; which the Gentleman one Day perceiv'd, and going a-cross _Smithfield_, met _Joe_ full in the Face, and, in the Middle of the _Rounds_, stopp'd him. Taking him by the Collar, _Sirrah_, said he, _pray pay me now, you impudent, cheating Dog, or I'll beat you into a Jelly_.--_Joe_ fell down on his Knees, making a dismal Outcry, which drew a Mob about them, who enquir'd into the Occasion, which was told them; and they, upon hearing it, said to the Gentleman, _That the poor Man could not pay it, if he had it not_.--_Well_, said he, _let him kneel down, and eat up that thin Sirreverence, and I'll forgive him, and give up his Note_.--_Joe_ promis'd he would, and presently eat it all up, smearing his Lips and Nose with the human Conserve. The Gentleman gave him his Note; when _Joe_ ran and embrac'd him, kissing him, and bedaubing his Face, and setting the Mob a hollowing.
* * * * *
_The_ SECOND PART _of their_ LIVES, _with the Continuation of_ JOE HAINES'_s Pranks, the Author hopes a fresh Advance for.----In the_ Interim, _he thanks his Friends._
_FINIS._
MEMOIRS OF THE ACTORS AND ACTRESSES MENTIONED BY CIBBER,
TAKEN FROM EDMUND BELLCHAMBERS'S EDITION OF THE "APOLOGY," 1822.
WILLIAM SMITH.
This judicious actor, who is said to have been originally a barrister, came into the Duke's Company, when acting under Sir William D'Avenant, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, about the year 1663. He rose soon after to the duties of _Buckingham_, in "King Henry the Eighth," and subsequently filled a range of characters distinguished by their variety and importance. _Sir William Stanley_, in Caryl's wretched play of the "English Princess," procured him additional estimation and applause, which were still farther enlarged by his performance of _Stanford_ in Shadwell's "Sullen Lovers." Mr. Smith was the original _Chamont_ in Otway's "Orphan," and played many parts of as much local consequence in pieces that are now forgotten.
NOTE.--All passages enclosed in square brackets are by the present editor, who is also responsible for the notes marked (L.).
Chetwood informs us that Mr. Smith was zealously attached to the interests of King James the Second, in whose army, attended by two servants, he entered as a volunteer. Upon the abdication of that monarch, he returned to the stage, by the persuasions of many friends, who admired his performances, and resumed his original part of _Wilmore_ in the "Rover;" but having been received with considerable disapprobation, on account of his party principles, the audience was dismissed, and he departed from public life in the manner already mentioned. It is difficult to reconcile these discrepancies. Chetwood's minuteness looks like credibility, and Cibber has committed a mistake in stating that Mr. Smith "entirely quitted" the stage at this secession, he having returned in 1695, when at the earnest solicitations of his sincere friends Mr. Betterton and Mrs. Barry, strengthened by the influence of Congreve over many of his connections in high life, he consented to sustain the part of _Scandal_ in that author's comedy of "Love for Love," upon its production at the new theatre in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields, when his inimitable performance imparted an extra charm to that admirable play. Continued peals of applause attested the satisfaction which his auditors felt at the return of their old favourite, and it seems singular that Congreve should have wholly overlooked this memorable event, in the "prologue" at least, where the defection of Williams and Mrs. Mountfort is thus obscurely stated:
Forbear your wonder, and the fault forgive If in our larger family we grieve One falling Adam, and one tempted Eve.
Mr. Smith continued on the stage till about twelve months after this period, when, according to Downes, having a long part in Banks's tragedy of "Cyrus," 1696, he fell sick on the fourth day of performance, and died from a cold, as Chetwood relates, occasioned by cramp, which having seized him while in bed, he rose to get rid of it, and remained so long in his naked condition, that a fever ensued from disordered lungs, and, in three days, put an end to his existence.
We have but a slender clue to the stage-management of Mr. Smith, which was exercised over the Duke's Company in Dorset-garden, conjointly with Betterton and Dr. D'Avenant, when the famous agreement which bears their signatures was concluded with Hart and Kynaston, for an union of the theatres. It has been said that Booth [who wrote an epitaph on Smith] applied to him for an engagement, which was refused from a fear of offending his relatives, but with that kindness of expression and deportment so warmly distinguished in his epitaph. This assertion, however, is unfounded, for when Mr. Smith died, Barton Booth was a Westminster scholar, and in the fourteenth year of his age; the character of this eminent comedian must, accordingly, have been drawn up from such intelligence as the writer acquired at a subsequent period.
It only remains to be remarked, that Chetwood has placed Mr. Smith's original return to the stage in the year 1692; but, not to insist upon the known looseness of this writer's information, let us ask if a political offence would be so vehemently remembered, after the lapse of four years, as to drive an estimable actor from the harmless pursuance of his ordinary duties? Cibber is doubtless correct in the floating date of this fact, which must have happened _previous_ to the revolution. Mr. Smith was a principal actor in Lee's later tragedies, but in the "Princess of Cleve," 4to, 1689, we find the part he would naturally have played to Betterton's _Nemours_, supported by Mr. Williams.
Smith's value as an actor, may be immediately felt by a reference to the parts he enjoyed under Betterton, with whom he lived till death in the most cordial manner, enhancing his fame by honourable emulation, and promoting his interests by unbroken amity. No instance has been recorded of their dissention or dispute, and from the notice which Betterton extended to Booth, he very possibly communicated that high account of his departed friend, which the latter has recorded with such spirit and fidelity.
From Cibber's admission, it appears, that Smith's moral qualities and professional excellence, procured him an extensive reception among people of rank, a patronage which his polished manners continued to exact, till society, by his death, sustained one of its deepest deprivations. (B.) Chetwood's story is now incapable either of proof or disproof. The known facts about Smith's retirement are, that his name appears to Constantine the Great, to Courtine in Otway's "Atheist," and to Lorenzo in Southerne's "Disappointment," in 1684; that it then disappears, and does not again occur till 1695. It is probable that he retired in 1684, as it is unlikely that his name should not appear in one or other of the 1685 bills. (L.)
CHARLES HART.
Charles Hart was the great nephew of Shakspeare, his father, William, being the eldest son of our poet's sister Joan. Brought up as an apprentice under Robinson, a celebrated actor, he commenced his career, conformably to the practice of that time, by playing female parts, among which the _Duchess_, in Shirley's tragedy of the "Cardinal," was the first that exhibited his talents, or enhanced his reputation.
Puritanism having gathered great strength, opposed theatrical amusements as vicious and profane institutions, which it was at length enabled to abolish and suppress. On the 11th day of February, 1647,[227] and the subsequent 22d of October, two ordinances were issued by the Long Parliament, whereby all stage-players were made liable to punishment for following their usual occupation. Before the appearance of this severe edict, most of the actors had gone into the army, and fought with distinguished spirit for their unfortunate master; when, however, his fate was determined, the surviving dependants on the drama were compelled to renew their former efforts, in pursuance of which they returned, just before the death of Charles, to act a few plays at the "Cockpit" theatre, where, while performing the tragedy of "Rollo," they were taken into custody by soldiers, and committed to prison.[228] Upon this occasion, Hart, who had been a lieutenant of horse, under Sir Thomas Dallison, in Prince Rupert's own regiment, sustained the character of _Otto_, a part which he afterwards relinquished to Kynaston, in exchange for the fierce energies of his ambitious brother.
At the Restoration, Hart was enrolled among the company constituting his Majesty's Servants, by whom the new Theatre Royal, Drury-lane, was opened on the 8th of April, 1663, with Beaumont and Fletcher's play of the "Humourous Lieutenant," in which he sustained a principal character for twelve days of successive representation.
About the year 1667,[229] Hart introduced Mrs. Gwyn upon the dramatic boards, and has acquired the distinction of being ranked among that lady's first felicitous lovers, by having succeeded to Lacy, in the possession of her charms. Nell had been tutored for the stage by these admirers in conjunction, and after testifying her gratitude to both, passed into the hands of Lord Buckhurst, by whom she was transferred to the custody of King Charles the Second.
The principal parts, according to Downes, sustained by Mr. Hart, were _Arbaces_, in "King and No King;" _Amintor_, in the "Maid's Tragedy;" _Othello_, _Rolla_, _Brutus_, and _Alexander the Great_. Such was his attraction in all these characters, that, to use the language of that honest prompter, "if he acted in any one of these but once in a fortnight, the house was filled as at a new play; especially _Alexander_, he acting that with such grandeur and agreeable majesty, that one of the court was pleased to honour him with this commendation--'that Hart might teach any king on earth how to comport himself.'" His merit has also been specified as _Mosca_, in the "Fox," _Don John_, in the "Chances," and _Wildblood_, in an "Evening's Love;" which, however, according to the same authority, merely harmonised with his general efforts, in commanding a vast superiority over the best of his successors.
Rymer has said that Hart's action could throw a lustre round the meanest characters, and, by dazzling the eyes of the spectator, protect the poet's deformities from discernment. He was taller, and more genteelly shaped than Mohun, on which account he probably claimed the choice of parts, and was prescriptively invested with the attributes of youth and agility. He possessed a considerable share in the profits and direction of the theatre, which were divided among the principal performers; and besides his salary of £3 a week, and an allowance as a proprietor, amounting to six shillings and three-pence a day, is supposed to have occasionally cleared about £1000 per annum.
[On the 14th of October, 1681, a memorandum was signed between Dr. Charles Davenant, Betterton, and Smith, of the one part, and Hart and Kynaston, of the other, by which the two last mentioned, in consideration of five shillings each for every day on which there shall be a play at the Duke's Theatre, undertake to do all they can to break up the King's Company. The result of this agreement was the Union of 1682. This agreement is given in Gildon's "Life of Betterton" (p. 8), and in Genest (i. 369). I suppose it is a genuine document, but I confess to some doubts, based chiefly on my belief that Betterton was too honest to enter into so shabby an intrigue.]
Declining age had rendered Hart less fit for exertion than in the vigour of life, and certain of the young actors, such as Goodman and Clark, became impatient to get possession of his and Mohun's characters. A violent affliction, however, of the stone and gravel, compelled him to relinquish his professional efforts, and having stipulated for the payment of five shillings a-day, during the season,[230] he retired from the stage, and died a short time after.
Hart was always esteemed a constant observer of decency in manners, and the following anecdote will evince his respect for the clergy. That witty, but abandoned fellow, Jo Haynes, had persuaded a silly divine, into whose company he had unaccountably fallen, that the players were a set of people, who wished to be reformed, and wanted a Chaplain to the Theatre, an appointment for which, with a handsome yearly income, he could undertake to recommend him. He then directed the clergyman to summon his hearers, by tolling a bell to prayers every morning, a scheme, in pursuance of which Haynes introduced his companion, with a bell in his hand, behind the scenes, which he frequently rang, and cried out, audibly, "Players! players! come to prayers!" While Jo and some others were enjoying this happy contrivance, Hart came into the theatre, and, on discovering the imposition, was extremely angry with Haynes, whom he smartly reprehended, and having invited the clergyman to dinner, convinced him that this buffoon was an improper associate for a man of his function.[231]
MICHAEL MOHUN.
The life of Michael Mohun, though passed in its early stages beneath a different teacher, was chequered by the very shades which distinguished that of Hart, with whom he acquired his military distinctions, and reverted to a theatrical life. He was brought up with Shatterel, under Beeston, at the "Cock-pit," in Drury-lane, where, in Shirley's play of "Love's Cruelty," he sustained the part of _Bellamente_, among other female characters,[232] and held it even after the Restoration.
Having attained the rank of captain in the royal forces, Mohun went to Flanders upon the termination of the civil war, where he received pay as a major, and acquitted himself with distinguished credit. At the Restoration, he resumed his pristine duties, and became an able second to Hart, with whom he was equally admired for superlative knowledge of his arduous profession.
He is celebrated by Lord Rochester, as the great Æsopus of the stage; praise, which, though coming from one of so capricious a temper, may be relied on, since it is confirmed by more respectable testimony. He was particularly remarkable for the dignity of his deportment, and the elegance of his step, which mimics, said his lordship, attempted to imitate, though they could not reach the sublimity of his elocution. The Duke's comedians, it would seem, endeavoured to emulate his manner, when reduced by age and infirmity, a baseness which the same noble observer has thus warmly reprehended:--
Yet these are they, who durst expose the Age Of the great Wonder of the English Stage. Whom Nature seem'd to form for your delight, And bid him speak, as she bid Shakespeare write. These Blades indeed are Cripples in their Art, Mimick his Foot, but not his speaking part. Let them the _Traytor_ or _Volpone_ try, Could they Rage like _Cethegus_, or like _Cassius_ die? (Epilogue to Fane's "Love in the Dark.")
Mohun, from his inferior height and muscular form, generally acted grave, solemn, austere parts, though upon more than one occasion, as in _Valentine_, in "Wit without Money," and _Face_, in the "Alchemist,"--one of his most capital characters,--he was frequently seen in gay and buoyant assumptions to great advantage. He was singularly eminent as _Melantius_, in the "Maid's Tragedy;" _Mardonius_, in "King and No King;" _Clytus_, _Mithridates_, and the parts alluded to by Lord Rochester. No man had more skill in putting spirit and passion into the dullest poetry than Mohun, an excellence with which Lee was so delighted, that on seeing him act his own King of Pontus, he suddenly exclaimed, "O, Mohun, Mohun, thou little man of mettle, if I should write a hundred plays, I'd write a part for thy mouth!" And yet Lee himself was so exquisite a reader, that Mohun once threw down a part in despair of approaching the force of the author's expression. The "Tatler" has adverted to his singular science;[233] "in all his parts, too," says Downes, "he was most accurate and correct;" and perhaps no encomium can transcend the honours of unbroken propriety.
About the year 1681, there are some reasons to suspect that the king's company was divided by feuds and animosities, which their adversaries in Dorset-garden so well improved, as to produce an union of the separate patents. Hart and Kynaston were dexterously detached from their old associates, by the management of Betterton, whose conduct, though grounded upon maxims of policy, can derive no advantage from so unfair an expedient. Upon the completion of this nefarious treaty, Mohun, who found means to retain the services of Kynaston, with the remnant of the royal company, continued to act in defiance of the junction just concluded, as an independent body. Downes, in his "Roscius Anglicanus," so far as the imperfect structure of its sentences can be relied on, expressly asserts this; and yet if "the patentees of each company united patents, and, by so incorporating, the duke's company were made the king's, and immediately removed to the Theatre Royal in Drury-lane," what field did Mohun and his followers select for their operations, to pitch their tents, and hoist their standard? Till some period, at least, of the year 1682, this party were in possession of their antient domicile, as Mohun at that time, acted _Burleigh_, in Banks's "Unhappy Favourite," and sustained a principal character in Southern's "Loyal Brother," with, for his heroine, in both pieces, the famous Nell Gwyn.[234]
[Bellchambers is here very inaccurate. The union of 1682 was, no doubt, opposed by some of the King's Company, from November, 1681, when the memorandum between Davenant, Betterton, Hart, and others, was executed, and the date of the actual conclusion of the union. This is clearly indicated in Dryden's Prologue on the opening of Drury Lane by the united company on 16th November, 1682. But, whatever the opposition had been, it had ceased then, because in the cast of the "Duke of Guise," produced less than three weeks later, appear the names of Kynaston and Wiltshire, whom Bellchambers represents as supporting Mohun in his supposed opposition theatre. (L.)]
CARDELL GOODMAN.
Cardell Goodman, according to his own admissions, as detailed by Cibber elsewhere, was expelled the university of Cambridge, for certain political reasons, a disgrace, however, which did not disqualify him for the stage. He came upon it, accordingly, by repairing to Drury-lane theatre, where Downes has recorded [what was probably] his first appearance, as _Polyperchon_, in the "Rival Queens," 4to. 1677. Here, although we cannot trace his success in any character of importance, Mr. Cibber has adverted to his rapid advances in reputation. He followed the fortunes of Mohun in opposing the united actors, but, about three years afterwards, resorted to them, (in 1685,) and sustained the hero of Lord Rochester's "Valentinian." It is about this period that his excellence must have blazed out as _Alexander the Great_, since Cibber, who went upon the stage in 1690, says Goodman had retired before the time of his appearance.
The highest salary enjoyed at that period we are now treating of, was six shillings and three pence per diem, a stipend that was by no means equal to the strong passions and large appetites of a gay, handsome, inconsiderate young fellow. He was consequently induced to commit a robbery on the highway, and sentenced upon detection, to make a summary atonement for his fatal error; but this being the first exploit of that kind to which the scantiness of his income had urged him, King James was persuaded to pardon him, a favour for which Goodman was so grateful, that, in the year 1696, he shared with Sir John Fenwick in a design to assassinate King William, who spared his life in consideration of the testimony he was to render against his accomplice. This condition, however, Goodman did not fulfil, as he withdrew clandestinely to the continent, to avoid giving evidence, and died in exile.
Having been selected as a fit instrument for her abandoned pleasures by the Duchess of Cleveland, Goodman, long before his death, became so happy in his circumstances, that he acted only at intervals, when his titled mistress most probably desired to see him; for he used to say, he would not even act _Alexander_, unless his Duchess were in front to witness the performance.
RICHARD ESTCOURT.
Richard Estcourt, according to the biographical notice of Chetwood, was born at Tewksbury, in Glostershire, in the year 1668, and received a competent education at the Latin grammar-school of his native town. Influenced by an early attachment to the stage, he left his father's house, in the fifteenth year of his age, with an itinerant company, and on reaching Worcester, to elude the possibility of detection, made his first appearance as _Roxana_, in the "Rival Queens." Having received a correct intimation of this theatrical purpose, his father sent to secure the fugitive, who slipped away in a suit of woman's clothes, borrowed from one of his kind-hearted companions, and travelled to Chipping-Norton, a distance of five-and-twenty miles, in the course of the day.
To prevent such excursions for the future, he was quickly carried up to London, and apprenticed to an apothecary in Hatton-garden, with whom, according to some authorities, he continued till the expiration of his indentures, and duly entered into business; which, either from want of liking or success he soon afterwards renounced, and returned to his favourite avocation.[235] Chetwood, on the contrary, asserts that he broke away from his master's authority, and after strolling about England for two years, went over to Dublin, where his performances were sanctioned by ardent and universal applause.
About the opening of the eighteenth century [that is, 18th October, 1704], Mr. Estcourt was engaged at Drury-lane Theatre, where he made his débût as _Dominic_, in the "Spanish Friar," and established his efforts, it is said, by a close imitation of Leigh, the original possessor of that part. In the year 1705 [should be 1706], such was his merit or reputation, that Farquhar selected him for _Sergeant Kite_, in the "Recruiting Officer," a character to which Downes has alluded in terms of unqualified praise. It is asserted in the "Biographia Dramatica," that Mr. Estcourt was "mostly indebted for his applause to his powers of mimicry, in which he was inimitable; and which not only at times afforded him opportunities of appearing a much better actor than he really was,--by enabling him to copy very exactly several performers of capital merit, whose manner he remembered and assumed,--but also, by recommending him to a very numerous acquaintance in private life, secured him an indulgence for faults in his public profession, that he might otherwise, perhaps, never have been pardoned." As if an actor, in defiance of peculiar incapacity, associated emulation, and public disgust, could maintain, for twelve successive years, the very highest station in the Drury-lane company, attainable by talents, such as he was only flattered with possessing!
That Estcourt was happy in a "very numerous acquaintance," there is no reason to conceal or deny. He was remarkable for the promptitude of his wit, and the permanence of his pleasantry, qualifications that recommended him to the most cordial intercourse with Addison, Steele, Parnell, who has honoured him in a Bacchanalian poem, by the name of Jocus, and other choice spirits of the age, who enjoyed the variety of his talents, and acknowledged the goodness of his heart. He was highly in favour with the great Duke of Marlborough, but those who know his grace's character, will hardly be surprised to learn that he did not improve his fortune by that dazzling distinction. Estcourt's honours, indeed, were strictly nominal, for though constituted providore of the Beef-steak Club,--an assemblage comprising the chief wits and greatest men of the nation,--he gained nothing by the office but their badge of employment,--a small golden gridiron, suspended from his neck by a bit of green riband.
If the foregoing remarks should be held sufficient to redeem his dramatic character from the obloquy with which it has so long been attended, the following anecdote will perhaps be accepted as ample evidence of his great talent for private mimicry.
Secretary Craggs, when very young, in company with some of his friends, went, with Estcourt, to Sir Godfrey Kneller's, and whispered to him that a gentleman present was able to give such a representation of many among his most powerful patrons, as would occasion the greatest surprise. Estcourt accordingly, at the artist's earnest desire, mimicked Lords Somers, Halifax, Godolphin, and others, so exactly, that Kneller was delighted, and laughed heartily at the imitations. Craggs gave a signal, as concerted, and Estcourt immediately mimicked Sir Godfrey himself, who cried out in a transport of ungovernable conviction, "Nay, there you are out, man! By G--, that's not me!"
About a twelvemonth before his death, having retired from the stage, Estcourt opened the Bumper tavern, in Covent-garden, and by enlarging his acquaintance, most probably shortened his days. He died in the year 1713 [should be 1712], and was buried near his brother comedian, Jo Haynes, in the church-yard of St. Paul's, Covent-garden.
THOMAS BETTERTON.
Thomas Betterton was born in Tothill-street, Westminster, in the year 1635 [baptized 11th August, 1635], his father at that time being under-cook to King Charles the First. He received the rudiments of a genteel education, and testified such a propensity to literature, that it was the steadfast intention of his family to have had him qualified for some congenial employment. This design, the confusion and violence of the times most probably prevented, though a fondness for reading induced them to consult his inclinations, and he was accordingly apprenticed to Mr. Rhodes, a respectable bookseller, residing at the Bible, in Charing-cross.
This person, who had been wardrobe-keeper to the theatre in Blackfriars, before the suppression of dramatic amusements, on General Monk's approach to London, in the year 1659, obtained a license from the [governing powers] to collect a company of actors, and employ them at the "Cockpit," in Drury-lane. Here, while Kynaston, his fellow-apprentice, sustained the principal female parts, Betterton was distinguished by the vigour and elegance of his manly personations. The fame of Beaumont and Fletcher was then at its zenith, and in their plays of the "Loyal Subject," and the "Mad Lover," added to "Pericles," the "Bondman," and the "Changeling," Mr. Betterton established the groundwork of his great reputation.
Sir William D'Avenant having been favoured with a patent before the civil wars broke out, obtained a renewal of that royal grant upon the Restoration, and in the spring of 1662 [should be June, 1661], after rehearsing various plays at Apothecaries'-hall, he opened a new theatre in Lincoln's-inn-fields, where Rhodes's comedians, with the addition of Harris, and three others, were sworn before the Lord Chamberlain, as servants of the crown, and honoured by the sanction of the Duke of York.
Here Sir William D'Avenant produced his "Siege of Rhodes," a play in two parts, embellished with such scenery and decorations as had never been before exhibited on the boards of a British theatre. The parts were strongly cast, and this drama, assisted by its splendid appendages, was represented for twelve days, successively, with unbounded approbation.
At this period Mr. Betterton first assumed the part of _Hamlet_, deriving considerable advantage from the hints of Sir William D'Avenant, to whom the acting of Taylor [who had been instructed by Shakespeare] had been formerly familiar. Downes expressly declares that this character enhanced Mr. Betterton's reputation to the utmost, and there is much collateral evidence to substantiate its brilliant superiority.[236]
Mr. Betterton was so favourably considered by Charles the Second, that, upon his performance of _Alvaro_, in "Love and Honour," he received that monarch's coronation-suit for the character, as a token of esteem. Public opinion kept pace with his efforts to secure it, and by evincing unparalleled talent in such diversified parts as _Mercutio_, _Sir Toby Belch_, and _Henry the Eighth_, (the last of which was adopted from his manager's remembrance of Lowin) he speedily attained to that eminence in his art, above which no human exertion can probably ascend.
At the king's especial command, it has been asserted by some of his biographers that Mr. Betterton went over to Paris to take a view of the French stage, and suggest such means as might ensure a corresponding improvement upon our own. They even go so far as to term him the first who publicly introduced our moving scenes, though Sir William D'Avenant, to whom that honour decidedly belongs, had attached them, less perfectly, perhaps, in 1658, to his "Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru."
By or before 1663, Mr. Betterton had married Mrs. Saunderson, a performer in the same company, of matchless merit and unsullied virtue, though that event, by the "Biographia Dramatica," and other incautious compilations, is referred to the year 1670. This lady, it may be remarked, was single, while denominated mistress; the appellation of miss not being made familiar to the middle classes, till after the commencement of the ensuing century.
The duke's company, notwithstanding the favour and excellence to which Betterton, Harris, Smith, and other members were admitted, began to feel its want of attraction so forcibly, that Sir William D'Avenant was induced to try the effects of a new theatre, which was accordingly opened, with unparalleled magnificence, in Dorset-garden, Salisbury-court, notwithstanding an earnest opposition by the city of London, in November, 1671. Opinion, however, still inclining to their antagonists, dramatic operas were invented, and soon enabled the players at this place to achieve a triumph over merit unassisted by such expensive frivolity.
At the death of D'Avenant, on the 17th of April, 1668, Mr. Betterton succeeded to a portion of the management, and so great was the estimation in which both he and his lady were held, that in the year 1675, when a pastoral, called "Calisto; or, the Chaste Nymph," written by Mr. Crown, at the request of King Charles's consort, was to be performed at court by persons of the greatest distinction, they were appointed to instruct them in their respective parts. In 1682, an union was effected with the rival company, which Mr. Betterton continued to direct, till Rich, in 1690, obtained possession of the patent, and dispossessed him of importance and authority.
Exasperated by ill treatment, Mr. Betterton confederated with the principal performers to procure an independent license, which being granted by King William, they built a new theatre in Lincoln's-inn-fields, by subscription, and opened it on the 30th of April, 1695, with Congreve's comedy of "Love for Love."
In 1705, enfeebled by age and infirmity, this distinguished veteran transferred his license to Sir John Vanbrugh, who erected a handsome theatre in the Haymarket, at which, divested of influence or control, he accepted an engagement as an actor.
Mr. Betterton's salary never exceeded eighty shillings a-week, and having sustained the loss of more than £2,000, by a commercial venture to the East Indies, in 1692, necessity compelled him to pursue his professional avocations. On Thursday, April the 13th, 1709,[237] the play of "Love for Love" was performed for his benefit, an occasion which summoned Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle from their retirement, to aid this antient coadjutor by the resumption of those parts they had originally sustained. Congreve is said to have furnished a prologue, though withdrawn and never submitted to print, which was delivered by the latter lady, the former reciting an epilogue from the pen of Rowe, which remains in lasting testimony of his affectionate regard. From this address the following lines are worthy of transcription:
But since, like friends to wit, thus throng'd you meet, Go on, and make the generous work complete; Be true to merit, and still own his cause, Find something for him more than bare applause. In just remembrance of your pleasures past, Be kind and give him a discharge at last; In peace and ease life's remnant let him wear, And hang his consecrated buskin here.
This hint, however, proved unavailing, and "Old Thomas" still continued to labour, when permitted by intermissions of disease, for that subsistence his age and his services should long before have secured.
Mr. Betterton accordingly performed at intervals in the course of the ensuing winter, and on the 25th of April, 1710 [should be 13th April], was admitted to another benefit, which, with the patronage bestowed upon its predecessor, is supposed to have netted nearly £1000. Upon this occasion, he was announced for his celebrated part of _Melantius_, in the "Maid's Tragedy," from the performance of which he ought, however, upon strict consideration, to have been deterred; for having been suddenly seized with the gout, a determination not to disappoint the expectancy of his friends, induced him to employ a repellatory medicine, which lessened the swelling of his feet, and permitted him to walk in slippers. He acted, accordingly, with peculiar spirit, and was received with universal applause; but such were the fatal effects of his laudable anxiety, that the distemper returned with unusual violence, ascended to his head, and terminated his existence, in three days from the date of this fatal assumption. On the 2nd of May his remains were deposited with much form in the cloisters of Westminster-abbey.
Mr. Betterton was celebrated for polite behaviour to the dramatic writers of his time, and distinguished by singular modesty, in not presuming to understand the chief points of any character they offered him, till their ideas had been asked, and, if possible, adopted. He is also praised in some verses published with the "State Poems," for extending pecuniary assistance to embarrassed writers, till the success of a doubtful production might enable them to remunerate their generous creditor. Indeed, Mr. Betterton's benevolence was coupled with such magnanimity, that upon the death of that unhappy friend to whose counsels his little fortune had been sacrificed, he took charge of a surviving daughter, educated her at considerable expense, and not only made her an accomplished actress, but a valuable woman.[238]
Among many testimonies of deference to his judgment, and regard for his zeal, the tributes of Dryden and Rowe have been brilliantly recorded. He was naturally of a cheerful temper, with a pious reliance upon the dispensations of providence, and nothing can yield a higher idea of his great affability, than the effect his behaviour produced upon Pope, who must have been a mere boy, when first admitted to his society. He sat to the poet for his picture, which Pope painted in oil,[239] and so eager was the bard to perpetuate his memory, that he published a modernization of Chaucer's "Prologues," in this venerable favourite's name, though palpably the produce of his own elegant pen.[240] As an author, Mr. Betterton's labours were confined to the drama, and if his original pieces are not entitled to much praise, his alterations exhibit some judicious amendments.
EDWARD KYNASTON.
Edward Kynaston made his first appearance in 1659, at the "Cockpit" in Drury-lane, under the management of Rhodes, to whom, in his trade of bookselling, he had previously been apprenticed. Here he took the lead in personating female parts, among which he sustained _Calis_, in the "Mad Lover;" _Ismenia_, in the "Maid in the Mill;" the heroine of Sir John Suckling's "Aglaura;" _Arthiope_, in the "Unfortunate Lovers;" and _Evadne_, in the "Maid's Tragedy." The three last of these parts have been distinguished by Downes and our author as the best of his efforts, and being then but a "mannish youth," he made a suitable representative of feminine beauty. Kynaston's _forte_, at this period, appears to have consisted in moving compassion and pity, "in which," says old Downes, "it has since been disputable among the judicious, whether any woman that succeeded him so sensibly touched the audience as he."
At the Restoration, when his majesty's servants re-opened the "Red Bull" playhouse, in St. John-street, next shifted to Gibbons's tennis-court, in Clare-market, and finally settled, in 1663, at their new theatre in Drury-lane, Kynaston was admitted to their ranks, and played _Peregrine_, in Jonson's comedy of the "Fox." He also held _Sir Dauphine_, a minor personage, in the same author's "Silent Woman," and soon after succeeded to _Otto_, in the "Duke of Normandy," a part which was followed by others of variety and importance.
In derogation of Cibber's panegyric, we are assured by Davies, upon the authority of some old comedians, that, from his juvenile familiarity with female characters, Kynaston contracted some disagreeable tones in speaking, which resembled the whine or cant that genuine taste has at all times been impelled to explode. When George Powel was once discharging the intemperance of a recent debauch from his stomach, Kynaston asked him if he still felt sick. "How is it possible to be otherwise," said Powel, "when I hear you speak?" Much as Kynaston, however, might have been affected by the peculiarities of early practice, we cannot consent, upon evidence such as this, to rob him of the laurels that have sprung from respectable testimony.
In 1695 he followed the fortunes of Betterton to Lincoln's-inn-fields, and supported a considerable character in John Banks's "Cyrus the Great," produced the year after this removal. The time of his retirement is not known, but it appears from our author that he continued upon the stage till his memory and spirit both began to fail him. He had left it, however, before 1706, when Betterton and Underhill have been specified by Downes, as "being the only remains of the Duke of York's servants," at that time before the public. Kynaston died wealthy, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Paul's, Covent-garden.
Kynaston bore a great resemblance to the noted Sir Charles Sidley, a similitude of which he was so proud, that he endeavoured to display it by the most particular expedients. On one occasion, he got a suit of laced clothes made in imitation of the baronet's, and appearing publicly in it, Sir Charles, whose wit very seldom atoned for his ill-nature, punished this vain propensity in his usual mischievous manner. He hired a bravo to accost Kynaston in the Park, one day when he wore his finery, pick a quarrel with him on account of a pretended affront from his prototype, and beat him unmercifully. This scheme was duly put in practice, and though Kynaston protested that he was not the person his antagonist took him for, the ruffian redoubled his blows, on account of what he affected to consider his scandalous falsehood. When Sir Charles Sidley was remonstrated with upon the cruelty of this transaction, he told the actor's friends that their pity was misplaced, for that Kynaston had not suffered so much in his bones as _he_ had in his character, the whole town believing that it was he who had undergone the disgrace of this chastisement.
WILLIAM MOUNTFORT.
William Mountfort, according to Cibber's estimate, was born in 1660, and having, I suppose, joined the king's company at a very early age, about the year 1682, "grew," in the words of old Downes, "to the maturity of a good actor." At Drury-lane theatre, he sustained _Alfonso Corso_, in the "Duke of Guise," in 1682. His rise was so rapid, that in 1685 we find him selected for the hero of Crowne's "Sir Courtly Nice," "which," says Downes, "was so _nicely_ performed," that none of his successors, but Colley Cibber, could equal him. Perhaps the last new character assumed by Mountfort was _Cleanthes_, in Dryden's "Cleomenes," a play to which he spoke the prologue.
I here present the reader with a narrative of those circumstances attending the death of Mountfort, which have so long been misunderstood and misrepresented.
A Captain Richard Hill had made proposals of marriage to Mrs. Bracegirdle, which were declined from what Hill appeared to consider an injurious preference for Mountfort, between whom, though a married man, and the lady, at least a platonic attachment was often thought to subsist. Enraged at Mountfort's superior success, and affecting to treat him as the only obstacle to his wishes, Hill expressed a determination at various times, and before several persons, to be revenged upon him, and as it was proved upon the trial, coupled this threat with some of the bitterest invectives that could spring from brutal animosity. Among Hill's associates was Lord Mohun, a peer of very dissolute manners, whose extreme youth afforded but a faint palliative for his participation in the act of violence and debauchery to which Hill resorted. This nobleman, however, who seems to have felt a chivalric devotion to the interests of his friend, engaged with Hill in a cruel and perfidious scheme for the abduction of Mrs. Bracegirdle, whom Hill proposed to carry off, violate, and afterwards marry. They arranged with one Dixon, an owner of hackney carriages, to provide a coach and six horses to take them to Totteridge, and appointed him to wait with this conveyance over against the Horse-shoe tavern in Drury-lane. A small party of soldiers was also hired to assist in this notable exploit, and as Mrs. Bracegirdle, who had been supping at a Mr. Page's in Prince's-street, was going down Drury-lane towards her lodgings in Howard-street, Strand, about ten o'clock at night, on Friday the 9th of December, 1692, two of these soldiers pulled her away from Mr. Page, who was attending her home, nearly knocked her mother down, and tried to lift her into the vehicle. Her mother, upon whom the blow given by these ruffians had providentially made but a short impression, hung very obstinately about her neck, and prevented the success of their endeavours. While Mr. Page was calling loudly for assistance, Hill ran at him with his sword drawn, and again endeavoured to get Mrs. Bracegirdle into the coach, a task he was hindered from accomplishing, by the alarm that Page had successfully given. Company came up, on which Hill insisted on seeing Mrs. Bracegirdle home, and actually led her by the hand to the house in which she resided. Lord Mohun, who during this scuffle was seated quietly in the coach, joined Hill in Howard-street, the soldiers having been previously dismissed, and there they paraded, with their swords drawn, for about an hour and a half, before Mrs. Bracegirdle's door. Hill's scabbard, it ought to be remarked, was clearly proved to have been lost during the scuffle in Drury-lane, and Lord Mohun, when challenged by the watch, not only sheathed his weapon, but offered to surrender it. These were strong points at least in his lordship's favour, and deserve to be noted, because the prescriptive assertion that Mountfort was treacherously killed, is weakened by the establishment of those facts. Mrs. Brown, the mistress of the house where Mrs. Bracegirdle lodged, went out on her arrival, to expostulate with Lord Mohun and his confederate, and after exchanging a few words of no particular importance, dispatched her maid servant to Mountfort's house,[241] hard by in Norfolk-street, to apprise Mrs. Mountfort of the danger to which, in case of coming home, he would be subjected. Mrs. Mountfort sent in search of her husband, but without success, and the watch on going their round, between eleven and twelve o'clock, found Lord Mohun and Hill drinking wine in the street, a drawer having brought it from an adjacent tavern. At this juncture Mrs. Brown, the landlady, hearing the voices of the watch, went to the door with a design of directing them to secure both Lord Mohun and Hill, and some conversation passed upon that subject, although her directions were not obeyed. Seeing Mountfort, just as he had turned the corner into Howard-street, and was apparently coming towards her house, Mrs. Brown hurried out to meet him, and mention his danger, but he would not stop, so as to allow her time for the slightest communication. On gaining the spot where Lord Mohun stood, Hill being a little farther off, he saluted his lordship with great respect, and was received by him with unequivocal kindness. Lord Mohun hinted to Mountfort that he had been sent for by Mrs. Bracegirdle, in consequence of her projected seizure, a charge which Mountfort immediately denied. Lord Mohun then touched upon the affair, and Mountfort expressed a hope, with some warmth, that he would not vindicate Hill's share in the business, against which, while disclaiming any tenderness for Mrs. Bracegirdle, he protested with much asperity. Hill approached in time to catch the substance of Mountfort's remark, and having hastily said that he could vindicate himself, gave him a blow on the ear, and at the same moment a challenge to fight. They both went from the pavement into the middle of the road, and after making two or three passes at each other, Mountfort was mortally wounded. He threw down his sword, which broke by the fall, and staggered to his own house, where Mrs. Page, who had gone to concert with Mrs. Mountfort for her husband's safety, hearing a cry of "murder" in the street, threw open the door, and received him pale, bleeding, and exhausted, in her arms. Hill fled and escaped, but Lord Mohun, having surrendered himself, was arraigned before parliament as an accomplice, on the 31st of January, 1693, and, after a laborious, patient, protracted, and impartial trial, acquitted of the crime, in which he certainly bore no conspicuous part. Mountfort languished till noon the next day, and solemnly declared, at the very point of death, that Hill stabbed him with one hand while he struck him with the other, Lord Mohun holding him in conversation when the murder was committed. From the fact, however, of Mountfort's sword being taken up unsheathed and broken, there is no doubt, without insisting upon the testimony to that effect, that he used it; and that he could have used it after receiving the desperate wound of which he died, does not appear, by his flight and exhaustion, to have been possible. Some of his fellow-players, it seems, had sifted the evidence of a material witness, the day after his death, and at this evidence they openly expressed their dissatisfaction. Mountfort, it was indisputably shown, too, _went out of the way to his own house_, in going down Howard-street at all, as he ought to have crossed it, his door being the second from the south-west corner. These circumstances will perhaps support a conjecture that some part of the odium heaped upon Lord Mohun and Hill has proceeded from the cowardice and exasperation of a timid and vindictive fraternity, coupled with the individual artifices of Mrs. Bracegirdle, to redeem a character which the real circumstances of Mountfort's death, dying as her champion, severely affected. Cibber's assurance of her purity, may merely prove the extent of his dulness or dissimulation, for on calmly reviewing this case in all its aspects, chequered as it is by Hill's impetuosity, Mrs. Bracegirdle's lewdness, and Mountfort's presumption, I cannot help inferring that he fell a victim, not unfairly, to one of those casual encounters which mark the general violence of the times. The record of his murder is therefore erroneous, and we may hope to see it amended in every future collection of theatrical lives.[242]
SAMUEL SANDFORD.
Samuel Sandford made his first appearance upon the stage, under D'Avenant's authority, in the year 1663,[243] at the time when that company was strengthened by the accession of Smith and Matthew Medbourn. The first part for which he has been mentioned by Downes, is _Sampson_, in "Romeo and Juliet;" he soon after sustained a minor part in the "Adventures of Five Hours," fol. 1663; and when D'Avenant produced his comedy of the "Man's the Master," he and Harris sung an eccentric epilogue in the character of two street ballad-singers. Sandford was the original _Foresight_, in "Love for Love," and though Mr. Cibber has exclusively insisted upon his tragic excellence, he must have been a comedian of strong and diversified humour. When Betterton and his associates seceded to the new theatre in Lincoln's-inn-fields, he refused to join them as a sharer, but was engaged at a salary of three pounds per week. As Sandford is not enumerated by Downes among the actors transferred to Swiney, in the latter end of 1706, when Betterton and Underhill, indeed, are mentioned as "the only remains" of the duke's company, it is clear he must have died during the previous six years, having been referred to by Cibber, as exercising his profession in 1700. His ancestors were long and respectably settled at Sandford, a village in Shropshire; and he seems to have prided himself, absurdly, upon the superiority of his birth.
JAMES NOKES.
James Nokes formed part of the company collected at the "Cockpit," in 1659, and is first mentioned by Downes for _Norfolk_, in "King Henry the Eighth," some time after D'Avenant's opening in Lincoln's-inn-fields. Upon this assumption Mr. Davies has expressed a very reasonable doubt, and conjectured, with much plausibility, that it was sustained by Robert Nokes.
In Cowley's "Cutter of Coleman-street" [1661], the part of _Puny_ was allotted to Nokes, whose reputation at that period appears to have been but feebly established, as the more important comic characters were intrusted to Lovel and Underhill. We find the name of Nokes affixed to _Lovis_, in Etherege's "Comical Revenge," 1664, but his performance of that part, whatever merit it might have evinced, acquired no distinction. [This is wrong; Nokes played Sir Nicholas Cully: the part of Lovis was acted by Norris.] The plague then beginning to rage, theatrical exhibitions were suspended, in May, 1665, and the company ceased to act, on account of the great fire, till [about] Christmas, 1666, when their occupation was resumed in Lincoln's-inn-fields, and Lord Orrery produced his play of "Mr. Anthony." In this piece there was an odd sort of duel between Nokes and Angel, in which one was armed with a blunderbuss, and the other with a bow and arrow. Though this frivolous incident procured Nokes some accession of public notice, it was Dryden's "Sir Martin Mar-all," [1667,] which developed his powers to their fullest extent, and raised him to the highest pitch of popularity.
According to Downes, the Duke of Newcastle gave a literal translation of Molière's "Etourdi" to Dryden, who adapted the part of _Sir Martin Mar-all_ "purposely for the mouth of Mr. Nokes;" and the old prompter has corroborated Mr. Cibber's assertion of his success. Nokes added largely to his reputation, in [1668], by performing _Sir Oliver_, in "She would if she could;" and strengthened Shadwell's "Sullen Lovers," by accepting the part of _Poet Ninny_.
Nokes acted _Barnaby Brittle_ at the original appearance--about 1670--of Betterton's "Amorous Widow," and [in 1671] performed _Old Jorden_, in Ravenscroft's "Citizen turned Gentleman," a part which the king and court were said to have been more delighted with than any other, except _Sir Martin Mar-all_. His _Nurse_, in "Caius Marius," 1680, excited such uncommon merriment, that he carried the name of Nurse Nokes to his grave. In 1688, he supported the hero of Shadwell's "'Squire of Alsatia," a play which was acted in every part with remarkable excellence, and enjoyed the greatest popularity. We find no farther mention of him, subsequent to this period, though included by Cibber among those who were performing under the united patents, in 1690, when he first came into the company. According to Brown, who has peculiarly marked out his "gaiety and openness" upon the stage, he kept a "nicknackatory, or toy-shop," opposite the spot which has since received the denomination of Exeter Change. The date of his death is uncertain, but there is some reason to presume that it happened about the year 1692.[244]
WILLIAM PINKETHMAN.
The first mention of Pinkethman, by Downes, is for the part of _Ralph_, in "Sir Salomon," when commanded at court, in the beginning of [1704], but he had been alluded to, two years before, in Gildon's "Comparison between the Two Stages," as the "flower of Bartholomew-fair, and the idol of the rabble. A fellow that overdoes every thing, and spoils many a part with his own stuff." [He was on the stage as early as 1692.] He is again mentioned in the "Roscius Anglicanus" for _Dr. Caius_, in the "Merry Wives of Windsor," and continued to act in the Drury-lane company till his death, about the year 1725.
Pinkethman was a serviceable actor, notwithstanding his irregularities, and performed many characters of great importance. He was the original _Don Lewis_, in "Love makes a Man," 1701, a proof that his talents were soon and greatly appreciated. His eccentric turn led him, in too many instances, from the sphere of respectability, and we find him in the constant habit of frequenting fairs, for the low purpose of theatrical exhibition. His stage talents were marred, it is true, by an extravagant habit of saying more than had been "set down" for him; and though this abominable blemish is fully admitted, still its toleration proves that Pinkethman must have been an actor of uncommon value. His son was a comedian of merit, who played _Waitwell_, in the "Way of the World," at the opening of Covent-garden theatre, in December, 1732, and died in May, 1740.
ANTHONY LEIGH.
The "famous Mr. Anthony Leigh," as Downes denominates him, came into the duke's company, about the year [1672], upon the deaths of several eminent actors, whose places he and others were admitted to supply. He played _Bellair_, _sen_., in Etherege's "Man of Mode," at its production in 1676. In 1681, Leigh supported _Father Dominic_, in Dryden's "Spanish Friar;" a piece, which, according to the "Roscius Anglicanus," was "admirably acted, and produced vast profit to the company." Leigh's success was so great in this character, that a full-length portrait was taken of him in his clerical habit, by Sir Godfrey Kneller, for the Earl of Dorset, from which a good mezzotinto engraving is now in the hands of theatrical collectors. In 1685, we find him allotted to _Sir Nicholas Calico_, in "Sir Courtly Nice;" in 1688 he supported _Sir William Belfond_, in Shadwell's "Squire of Alsatia," and these parts, with a few others, appear to have constituted his peculiar excellence.
The satirical allusions of such a random genius as Brown, are rarely to be relied upon, or we might suspect Leigh, from the following extract, to have been distinguished by pious hypocrisy:--
"At last, my friend Nokes, pointing to a little edifice, which exactly resembles Dr. Burgess's conventicle in Russel-court, says he, 'your old acquaintance Tony Leigh, who turned presbyterian parson upon his coming into these quarters, holds forth most notably here every Sunday.'"--"Letters from the Dead to the Living" [1744, ii. 77].
CAVE UNDERHILL.
Cave Underhill was a member of the company collected by Rhodes, and which, soon afterwards, submitted to the authority of Sir William D'Avenant. He is first mentioned by Downes, for his performance of _Sir Morglay Thwack_, in the "Wits," after which he sustained the _Grave-digger_, in "Hamlet," and soon testified such ability, that the manager publicly termed him "the truest comedian" at that time upon his stage.[245] Underhill, about this time, strengthened the cast of "Romeo and Juliet," by playing _Gregory_, and though the custom of devoting the best talent which the theatres afford, to parts of minor importance, has ceased, it is a practice to which the managers, were public amusement consulted, might safely recur. In Shakspeare's "Twelfth Night," which, says Downes, "had mighty success by its well performance," Underhill soon after supported the _Clown_, a character in which the latter attributes delineated by Cibber, could alone have been employed. Underhill's reputation appears to have been speedily established, as we find him intrusted by Cowley, in [1661], with the hero of his "Cutter of Coleman-street;" and he is mentioned by Downes for especial excellence in performing _Jodelet_, in D'Avenant's "Man's the Master." His first new part after the accession of James, was _Hothead_, in "Sir Courtly Nice;" on the 30th of April, 1695, he distinguished himself by his chaste and spirited performance of _Sir Sampson Legend_, in Congreve's "Love for Love," and in 1700, closed a long, arduous, and popular career of original parts, by playing _Sir Wilful Witwou'd_, in the "Way of the World." [He continued on the stage till 1710.]
A brief account of this valuable comedian has been furnished by Mr. Davies, which, for the satisfaction of our readers, we shall proceed to transcribe.
"Underhill was a jolly and droll companion, who, if we may believe such historians as Tom Brown, divided his gay hours between Bacchus and Venus, with no little ardour. Tom, I think, makes Underhill one of the gill-drinkers of his time; men who resorted to taverns, in the middle of the day, under pretence of drinking Bristol milk, (for so good sherry was then called) to whet their appetites, where they indulged themselves too often in ebriety. Underhill acted till he was past eighty. He was so excellent in the part of Trinculo, in the Tempest, that he was called Prince Trinculo.[246] He had an admirable vein of pleasantry, and told his lively stories, says Brown, with a bewitching smile. The same author says, he was so afflicted with the gout, that he prayed one minute and cursed the other. His shambling gait, in his old age, was no hindrance to his acting particular parts. He retired from the theatre in 1703."--"Dram. Misc.," iii. 138.
On the 31st of May, 1709, Underhill applied for a benefit, and procured it, upon which occasion he played his favourite part of the _Grave-digger_, and received the following cordial recommendation from Sir Richard Steele:--
"My chief business here [Will's Coffee House] this evening, was to speak to my friends in behalf of honest Cave Underhill, who has been a comic for three generations; my father admired him extremely when he was a boy. There is certainly nature excellently represented in his manner of action; in which he ever avoided that general fault in players, of doing too much. It must be confessed, he has not the merit of some ingenious persons now on the stage, of adding to his authors; for the actors were so dull in the last age, that many of them have gone out of the world, without having ever spoken one word of their own in the theatre. Poor Cave is so mortified, that he quibbles and tells you, he pretends only to act a part fit for a man who has one foot in the grave; _viz._ a _Grave-digger_. All admirers of true comedy, it is hoped, will have the gratitude to be present on the last day of his acting, who, if he does not happen to please them, will have it then to say, that it is the first time."--"Tatler," No. 22.
GEORGE POWELL.
The father of George Powell was an actor in the king's company at the time of its junction, in 1682, with the duke's. Powell's access to the theatre was, therefore, easy; and we are intitled to suspect, though the time is not to be ascertained, that he began to act at a very early period.
Even, according to Cibber's allowance, when Powell was appointed to the principal parts abandoned by Betterton and his revolters, they were parts for which, whether serious or comic, he had both elocution and humour. It is remarked by Davies,[247] that Cibber "seems to have hated Powell," and if so, we have a ready clue to the neglect and asperity with which he has treated him.
Powell succeeded Betterton, it is supposed, in the part of _Hotspur_, when that excellent comedian exchanged its choleric attributes, in his declining years, for the gaiety and humour of _Falstaff_. _Edgar_, in "King Lear," was also one of his most successful characters, but of this, owing to his irregularities, he was dispossessed by Wilks. To such a height, indeed, was the intemperance of this actor carried, that Sir John Vanbrugh, in his preface to the "Relapse," 4to, 1697, speaking of Powell's _Worthy_, has exposed it in following manner:
One word more about the bawdy, and I have done. I own the first night this thing was acted, some indecencies had like to have happened; but it was not my fault. The fine gentleman of the play, drinking his mistress's health in Nantes brandy, from six in the morning to the time he waddled on upon the stage in the evening, had toasted himself up to such a pitch of vigour, I confess I once gave up _Amanda_ for gone, and am since, with all due respect to Mrs. Rogers, very sorry she escaped: for I am confident a certain lady, (let no one take it to herself that is handsome) who highly blames the play, for the barrenness of the conclusion, would then have allowed it a very natural close.
To the folly of intoxication he added the horrors of debt, and was so hunted by the Sheriffs' officers, that he usually walked the streets with a sword (sheathed) in his hand, and if he saw any of them at a distance, he would roar out, "Get on the other side of the way, you dog!" The bailiff, who knew his old customer, would obligingly answer, "We do not want you _now_, Master Powell." Harassed by his distresses, and unnerved by drink, it is hardly to be wondered at if his reputation decreased, and his ability slackened; but that his efforts were still marked by a possession of the very highest qualities that criticism can attest, is proved by the following extract from the "Spectator:"
Having spoken of Mr. Powell as sometimes raising himself applause from the ill taste of an audience, I must do him the justice to own, that he is excellently formed for a tragedian, and, when he pleases, deserves the admiration of the best judges.--No. 40.
Addison and Steele continued their regard for this unhappy man as long as they could render him any service, and that he acted _Portius_, in "Cato," on its appearance in 1713, must have been with the author's approbation. The last trace we have of Powell is confined to a playbill, for his benefit, in the year 1717, since when no vestige has been found of his career. He lies buried, it has been said, in the vault of St. Clement-Danes; but though the period of his death may be fixed not far from the date of this document, it cannot be minutely ascertained. [Genest says Powell died 14th December, 1714.]
In the intervals of excess Powell found time for repeated literary labour, having written four plays, and superintended the publication of three more. His fault was too great a passion for social pleasure, but though the irregularities this passion produced, disabled him from exerting the talents he was allowed to possess, still his excellence on the stage is not to be disputed. He was esteemed at one period of his life a rival to Betterton, and had the prudence of his conduct been equal to the vigour of his genius, he would have held, as well as reached, that lofty station for which nature had designed him.
If the testimony of Aston can be relied on, Powell was born in the year 1658, being incidentally mentioned by that facetious writer, as Betterton's junior by three and twenty years.
JOHN VERBRUGGEN.
John Verbruggen, it appears from the assertion of Mr. Davies, was a dissipated young fellow, who determined, in opposition to the advice of his friends, to be an actor, and accordingly loitered about Drury-lane theatre, at the very time when Cibber was also endeavouring to get admittance, in expectation of employment. On the death of Mountfort, whose widow he married, Verbruggen was intrusted, I have no doubt, with the part of _Alexander_, his fondness for which was such, that he suffered the players and the public, for many years, to call him by no other name. [He seems to have been called Alexander from his first appearing on the stage, till 1694.] It is mentioned in more than one pamphlet, that Cibber and Verbruggen were at variance, and hence the animosity and unfairness with which the latter has been treated.[248]
The first part to which Verbruggen can be traced, is _Aurelius_, in "King Arthur," 4to, 1691 [he played _Termagant_ ("Squire of Alsatia") in 1688]: in the year 1696, Mr. Southern assigned him the character of _Oroonoko_, by the special advice of William Cavendish, the first Duke of Devonshire; and as the author informs us in his preface, "it was Verbruggen's endeavour, in the performance of that part, to merit the duke's recommendation." A further proof of Mr. Cibber's partiality, is the constant respect paid to Verbruggen by such judges of ability as Rowe and Congreve, for whose pieces he was uniformly selected. His _Mirabel_, in the "Way of the World," and _Bajazet_, in "Tamerlane," were parts of the highest importance, and it will be difficult to show that an ordinary actor could have been intrusted, by writers of equal power and fastidity, with duties of which he was not thoroughly deserving. When Verbruggen died it is impossible to ascertain. He played _Sullen_, in the "Beaux' Stratagem," at its production in 1707, and as Elrington made his appearance in _Bajazet_, in 1711, there is some reason to conclude that Verbruggen's death occurred during that interval. [He died before April, 1708.]
Though Gildon, a scribbler whose venality was only exceeded by his dulness, has mentioned Verbruggen in the most derogatory terms,[249] there is ample evidence in the bare record of his business, to justify the most unqualified merit we may incline to ascribe. Chetwood alludes to him, in pointing out Elrington's imitation of his excellencies, as "a very great actor in tragedy, and polite parts in comedy,"[250] and the author of the "Laureat" enumerates a variety of important characters, in which he commanded universal applause.
JOSEPH WILLIAMS.
Joseph Williams,[251] who was bred a seal-cutter, came into the duke's company, about the year 1673, when but a boy, and according to the practice of that period, being apprenticed to an eminent actor, "served Mr. Harris." I find him first mentioned by Downes, for _Pylades_, in the serious opera of "Circe;" his next character of importance being _Polydore_, in the "Orphan," 1680; and, same year, _Theodosius_, in Lee's tragedy of that name. The Union in 1682, without diminishing his merit, appears to have lessened his value, by the introduction of Kynaston and others, who had more established pretensions to parts of importance.
The secession of Williams from Betterton's company, just before the opening in 1695, has been noticed and explained by Mr. Cibber, in a subsequent passage. Greatly, as I have no doubt, he has depreciated the merit of this actor, no materials remain of a more recent date than those already quoted, by which we may conjecture his talents, or enforce his estimation. Williams is not to be confounded with an actor of the same appellation, who was at Drury-lane theatre in the year 1730, and relieved Cibber of _Scipio_, in Thomson's "Sophonisba," a curious account of which is given in the "Dramatic Miscellanies."
ELIZABETH BARRY.
Elizabeth Barry, it is said, was the daughter of Edward Barry, Esq., a barrister, who was afterwards called Colonel Barry, from his having raised a regiment for the service of Charles the First, in the course of the civil wars. The misfortunes arising from this engagement, involved him in such distress, that his children were obliged to provide for their own maintenance. Lady D'Avenant, a relation of the noted laureat, from her friendship to Colonel Barry, gave this daughter a genteel education, and made her a constant associate in the circle of polite intercourse. These opportunities gave an ease and grace to Mrs. Barry's behaviour, which were of essential benefit, when her patroness procured her an introduction to the stage. This happened in the year 1673, when Mrs. Barry's efforts were so extremely unpropitious, that the directors of the duke's company pronounced her incapable of making any progress in the histrionic art. Three times, according to Curll's "History of the Stage," she was dismissed, and by the interest of her benefactor, re-instated. When Otway, however, produced his "Alcibiades," in 1675, her merit was such, as not only to excite the public attention, but to command the author's praise, which has been glowingly bestowed upon her in the preface to that production. We find her, next season, filling the lively character of _Mrs. Lovit_, in Etherege's "Man of Mode;" and in 1680, her performance of _Monimia_, in the "Orphan," seems to have raised that reputation to its greatest height, which had been gradually increasing. The part of _Belvidera_, two years afterwards, and the heroine of Southern's "Fatal Marriage," in 1694, elicited unrivalled talent, and procured her universal distinction.
When Mrs. Barry first resorted to the theatre, her pretensions to notice were a good air and manner, and a very powerful and pleasing voice. Her ear, however, was so extremely defective, that several eminent judges, on seeing her attempt a character of some importance, gave their opinion that she never could be an actress. Upon the authority of Curll's historian, Mr. Davies[252] has compiled what appears to me an apocryphal tale of her sudden rise to the pinnacle of excellence, though there is no reason to dispute her criminal intimacy with the Earl of Rochester. I am not inclined, while doubting the precise anecdote of his assistance, to deny that much advantage might have been derived from his general instructions.
Mrs. Barry was not only remarkable for the brilliancy of her talent, but the earnestness of her zeal, and the ardour of her assiduity. Betterton, that kind, candid, and judicious observer, bore this testimony to her eminent abilities, and unyielding good-nature, that she often exerted herself so greatly in a pitiful character, that her acting has given success to plays which would disgust the most patient reader.[253] When she accepted a part, it was her uniform practice to consult the author's intention. Her last new character was the heroine of Smith's "Phædra and Hippolytus," and though Mrs. Oldfield and the poet fell out concerning a few lines in the part of _Ismena_, Mrs. Barry and he were in perfect harmony. [_Valide_, in Goring's "Irene," 1708, was her last new part.]
Mrs. Barry must have closed her career with this performance, being mentioned by Steele, in the "Tatler," when assisting at Betterton's benefit, on Thursday, April 7th, 1709, as "not at present concerned in the house." She died on the 7th of November, 1713, aged fifty-five years, and was buried in Acton church-yard. Mr. Davies ascribes her death to the bite of a favourite lap-dog, who, unknown to her, had been seized with madness, and there seems to be no grounds for disturbing his supposition.
MRS. BETTERTON.
When Sir William D'Avenant undertook the management of the duke's company, he lodged and boarded four principal actresses in his house, among whom was Mrs. Saunderson, the subject of this article.
Mrs. Saunderson's first appearance in D'Avenant's company, was made as _Ianthe_, in the "Siege of Rhodes," on the opening of his new theatre in Lincoln's-inn-fields, in April, 1662 [should be June, 1661]. She played _Ophelia_ soon afterwards, and that part being followed by Shakspeare's _Juliet_, evinces the consideration in which her services were held. [About] 1663, she married Mr. Betterton, and not in 1670, as it is erroneously mentioned in the "Biographia Dramatica," and other worthless compilations.[254]
The principal characters sustained by Mrs. Betterton, were _Queen Catharine_, in "Henry the Eighth;" the _Duchess of Malfy_; the _Amorous Widow_; those enumerated in the text, and many others, not less remarkable for their importance than their variety. On the death of her husband, in April, 1710, she was so strongly affected by that event, as to lose her senses, which were recovered, however, a short time previous to her own decease. Mr. Cibber may be right in stating that she only enjoyed the bounty of her royal mistress for about half a year; but, in that case, the pension could not have been granted directly he died, as we find that Mrs. Betterton was alive on the 4th of June, 1711, more than thirteen months after, and had the play of "Sir Fopling Flutter," performed at Drury-lane for her benefit. Mrs. Betterton, though prevented from performing, by age and infirmity, enjoyed a sinecure situation in Drury-lane theatre, till she withdrew from it, in 1709, and was paid at the rate of [one pound] a-week. The "Biographia Britannica" says she survived her husband eighteen months, but the precise date of her decease has never been discovered. [Mrs. Betterton made a will on 10th March, 1712. In all probability Bellchambers is right in supposing that the annuity was not granted till some time after her husband's death.]
BENJAMIN JOHNSON.
This excellent actor, who was familiarly known by the appellation of his great namesake, Ben Jonson, came into the Theatre Royal, from an itinerant company, as Mr. Cibber relates, about the year 1695. He was bred a sign painter, but took more pleasure in hearing the actors, than in handling his pencil or spreading his colours, and, as he used to say in his merry mood, left the saint's occupation at last to take that of the sinner.
Johnson's merit was evinced as _Sir William Wisewould_, in Cibber's comedy of "Love's Last Shift," 4to, 1696; but I find him first mentioned by Downes, for _Justice Wary_, in Caryl's "Sir Salomon" [about 1704 or 1705]; the old prompter, in a species of postscript to his valuable tract, then terms him "a true copy of Mr. Underhill," and instances his _Morose_, _Corbaccio_, and _Hothead_, as very admirable efforts. Johnson passed over to the management of old Swiney, in 1706, with other members of Betterton's company, and established a very high reputation by his chaste and studied manner of acting. When Rich, in 1714, opened his new theatre in Lincoln's-inn-fields, Booth, Wilks, and Cibber, the managers of Drury-lane, solicitous to retain in their service comedians of merit, paid a particular respect to Johnson, by investing him with such parts of Dogget, who had taken leave of them, as were adapted to his powers. Here he continued with fame and profit, till August, 1742, when he expired in the seventy-seventh year of his age. Mr. Davies, who appears to have been familiar with his excellencies, has given a description of Johnson, which, for its evident taste and candour, I shall do myself the pleasure to transcribe.
"That chaste copier of nature, Ben Johnson, the comedian, for above forty years, gave a true picture of an arch clown in the _Grave-digger_. His jokes and repartees had a strong effect from his seeming insensibility of their force. His large, speaking, blue eyes he fixed steadily on the person to whom he spoke, and was never known to have wandered from the stage to any part of the theatre."--"Dram. Misc.," iii. 140.
WILLIAM BULLOCK.
This excellent actor came to London, as we see, about 1695, deriving his engagement from the distress in which Drury-lane theatre was involved by the desertion of Betterton, and other principal performers. He quitted this establishment in 1714, owing, as Mr. Cibber insinuates, to the ungovernable temper of Wilks; and passed over to John Rich, at the opening of Lincoln's-inn-fields. He is first mentioned by Downes, for the _Host_, in Shakspeare's "Merry Wives of Windsor" [about 1704 or 1705], and appears to be pointed at in Dennis's "Epistle Dedicatory" to the "Comical Gallant," where the irascible writer thus addresses the Hon. George Granville:--
"Falstaff's part, which you know to be the principal one of the play, and that which on all the rest depends, was by no means acted to the satisfaction of the audience, upon which several fell from disliking the action, to disapproving the play." [As noted before, p. 252, Bullock was probably not the actor aimed at.]
This piece was printed in 1702, as acted "at the Theatre Royal in Drury-lane;" with a list of the _dramatis personæ_, but the names of the actors not annexed. Bullock, however, sustained the part of _Sir Tunbelly Clumsy_, in Vanbrugh's "Relapse," which had been previously performed under the same auspices, and from its nature, most probably by the same actor.
William Bullock was a comedian of great glee and much vivacity, and in his person large, with a lively countenance, full of humourous information. Steele, in the "Tatler," with his usual kind sensibility, very often adverts to Bullock's faculty of exciting amusement, but sometimes censures his habit of interpolation.[255] In Gildon's "Comparison between the Two Stages," 1702 [p. 199], he is termed the "best comedian since Nokes and Leigh, and a fellow that has a very humble opinion of himself." Bullock's abilities have been ratified by the sanction of Macklin, who denominated him a true theatrical genius; and Mr. Davies saw him act several parts with great applause, and particularly the _Spanish Friar_, when beyond the age of eighty. He died on the 18th of June, 1733. [Genest, iii. 593, points out that Bullock was acting in 1739.]
JOHN MILLS.
Our first notice of this actor is found in the "Roscius Anglicanus," where Downes, who seems anxious to dispatch his subject, says summarily that "he excels in tragedy," but without making the remotest allusion to any characters in which his talent had been displayed.
John Mills the elder was, in person, inclined to the athletic size; his features were large, though not expressive; his voice was full, but not flexible; and his deportment was manly, without being graceful or majestic. He was considered one of the most useful actors that ever served in a theatre, but though invested by the patronage of Wilks with many parts of the highest order, he had no pretensions to quit the secondary line in which he ought to have been placed. Steele[256] taxes him very broadly with a want of "sentiment," and insinuates that by making gesture too much his study, he neglected the better attributes of his art.
On the death of Betterton, or soon after, Wilks, who took upon himself to regulate the theatrical cast, gave _Macbeth_, with great partiality, to Mills, while Booth and Powell were condemned to represent the inferior parts of _Banquo_ and _Lenox_. Mills, though he spoke the celebrated soliloquy on time,--
To-morrow, and to-morrow, etc.,
with propriety, feeling, and effect, wanted genius to realise the turbulent scenes in which this character abounds. So much, indeed, was his deficiency perceived, that the indignation of a country gentleman broke out one night, during the performance of this play, in a very odd manner. The 'squire, after having been heartily tired with Mills, on the appearance of his old companion, Powell, in the fourth act, exclaimed, loud enough to be heard by the audience, "For God's sake, George, give us a speech, and let me go home."[257]
I recollect an incident of the same sort occurring at Bristol, where a very indifferent actor, declaimed so long and to such little purpose, that an honest farmer, who sat in the pit, started up with evident signs of disgust, and waving his hand, to motion the speaker off, cried out, "Tak' un away, tak' un away, and let's have another."
One of the best parts sustained by Mills, was that of _Pierre_, which he acted so much to the taste of the public, that the applause it produced him exceeded all that was bestowed upon his best efforts in every thing else. He also acted _Ventidius_ with the true spirit of a rough and generous old soldier, and in _Bajazet_, by the aid of his strong, deep, melodious voice, he displayed more than ordinary power.
It is supposed that Mills died in [December], 1736, respected by the public as a decent actor, and beloved by his friends as a worthy man.
THEOPHILUS KEEN.
Theophilus Keen received his first instructions in acting from Mr. Ashbury, of the Dublin theatre, in which he made his appearance about the year 1695. He most probably came into the Drury-lane company with Johnson and others, when Rich had beaten up for recruits. On the opening of the new house in Lincoln's Inn Fields, he went over to it, and, according to Chetwood, had a share not only of the management, but in the profit and loss, which latter speculation proved so disastrous to him, that he died in the year 1719, of a broken heart. He was buried in the church of St. Clement-Danes, and so much does he seem to have been respected, that more than two hundred persons in deep mourning, attended his funeral.
The influence he possessed in the theatre sometimes led him to assume such parts as _Edgar_, _Oroonoko_, and _Essex_, while his excellence lay in _Clytus_, and characters of a similar cast. His figure and voice, though neither elegant nor soft, were good, and his action was so complete, that it obtained for him the epithet of majestic, and when he spoke those lines of the _King_, in "Hamlet," where he descants upon the dignity that "doth hedge" a monarch, his look and whole deportment were so commanding, that the audience accompanied them always with the loudest applause.
MRS. MARY PORTER.
This valuable and respected actress, who was not only an honour to the stage, but an ornament to human nature, obtained the notice of Betterton by performing, when a child, the _Genius of Britain_, in a Lord Mayor's pageant, during the reign of Charles or James the Second. It was the custom for fruit-women in the theatre formerly to stand fronting the pit, with their backs to the stage, and their oranges, &c. covered with vine leaves, under one of which Betterton threatened to put his little pupil, who was extremely diminutive, if she did not speak and act as he would have her.
Mrs. Porter was the genuine successor of Mrs. Barry, and had an elevated consequence in her manner, which has seldom been equalled. One of her greatest parts was Shakspeare's _Queen Catherine_, in which her sensibility and intelligence, her graceful elocution and dignified behaviour, commanded applause and attention in passages of little importance. When the scene was not agitated by passion, to the general spectator she failed in communicating equal pleasure; her recitation of fact or sentiment being so modulated as to resemble musical cadence rather than speaking. Where passion, however, predominated, she exerted her powers to a supreme degree, and exhibited that enthusiastic ardour which filled her audience with animation, astonishment, and delight.
The dislocation of her thigh-bone, in the summer of 1731, was attended with a circumstance that deserves to be recorded. She lived at Heywood-hill, near Hendon, and, after the play, went home every night in a one-horse chaise, prepared to defend herself against robbery, with a brace of pistols. She was stopped on one of those occasions by a highwayman, who demanded her money, and having the courage to level one of her pistols at him, the assailant, who was probably unfurnished with a similar weapon, assured her that he was no common thief, and had been driven to his present course by the wants of a starving family. He told her, at the same time, where he lived, and urged his distresses with such earnestness, that she spared him all the money in her purse, which was about ten guineas. The man left her, on which she gave a lash to the horse, who suddenly started out of the track, overturned her vehicle, and caused the accident already related. Let it be remembered to this good woman's credit, that notwithstanding the pain and loss to which he had, innocently, subjected her, she made strict inquiry into the highwayman's character, and finding that he had told the truth, she raised about sixty pounds among her acquaintance, and sent it, without delay, to the relief of his wretched family. There is a romantic generosity in this deed that captivates me more than its absolute justice.
About the year 1738, Mrs. Porter returned to the stage, and acted many of her principal characters, with much vigour and great applause, though labouring under advanced age and unconquerable infirmity. She had the misfortune to outlive an annuity upon which she depended, and died in narrow circumstances, about the year 1762. [She published Lord Cornbury's comedy of "The Mistakes," in 1758, by which she realized a large sum of money.]
Though her voice was harsh and unpleasing, she surmounted its defects by her exquisite judgment. In person she was tall and well shaped; her complexion was fair; and her features, though not handsome, were made susceptible of all that strong feeling could desire to convey. Her deportment was easy, and her action unaffected; and the testimony upon which the merits of Mrs. Porter are placed, entitles us to rank her in the very first class of theatrical performers.
MRS. ANNE OLDFIELD.
Anne Oldfield was born in the year 1683, and would have possessed a tolerable fortune, had not her father, a captain in the army, expended it at a very early period. In consequence of this deprivation, she went to reside with her aunt, who kept the Mitre tavern, in St. James's-market, where Farquhar, the dramatist, one day heard her reading a few passages from Beaumont and Fletcher's "Scornful Lady," in which she manifested such spirit, ease, and humour, that being struck by her evident advantages for the stage, he framed an excuse to enter the room, a little parlour behind the bar, in which Miss Nancy was sitting.
Vanbrugh, who frequented the house, and was known to Mrs. Oldfield's mother, received a communication from that lady of the very great warmth with which his friend Farquhar had extolled her daughter's abilities. Vanbrugh, who seems to have been a zealous and sincere friend to all by whom his assistance was courted, immediately addressed himself to our heroine, and having ascertained that her fancy tended to parts of a sprightly nature, he recommended her to Rich, the manager of Drury-lane, by whom she was immediately engaged, at a salary of fifteen shillings _per_ week. Her qualifications soon rendered her conspicuous among the young actresses of that time, and a man of rank being pleased to express himself in her favour, Mr. Rich increased her weekly terms to the sum of twenty shillings.
The rise of Mrs. Oldfield was gradual but secure, and soon after the death of Mrs. Verbruggen she succeeded to the line of comic parts so happily held by that popular actress. Her _Lady Betty Modish_, in 1704, before which she was little known, and barely suffered, discovered accomplishments the public were not apprised of, and rendered her one of the greatest favourites upon whom their sanction had ever been bestowed. She was tall, genteel, and well shaped; her pleasing and expressive features were enlivened by large speaking eyes, which, in some particular comic situations, were kept half shut, especially when she intended to realise some brilliant idea; in sprightliness of air, and elegance of manner, she excelled all actresses; and was greatly superior in the strength, compass, and harmony of her voice.
Though highly appreciated as a tragic performer, Mrs. Oldfield, in the full round of glory, used to slight her best personations of that sort, and would often say, "I hate to have a page dragging my train about. Why don't they give Porter those parts? She can put on a better tragedy face than I can." The constant applause by which she was followed in characters of this description, so far reconciled her to Melpomene, that the last new one in which she appeared was Thomson's _Sophonisba_. Upon her action and deportment the author has expressed himself with great ardour in the following lines:
Mrs. Oldfield, in the character of _Sophonisba_, has excelled what, even in the fondness of an author, I could either wish or imagine. The grace, dignity, and happy variety, of her action have been universally applauded, and are truly admirable.
Thomson's praise, indeed, is not more liberal than just, for we learn, that in reply to some degrading expression of _Massinissa_, relating to Carthage, she uttered the following line,--
Not one base word of Carthage, for thy soul!--
with such grandeur of port, a look so tremendous, and in a voice so powerful, that it is said she even astonished Wilks, her _Massinissa_; it is certain the audience were struck, and expressed their feelings by the most uncommon applause.[258] Testimony like this is sufficient to protect her claim to tragic excellence, eclipsed as it certainly is by the superiority of her comic reputation.
_Lady Townly_ has been universally adduced as her _ne plus ultra_ in acting. She slided so gracefully into the foibles, and displayed so humourously the excesses, of a fine woman too sensible of her charms, too confident in her strength, and led away by her pleasures, that no succeeding _Lady Townly_ arrived at her many distinguished excellencies in the character. By being a welcome and constant visitor to families of distinction, Mrs. Oldfield acquired a graceful carriage in representing women of high rank, and expressed their sentiments in a manner so easy, natural, and flowing, that they appeared to be of her own genuine utterance. Notwithstanding her amorous connexions[259] were publicly known, she was invited to the houses of women of fashion, as conspicuous for unblemished character as elevated rank. Even the royal family did not disdain to see Mrs. Oldfield at their levees. George the Second and Queen Caroline, when Prince and Princess of Wales, often condescended to converse with her. One day the Princess told Mrs. Oldfield, she had heard that General Churchill and she were married: "So it is said, may it please your royal highness," replied Mrs. Oldfield, "but we have not owned it yet."
In private, Mrs. Oldfield was generous, humane, witty, and well-bred. Though she disliked the man, and disapproved of his conduct, yet the misfortunes of Savage recommended him to her pity, and she often relieved him by a handsome donation. Her influence with Walpole contributed to procure his pardon when convicted, on false evidence, of murder, and adjudged to death, a fate which his most unnatural mother did her utmost to enforce. It is not true that she either allowed this poet an annuity, or admitted his conversation,[260] but still the benefits she did confer upon him were quite numerous enough to warrant his celebration of her memory. The goodness of her heart, and the splendour of her talents, were topics upon which Savage might have ventured to insist, without endangering his piety or wounding his pride. Dr. Johnson has sanctioned the silence of this author,[261] on the grounds of Mrs. Oldfield's condition; but that dogmatic man would have shown a truer taste for benevolence, had he recommended the most ardent devotion to individuals of any stamp, who were actuated by so glorious a principle.
Pope, who seems to have persecuted the name of player with a malignancy unworthy of his genius, has stigmatised the conversation of Mrs. Oldfield by the word "_Oldfieldismos_," which he printed in Greek characters; nor can there be a doubt that he meant her by the dying coquette, in one of his epistles. That Mrs. Oldfield was touched by the vanity of weak minds, and drew an absurd importance from the popularity of her low station, may be fairly inferred, and might have been fairly derided;[262] but Pope, with his usual want of candour, has appealed to less tangible failings, and tried, as in most cases, much more to ridicule the person than correct the fault. I do not dispute the brilliancy of his sarcasm, but I would rather hail the rigour of his justice.[263]
Mrs. Oldfield died on the 23d of October, 1730, most sincerely lamented by those to whom her general value was not unknown.
INDEX.
Abbé, Monsieur L', a French dancer, i. xxvii., i. 316.
Acting, excellence of, about, 1631, i. xlviii.; Cibber's views on versatility in, i. 209.
Actors, their names not given in old plays, i. xxv.; join Charles I.'s army, i. xxix.; the prejudice against, i. 74-84; taken into society, i. 83; their delight in applause, i. 85; entitled Gentlemen of the Great Chamber, i. 88; must be born, not made, i. 89; their private characters influence audiences, i. 243-251; their arrangement with Swiney in 1706, ii. 9; refused Christian burial by the Romish Church, ii. 29; badly paid, ii. 64; dearth of young, ii. 221.
---- the old, played secretly during the Commonwealth, i. xxx.; arrested for playing, i. xxx.; bribed officers of guard to let them play, i. xxx.
Actress (Miss Santlow), insulted, i. 76.
Actresses, first English, i. 87, _note_ 1, i. 90, i. 119; who were Charles II.'s mistresses, i. 91; difficulty of getting good, ii. 222.
Addison, Joseph, i. 245, ii. 36, _note_ 1, ii. 151, ii. 163, _note_ 1,